JFK's Foreign Policy: The Reason for his Assassination?

[John Simkin]

Several researchers believe there was a connection between JFK’s foreign policy and his assassination. Some, like myself, take the view that it was connected to his attempts to develop a more left-wing policy. Others believe that JFK was not genuine about this change of policy and that he was assassinated by left-wing forces (Soviets/Castro).

I thought it might be worth discussing this issue. My own view is that when JFK was elected he intended to follow the traditional US foreign policy. This included using the CIA to undermine or overthrow left of centre governments in the Americas.

There were some figures in the State Department and the CIA who disapproved of this policy. They thought it would be better for America’s long-term interests to support reforming groups against military dictators. This difference of opinion was revealed in Earl Smith’s testimony that he gave to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on 27th August, 1960.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cub...rdner-smith.htm

Smith names William Wieland (State Department) and John Topping (CIA) as people who helped Castro gain power in Cuba.

People like Wieland and Topping argued that it was dangerous for the US government to be associated with military dictators like Batista. The long-term result of this policy was to encourage the local population to be anti-American. By supporting the reformers, the American government would gain the appreciation of those trying to obtain democracy.

The problem with the theories put forward by people like Wieland and Topping was that it needed the US government to maintain a consistent policy. The policy towards Cuba was a disaster. First it helped Castro and then it forced the new government to ally itself with the Soviet Union by imposing economic sanctions against it.

When JFK gained power he continued the policy of Eisenhower. This resulted in the Bay of Pigs disaster. This was followed by supporting anti-Castro forces in Cuba. This policy probably included the approval of sending CIA backed assassination teams into Cuba.

It was not until the Cuban Missile Crisis that JFK began to rethink this policy. This was largely because of the influence of people like William Attwood and John Kenneth Gailbraith. Over the last few years classified documents have been released that shows that JFK was changing his foreign policy. However, because he did not believe the American public was ready for this change in policy, he kept it a secret. JFK knew that changes in policy concerning Cuba or Vietnam would be portrayed by his political opponents as being “soft on communism”. Top CIA officials became aware of this policy change and to undermine what JFK was doing, leaked this information to rabid anti-communists like William Pawley, Clint Murchison and Haroldson L. Hunt. These were people who were willing to put up the money necessary to bring an end to this new foreign policy.

This clash between these two different views of foreign policy can be seen in world politics today. Bill Clinton attempted to follow a moderate form of JFK’s secret foreign policy. As a result, countries in the region became much more friendly towards America.

Bush has taken a very different approach. He has shown he is willing to send troops to other countries in order to further his foreign policy objectives. America is now bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same way it was entangled in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s.

The result of this policy has been to see an increase in anti-Americanism and a move to the left in the region. For example, over the last couple of years you have seen left-wing governments elected in Venezuela, Brazil, Chile (Richard Lagos, the first socialist elected since Salvador Allende), Argentina and Uruguay. Any left-wing leader in the Americas can get easy votes by employing anti-American rhetoric. In December, Bolivia is expected to elect Evo Morales, a close friend of Hugo Chavez, as president. The left may also gain power in Honduras (November, 2005), Costa Rica (February, 2006), Peru (April, 2006) and Ecuador (October, 2006). There is a possibility that these countries will form an anti-American alliance. They will almost certainly seek political alliances beyond the US.

Those on the left have always known that their main enemy is made up of liberals, not conservatives. Bush’s incompetent foreign policy has reinforced this idea. JFK was wrong in 1961 but got it right by 1963. He was a man before his time. Maybe America will itself swing to the left at the next election and a new Democratic president will return to the foreign policy of the last few months of JFK’s administration. This time he or she will be able to do it in the full view of the American public. Maybe Bush will do for right-wing conservatism, what Hitler did for fascism. One book published after the war about Nazi Germany was entitled “Never Again”. Let us hope that goes for Bush as well.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Several researchers believe there was a connection between JFK’s foreign policy and his assassination. Some, like myself, take the view that it was connected to his attempts to develop a more left-wing policy. Others believe that JFK was not genuine about this change of policy and that he was assassinated by left-wing forces (Soviets/Castro).

I thought it might be worth discussing this issue. My own view is that when JFK was elected he intended to follow the traditional US foreign policy. This included using the CIA to undermine or overthrow left of centre governments in the Americas.

There were some figures in the State Department and the CIA who disapproved of this policy. They thought it would be better for America’s long-term interests to support reforming groups against military dictators. This difference of opinion was revealed in Earl Smith’s testimony that he gave to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on 27th August, 1960.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cub...rdner-smith.htm

Smith names William Wieland (State Department) and John Topping (CIA) as people who helped Castro gain power in Cuba.

People like Wieland and Topping argued that it was dangerous for the US government to be associated with military dictators like Batista. The long-term result of this policy was to encourage the local population to be anti-American. By supporting the reformers, the American government would gain the appreciation of those trying to obtain democracy.

The problem with the theories put forward by people like Wieland and Topping was that it needed the US government to maintain a consistent policy. The policy towards Cuba was a disaster. First it helped Castro and then it forced the new government to ally itself with the Soviet Union by imposing economic sanctions against it.

When JFK gained power he continued the policy of Eisenhower. This resulted in the Bay of Pigs disaster. This was followed by supporting anti-Castro forces in Cuba. This policy probably included the approval of sending CIA backed assassination teams into Cuba.

It was not until the Cuban Missile Crisis that JFK began to rethink this policy. This was largely because of the influence of people like William Attwood and John Kenneth Gailbraith. Over the last few years classified documents have been released that shows that JFK was changing his foreign policy. However, because he did not believe the American public was ready for this change in policy, he kept it a secret. JFK knew that changes in policy concerning Cuba or Vietnam would be portrayed by his political opponents as being “soft on communism”. Top CIA officials became aware of this policy change and to undermine what JFK was doing, leaked this information to rabid anti-communists like William Pawley, Clint Murchison and Haroldson L. Hunt. These were people who were willing to put up the money necessary to bring an end to this new foreign policy.

This clash between these two different views of foreign policy can be seen in world politics today. Bill Clinton attempted to follow a moderate form of JFK’s secret foreign policy. As a result, countries in the region became much more friendly towards America.

Bush has taken a very different approach. He has shown he is willing to send troops to other countries in order to further his foreign policy objectives. America is now bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same way it was entangled in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s.

The result of this policy has been to see an increase in anti-Americanism and a move to the left in the region. For example, over the last couple of years you have seen left-wing governments elected in Venezuela, Brazil, Chile (Richard Lagos, the first socialist elected since Salvador Allende), Argentina and Uruguay. Any left-wing leader in the Americas can get easy votes by employing anti-American rhetoric. In December, Bolivia is expected to elect Evo Morales, a close friend of Hugo Chavez, as president. The left may also gain power in Honduras (November, 2005), Costa Rica (February, 2006), Peru (April, 2006) and Ecuador (October, 2006). There is a possibility that these countries will form an anti-American alliance. They will almost certainly seek political alliances beyond the US.

Those on the left have always known that their main enemy is made up of liberals, not conservatives. Bush’s incompetent foreign policy has reinforced this idea. JFK was wrong in 1961 but got it right by 1963. He was a man before his time. Maybe America will itself swing to the left at the next election and a new Democratic president will return to the foreign policy of the last few months of JFK’s administration. This time he or she will be able to do it in the full view of the American public. Maybe Bush will do for right-wing conservatism, what Hitler did for fascism. One book published after the war about Nazi Germany was entitled “Never Again”. Let us hope that goes for Bush as well.

"Bogged Down" lies in the eye of the beholder.

To those who have little understanding of "long-range" US goals and policies, this may appear so.

In event the US is still in Iraq 100 years from now, then I would have to state that quite possibly, we are "bogged down".

However, in the LONG TERM scale of history, even 10 to 20 years is a relatively short term for achieving long term goals.

That is whey Vietnam was called a "short" tour! It lasted only 1-year.

To those who view the world in the larger scale on "Long-Term" goals, Iraq is merely an extended "Field-Training-Exercise"/aka "Good-Training".

The US has placed much of it's "military manpower" strength in it's Reserve/National Guard units, which are/were somewhat like they were when WWII & Korea got them called up and killed.

I.E.: Lacking in actual experience in true military operations Command & Control.

This is of course also why the Soviet Forces had so much trouble in Afghanistan. They had General Grade officers who had never experienced any actual combat assignments.

Therefore: What is being done now, will provide the CORE of extremely well trained military forces for the US for the next couple of generations.

A small price to pay for the freedoms which we, in the United States enjoy.

The are, thankfully, those who understand such necessity, and continue to work towards it even though they could easily retire.

________________________________________________________________________________

_____

Retired Lt. Gen. Daniel J. Petrosky

Senior Vice President

Strategy and Plans

Daniel J. Petrosky joined Navigator Development Group, Inc. with more than 36 years of active Army experience and responsibility in aviation, executive management, strategic planning and organizational development.

Service and leadership in a series of command and staff positions in Vietnam, Korea, United States, Europe and South West Asia, highlight his years of professional experience in military affairs and aviation operations.

His vast knowledge and related experience added greatly to MSNBC's coverage of military issues during Operation Iraqi Freedom by offering current analysis on military news events. Petrosky worked as a military analyst for the network for several months during the war.

The general is knowledgeable in the employment of Joint service and Army aviation assets and the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) technologies. He served as commanding general of the U.S. Army Aviation Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama, where he was responsible for all Army aviation operations, safety and readiness around the world and identifying future aviation requirements.

Petrosky is well versed about aviation management, international operations and strategic planning, and can talk about these topics with incredible ease.

From commander to strategic planner, he also has strong international leadership experience. Prior to his last assignment to the United States European Command, Petrosky commanded the Eighth United States Army. Simultaneously, he served as chief of staff, United Nations Command, Republic of Korea/United States Combined Forces Command and United States Forces Korea.

Petrosky retired as a lieutenant general from active duty as the chief of staff, Headquarters, United States European Command, Stuttgart, Germany.

Petrosky received his Bachelor degree in Business from the University of Nebraska at Omaha and a Master's degree in Systems Management from the University of Southern California. He is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College and the Army War College.

A master aviator, Petrosky received the Army's Broken Wing Award in May 1977.

http://www.ndgi.com/personnel/dpetrosky.shtml

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

Thanks, Dan!

Tom

[Ron Ecker]

The left may also gain power in Honduras (November, 2005), Costa Rica (February, 2006), Peru (April, 2006) and Ecuador (October, 2006).

There's quite a story developing in Peru. Former president/dictator Alberto Fujimori wants to run again for president. He recently left his self-imposed exile in Japan, but was arrested in Chile on his way to Peru. Peru wants him extradited to face corruption charges, but there's a possibility his return to Peru in custody could cause a popular uprising for his return to power. If he returns free, he may easily get elected. The current president has an approval rating lower than George W. Bush's, and the Peruvian people remember that things were better economically under Fujimori.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Several researchers believe there was a connection between JFK’s foreign policy and his assassination. Some, like myself, take the view that it was connected to his attempts to develop a more left-wing policy. Others believe that JFK was not genuine about this change of policy and that he was assassinated by left-wing forces (Soviets/Castro).

I thought it might be worth discussing this issue. My own view is that when JFK was elected he intended to follow the traditional US foreign policy. This included using the CIA to undermine or overthrow left of centre governments in the Americas.

There were some figures in the State Department and the CIA who disapproved of this policy. They thought it would be better for America’s long-term interests to support reforming groups against military dictators. This difference of opinion was revealed in Earl Smith’s testimony that he gave to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on 27th August, 1960.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cub...rdner-smith.htm

Smith names William Wieland (State Department) and John Topping (CIA) as people who helped Castro gain power in Cuba.

People like Wieland and Topping argued that it was dangerous for the US government to be associated with military dictators like Batista. The long-term result of this policy was to encourage the local population to be anti-American. By supporting the reformers, the American government would gain the appreciation of those trying to obtain democracy.

The problem with the theories put forward by people like Wieland and Topping was that it needed the US government to maintain a consistent policy. The policy towards Cuba was a disaster. First it helped Castro and then it forced the new government to ally itself with the Soviet Union by imposing economic sanctions against it.

When JFK gained power he continued the policy of Eisenhower. This resulted in the Bay of Pigs disaster. This was followed by supporting anti-Castro forces in Cuba. This policy probably included the approval of sending CIA backed assassination teams into Cuba.

It was not until the Cuban Missile Crisis that JFK began to rethink this policy. This was largely because of the influence of people like William Attwood and John Kenneth Gailbraith. Over the last few years classified documents have been released that shows that JFK was changing his foreign policy. However, because he did not believe the American public was ready for this change in policy, he kept it a secret. JFK knew that changes in policy concerning Cuba or Vietnam would be portrayed by his political opponents as being “soft on communism”. Top CIA officials became aware of this policy change and to undermine what JFK was doing, leaked this information to rabid anti-communists like William Pawley, Clint Murchison and Haroldson L. Hunt. These were people who were willing to put up the money necessary to bring an end to this new foreign policy.

This clash between these two different views of foreign policy can be seen in world politics today. Bill Clinton attempted to follow a moderate form of JFK’s secret foreign policy. As a result, countries in the region became much more friendly towards America.

Bush has taken a very different approach. He has shown he is willing to send troops to other countries in order to further his foreign policy objectives. America is now bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same way it was entangled in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s.

The result of this policy has been to see an increase in anti-Americanism and a move to the left in the region. For example, over the last couple of years you have seen left-wing governments elected in Venezuela, Brazil, Chile (Richard Lagos, the first socialist elected since Salvador Allende), Argentina and Uruguay. Any left-wing leader in the Americas can get easy votes by employing anti-American rhetoric. In December, Bolivia is expected to elect Evo Morales, a close friend of Hugo Chavez, as president. The left may also gain power in Honduras (November, 2005), Costa Rica (February, 2006), Peru (April, 2006) and Ecuador (October, 2006). There is a possibility that these countries will form an anti-American alliance. They will almost certainly seek political alliances beyond the US.

Those on the left have always known that their main enemy is made up of liberals, not conservatives. Bush’s incompetent foreign policy has reinforced this idea. JFK was wrong in 1961 but got it right by 1963. He was a man before his time. Maybe America will itself swing to the left at the next election and a new Democratic president will return to the foreign policy of the last few months of JFK’s administration. This time he or she will be able to do it in the full view of the American public. Maybe Bush will do for right-wing conservatism, what Hitler did for fascism. One book published after the war about Nazi Germany was entitled “Never Again”. Let us hope that goes for Bush as well.

"Bogged Down" lies in the eye of the beholder.

To those who have little understanding of "long-range" US goals and policies, this may appear so.

In event the US is still in Iraq 100 years from now, then I would have to state that quite possibly, we are "bogged down".

However, in the LONG TERM scale of history, even 10 to 20 years is a relatively short term for achieving long term goals.

That is whey Vietnam was called a "short" tour! It lasted only 1-year.

To those who view the world in the larger scale on "Long-Term" goals, Iraq is merely an extended "Field-Training-Exercise"/aka "Good-Training".

The US has placed much of it's "military manpower" strength in it's Reserve/National Guard units, which are/were somewhat like they were when WWII & Korea got them called up and killed.

I.E.: Lacking in actual experience in true military operations Command & Control.

This is of course also why the Soviet Forces had so much trouble in Afghanistan. They had General Grade officers who had never experienced any actual combat assignments.

Therefore: What is being done now, will provide the CORE of extremely well trained military forces for the US for the next couple of generations.

A small price to pay for the freedoms which we, in the United States enjoy.

The are, thankfully, those who understand such necessity, and continue to work towards it even though they could easily retire.

________________________________________________________________________________

_____

Retired Lt. Gen. Daniel J. Petrosky

Senior Vice President

Strategy and Plans

Daniel J. Petrosky joined Navigator Development Group, Inc. with more than 36 years of active Army experience and responsibility in aviation, executive management, strategic planning and organizational development.

Service and leadership in a series of command and staff positions in Vietnam, Korea, United States, Europe and South West Asia, highlight his years of professional experience in military affairs and aviation operations.

His vast knowledge and related experience added greatly to MSNBC's coverage of military issues during Operation Iraqi Freedom by offering current analysis on military news events. Petrosky worked as a military analyst for the network for several months during the war.

The general is knowledgeable in the employment of Joint service and Army aviation assets and the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) technologies. He served as commanding general of the U.S. Army Aviation Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama, where he was responsible for all Army aviation operations, safety and readiness around the world and identifying future aviation requirements.

Petrosky is well versed about aviation management, international operations and strategic planning, and can talk about these topics with incredible ease.

From commander to strategic planner, he also has strong international leadership experience. Prior to his last assignment to the United States European Command, Petrosky commanded the Eighth United States Army. Simultaneously, he served as chief of staff, United Nations Command, Republic of Korea/United States Combined Forces Command and United States Forces Korea.

Petrosky retired as a lieutenant general from active duty as the chief of staff, Headquarters, United States European Command, Stuttgart, Germany.

Petrosky received his Bachelor degree in Business from the University of Nebraska at Omaha and a Master's degree in Systems Management from the University of Southern California. He is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College and the Army War College.

A master aviator, Petrosky received the Army's Broken Wing Award in May 1977.

http://www.ndgi.com/personnel/dpetrosky.shtml

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

Thanks, Dan!

Tom

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

What a "sorry looking bunch!

Olsen--------Center

Daniel J.----------to right

Thomas H.-------to left

Plus Roger M., Strube, Wolf, Mcvey

Edited November 18, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Gerry Hemming]

Several researchers believe there was a connection between JFK’s foreign policy and his assassination. Some, like myself, take the view that it was connected to his attempts to develop a more left-wing policy. Others believe that JFK was not genuine about this change of policy and that he was assassinated by left-wing forces (Soviets/Castro).

I thought it might be worth discussing this issue. My own view is that when JFK was elected he intended to follow the traditional US foreign policy. This included using the CIA to undermine or overthrow left of centre governments in the Americas.

There were some figures in the State Department and the CIA who disapproved of this policy. They thought it would be better for America’s long-term interests to support reforming groups against military dictators. This difference of opinion was revealed in Earl Smith’s testimony that he gave to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on 27th August, 1960.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cub...rdner-smith.htm

Smith names William Wieland (State Department) and John Topping (CIA) as people who helped Castro gain power in Cuba.

People like Wieland and Topping argued that it was dangerous for the US government to be associated with military dictators like Batista. The long-term result of this policy was to encourage the local population to be anti-American. By supporting the reformers, the American government would gain the appreciation of those trying to obtain democracy.

The problem with the theories put forward by people like Wieland and Topping was that it needed the US government to maintain a consistent policy. The policy towards Cuba was a disaster. First it helped Castro and then it forced the new government to ally itself with the Soviet Union by imposing economic sanctions against it.

When JFK gained power he continued the policy of Eisenhower. This resulted in the Bay of Pigs disaster. This was followed by supporting anti-Castro forces in Cuba. This policy probably included the approval of sending CIA backed assassination teams into Cuba.

It was not until the Cuban Missile Crisis that JFK began to rethink this policy. This was largely because of the influence of people like William Attwood and John Kenneth Gailbraith. Over the last few years classified documents have been released that shows that JFK was changing his foreign policy. However, because he did not believe the American public was ready for this change in policy, he kept it a secret. JFK knew that changes in policy concerning Cuba or Vietnam would be portrayed by his political opponents as being “soft on communism”. Top CIA officials became aware of this policy change and to undermine what JFK was doing, leaked this information to rabid anti-communists like William Pawley, Clint Murchison and Haroldson L. Hunt. These were people who were willing to put up the money necessary to bring an end to this new foreign policy.

This clash between these two different views of foreign policy can be seen in world politics today. Bill Clinton attempted to follow a moderate form of JFK’s secret foreign policy. As a result, countries in the region became much more friendly towards America.

Bush has taken a very different approach. He has shown he is willing to send troops to other countries in order to further his foreign policy objectives. America is now bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same way it was entangled in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s.

The result of this policy has been to see an increase in anti-Americanism and a move to the left in the region. For example, over the last couple of years you have seen left-wing governments elected in Venezuela, Brazil, Chile (Richard Lagos, the first socialist elected since Salvador Allende), Argentina and Uruguay. Any left-wing leader in the Americas can get easy votes by employing anti-American rhetoric. In December, Bolivia is expected to elect Evo Morales, a close friend of Hugo Chavez, as president. The left may also gain power in Honduras (November, 2005), Costa Rica (February, 2006), Peru (April, 2006) and Ecuador (October, 2006). There is a possibility that these countries will form an anti-American alliance. They will almost certainly seek political alliances beyond the US.

Those on the left have always known that their main enemy is made up of liberals, not conservatives. Bush’s incompetent foreign policy has reinforced this idea. JFK was wrong in 1961 but got it right by 1963. He was a man before his time. Maybe America will itself swing to the left at the next election and a new Democratic president will return to the foreign policy of the last few months of JFK’s administration. This time he or she will be able to do it in the full view of the American public. Maybe Bush will do for right-wing conservatism, what Hitler did for fascism. One book published after the war about Nazi Germany was entitled “Never Again”. Let us hope that goes for Bush as well.

"Bogged Down" lies in the eye of the beholder.

To those who have little understanding of "long-range" US goals and policies, this may appear so.

In event the US is still in Iraq 100 years from now, then I would have to state that quite possibly, we are "bogged down".

However, in the LONG TERM scale of history, even 10 to 20 years is a relatively short term for achieving long term goals.

That is whey Vietnam was called a "short" tour! It lasted only 1-year.

To those who view the world in the larger scale on "Long-Term" goals, Iraq is merely an extended "Field-Training-Exercise"/aka "Good-Training".

The US has placed much of it's "military manpower" strength in it's Reserve/National Guard units, which are/were somewhat like they were when WWII & Korea got them called up and killed.

I.E.: Lacking in actual experience in true military operations Command & Control.

This is of course also why the Soviet Forces had so much trouble in Afghanistan. They had General Grade officers who had never experienced any actual combat assignments.

Therefore: What is being done now, will provide the CORE of extremely well trained military forces for the US for the next couple of generations.

A small price to pay for the freedoms which we, in the United States enjoy.

The are, thankfully, those who understand such necessity, and continue to work towards it even though they could easily retire.

________________________________________________________________________________

_____

Retired Lt. Gen. Daniel J. Petrosky

Senior Vice President

Strategy and Plans

Daniel J. Petrosky joined Navigator Development Group, Inc. with more than 36 years of active Army experience and responsibility in aviation, executive management, strategic planning and organizational development.

Service and leadership in a series of command and staff positions in Vietnam, Korea, United States, Europe and South West Asia, highlight his years of professional experience in military affairs and aviation operations.

His vast knowledge and related experience added greatly to MSNBC's coverage of military issues during Operation Iraqi Freedom by offering current analysis on military news events. Petrosky worked as a military analyst for the network for several months during the war.

The general is knowledgeable in the employment of Joint service and Army aviation assets and the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) technologies. He served as commanding general of the U.S. Army Aviation Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama, where he was responsible for all Army aviation operations, safety and readiness around the world and identifying future aviation requirements.

Petrosky is well versed about aviation management, international operations and strategic planning, and can talk about these topics with incredible ease.

From commander to strategic planner, he also has strong international leadership experience. Prior to his last assignment to the United States European Command, Petrosky commanded the Eighth United States Army. Simultaneously, he served as chief of staff, United Nations Command, Republic of Korea/United States Combined Forces Command and United States Forces Korea.

Petrosky retired as a lieutenant general from active duty as the chief of staff, Headquarters, United States European Command, Stuttgart, Germany.

Petrosky received his Bachelor degree in Business from the University of Nebraska at Omaha and a Master's degree in Systems Management from the University of Southern California. He is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College and the Army War College.

A master aviator, Petrosky received the Army's Broken Wing Award in May 1977.

http://www.ndgi.com/personnel/dpetrosky.shtml

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

Thanks, Dan!

Tom

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

What a "sorry looking bunch!

Olsen--------Center

Daniel J.----------to right

Thomas H.-------to left

Plus Roger M., Strube, Wolf, Mcvey

_________________________________

Now let me guess: One troop is wearing the old "white" name-tag, while the rest are wearing the subdued

US ARMY, Name-Tage, Jump Wings -- but no C.I.B.s !! Must be 1967.

Can't really make out the shoulder patch, but it looks very similar to the 187th R.C.T. ??

No right shoulder "Combat Unit" patch. So it must be 1967.

Airborne,

Gerry

________________________

[Tim Carroll]

Several researchers believe there was a connection between JFK’s foreign policy and his assassination.... Over the last few years classified documents have been released that shows that JFK was changing his foreign policy. However, because he did not believe the American public was ready for this change in policy, he kept it a secret. JFK knew that changes in policy concerning Cuba or Vietnam would be portrayed by his political opponents as being “soft on communism”. Top CIA officials became aware of this policy change and to undermine what JFK was doing, leaked this information to rabid anti-communists like William Pawley, Clint Murchison and Haroldson L. Hunt. These were people who were willing to put up the money necessary to bring an end to this new foreign policy.

"Bogged Down" lies in the eye of the beholder. To those who have little understanding of "long-range" US goals and policies, this may appear so. In event the US is still in Iraq 100 years from now, then I would have to state that quite possibly, we are "bogged down". However, in the LONG TERM scale of history, even 10 to 20 years is a relatively short term for achieving long term goals. That is whey Vietnam was called a "short" tour! It lasted only 1-year. To those who view the world in the larger scale on "Long-Term" goals, Iraq is merely an extended "Field-Training-Exercise"/aka "Good-Training". The US has placed much of it's "military manpower" strength in it's Reserve/National Guard units, which are/were somewhat like they were when WWII & Korea got them called up and killed. I.E.: Lacking in actual experience in true military operations Command & Control. This is of course also why the Soviet Forces had so much trouble in Afghanistan. They had General Grade officers who had never experienced any actual combat assignments. Therefore: What is being done now, will provide the CORE of extremely well trained military forces for the US for the next couple of generations. A small price to pay for the freedoms which we, in the United States enjoy.

If it is true that the motive for killing JFK was his policies, then it must be considered that it was the changes being made by the president that motivated his killers. Other than the secret efforts to explore a normalization of relations with Cuba and the equivocation over Vietnam, I don't see that President Kennedy had made such radical changes in foreign policy in those last few months to generate a high level assassination plot. Cuba and Vietnam were only threatened changes at the time of the assassination.

I believe the change Kennedy represented was far deeper and cultural. He had a liberal's concern for human rights which historically translates into avid support in Latin America. In contrast with the riots directed at Vice President Nixon during his visit there in the Fifties, the Kennedys received a euphoric welcome just a few short years later. Hardliners could only be chagrined by such popularity. The same is true of Kennedy's support of human rights, domestically. Kennedy brought rapid change to the Civil Rights issue during his last year. He represented charismatic leadership, which is always dangerous to status quo types.

Kennedy's innate distrust of experts, and particularly his innate distrust of his military experts, led him to make radical changes to the military policies of the country. On a broad level, the big change was away from Eisenhower's nuclear policy of Massive Retaliation and toward a more Flexible Response strategy involving Gradual Escalation. His fear of an inevitable nuclear war, especially during the first year of his presidency over the Berlin Crisis, motivated Kennedy to engage in a highly secret correspondence with the Soviet leadership. His secret deal to surrender the Jupiter missiles to settle the Missile Crisis and his accomplishment of a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would have made it clear to his generals that Kennedy lacked the sufficient will to represent a credible deterrent and was unfit to defend the United States against the aggression of the Evil Empire.

I find the militaristic viewpoint expressed by Tom to be illustrative of the mindset that Kennedy opposed so forcefully. Mankind transcended colonialism, in most cases, during the post WWII period. Since 1960, the major colonial issues have been Vietnam, Afghanistan for the Soviets, and now Iraq. They are aberrations, and not indicative of any normal military or foreign policy process. Of course there are those who believe that if the U.S. had shown sufficient will, Vietnam would have been won. Similarly, as Tom demonstates, there are those who believe that a nation with a combat-trained military can prevail in such conflicts, but that is ahistorical. The military mindset has its place, but that place is not in foreign policy. Kennedy himself noted how enthusiasm for war quickly waned when blood began to be shed. This is especially true now, since the onset of 24 hour news. Goals such as a "relatively short" 10 to 20 year "Field-Training-Exercise" in Iraq indicate a mindset which Kennedy sought to transcend, at his own peril.

Tim

Edited November 15, 2005 by Tim Carroll

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Several researchers believe there was a connection between JFK’s foreign policy and his assassination.... Over the last few years classified documents have been released that shows that JFK was changing his foreign policy. However, because he did not believe the American public was ready for this change in policy, he kept it a secret. JFK knew that changes in policy concerning Cuba or Vietnam would be portrayed by his political opponents as being “soft on communism”. Top CIA officials became aware of this policy change and to undermine what JFK was doing, leaked this information to rabid anti-communists like William Pawley, Clint Murchison and Haroldson L. Hunt. These were people who were willing to put up the money necessary to bring an end to this new foreign policy.

"Bogged Down" lies in the eye of the beholder. To those who have little understanding of "long-range" US goals and policies, this may appear so. In event the US is still in Iraq 100 years from now, then I would have to state that quite possibly, we are "bogged down". However, in the LONG TERM scale of history, even 10 to 20 years is a relatively short term for achieving long term goals. That is whey Vietnam was called a "short" tour! It lasted only 1-year. To those who view the world in the larger scale on "Long-Term" goals, Iraq is merely an extended "Field-Training-Exercise"/aka "Good-Training". The US has placed much of it's "military manpower" strength in it's Reserve/National Guard units, which are/were somewhat like they were when WWII & Korea got them called up and killed. I.E.: Lacking in actual experience in true military operations Command & Control. This is of course also why the Soviet Forces had so much trouble in Afghanistan. They had General Grade officers who had never experienced any actual combat assignments. Therefore: What is being done now, will provide the CORE of extremely well trained military forces for the US for the next couple of generations. A small price to pay for the freedoms which we, in the United States enjoy.

If it is true that the motive for killing JFK was his policies, then it must be considered that it was the changes being made by the president that motivated his killers. Other than the secret efforts to explore a normalization of relations with Cuba and the equivocation over Vietnam, I don't see that President Kennedy had made such radical changes in foreign policy in those last few months to generate a high level assassination plot. Cuba and Vietnam were only threatened changes at the time of the assassination.

I believe the change Kennedy represented was far deeper and cultural. He had a liberal's concern for human rights which historically translates into avid support in Latin America. In contrast with the riots directed at Vice President Nixon during his visit there in the Fifties, the Kennedys received a euphoric welcome just a few short years later. Hardliners could only be chagrined by such popularity. The same is true of Kennedy's support of human rights, domestically. Kennedy brought rapid change to the Civil Rights issue during his last year. He represented charismatic leadership, which is always dangerous to status quo types.

Kennedy's innate distrust of experts, and particularly his innate distrust of his military experts, led him to make radical changes to the military policies of the country. On a broad level, the big change was away from Eisenhower's nuclear policy of Massive Retaliation and toward a more Flexible Response strategy involving Gradual Escalation. His fear of an inevitable nuclear war, especially during the first year of his presidency over the Berlin Crisis, motivated Kennedy to engage in a highly secret correspondence with the Soviet leadership. His secret deal to surrender the Jupiter missiles to settle the Missile Crisis and his accomplishment of a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would have made it clear to his generals that Kennedy lacked the sufficient will to represent a credible deterrent and was unfit to defend the United States against the aggression of the Evil Empire.

I find the militaristic viewpoint expressed by Tom to be illustrative of the mindset that Kennedy opposed so forcefully. Mankind transcended colonialism, in most cases, during the post WWII period. Since 1960, the major colonial issues have been Vietnam, Afghanistan for the Soviets, and now Iraq. They are aberrations, and not indicative of any normal military or foreign policy process. Of course there are those who believe that if the U.S. had shown sufficient will, Vietnam would have been won. Similarly, as Tom demonstates, there are those who believe that a nation with a combat-trained military can prevail in such conflicts, but that is ahistorical. The military mindset has its place, but that place is not in foreign policy. Kennedy himself noted how enthusiasm for war quickly waned when blood began to be shed. This is especially true now, since the onset of 24 hour news. Goals such as a "relatively short" 10 to 20 year "Field-Training-Exercise" in Iraq indicate a mindset which Kennedy sought to transcend, at his own peril.

Tim

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

JFK inherited a military "mind-set" which basically was "Nuke-em all and let God sort em out"!

He found it difficult to relate to persons whose only basis in training had been the one of whoever has the "biggest stick" takes home all of the marbles.

Recognizing that a "nuke-em" war would ultimately lead to another World conflict, it was decided that it was much better to continue the efforts on considerably smaller scales.

Some you lose, some you win!

The only "military mindset" which Tom carries is that he lives in the reality that no matter how we "think" the remainder of the world civilizations should act and behave, it is quite irrelevant.

What has relevance is HOW these societies and countries actually conduct business, and when it comes to my personal rights and freedoms, then I most assuredly am thankful that the US Government long ago recognized the necessity of not only having the "Biggest Stick" on the playing field, but in also having the "Biggest/Ugliest/and most Mean MF that exist" who can be utilized to beat people with the stick if necessary.

That is how countries remain free.

[Tim Carroll]

To those who view the world in the larger scale on "Long-Term" goals, Iraq is merely an extended "Field-Training-Exercise"/aka "Good-Training".... What is being done now, will provide the CORE of extremely well trained military forces for the US for the next couple of generations. A small price to pay for the freedoms which we, in the United States enjoy.

The military mindset has its place, but that place is not in foreign policy. Kennedy himself noted how enthusiasm for war quickly waned when blood began to be shed. This is especially true now, since the onset of 24 hour news. Goals such as a "relatively short" 10 to 20 year "Field-Training-Exercise" in Iraq indicate a mindset which Kennedy sought to transcend, at his own peril.

The only "military mindset" which Tom carries is that he lives in the reality that no matter how we "think" the remainder of the world civilizations should act and behave, it is quite irrelevant. What has relevance is HOW these societies and countries actually conduct business, and when it comes to my personal rights and freedoms, then I most assuredly am thankful that the US Government long ago recognized the necessity of not only having the "Biggest Stick" on the playing field, but in also having the "Biggest/Ugliest/and most Mean MF that exist" who can be utilized to beat people with the stick if necessary. That is how countries remain free.

Yada Yada Yada. Gung-ho soldiers always think they know "reality" while the rest of us armchair peons can only imagine the true nature of human relations. Kennedy's military didn't think he understood the Cold War "reality" either. Learning to crawl in the dirt and shoot guns doesn't qualify one as expert in the areas of diplomacy and international relations. Mankind is no longer willing to senselessly feed the military hunger with our children's lives for the sake of a prolongued "Field-Training-Exercise." Thankfully, President Kennedy understood this.

Tim Carroll

[Tim Carroll]

Kennedy's innate distrust of experts, and particularly his innate distrust of his military experts, led him to make radical changes to the military policies of the country. On a broad level, the big change was away from Eisenhower's nuclear policy of Massive Retaliation and toward a more Flexible Response strategy involving Gradual Escalation.

JFK inherited a military "mind-set" which basically was "Nuke-em all and let God sort em out"! He found it difficult to relate to persons whose only basis in training had been the one of whoever has the "biggest stick" takes home all of the marbles.... What has relevance is HOW these societies and countries actually conduct business, and when it comes to my personal rights and freedoms, then I most assuredly am thankful that the US Government long ago recognized the necessity of not only having the "Biggest Stick" on the playing field, but in also having the "Biggest/Ugliest/and most Mean MF that exist" who can be utilized to beat people with the stick if necessary. That is how countries remain free.

Tom seems to be agreeing about Kennedy's fundamental military change away from Massive Retaliation with nuclear weapons, and that Kennedy "found it difficult to relate to persons whose only basis in training had been the one of whoever has the 'biggest stick,'" yet he goes on to represent exactly that viewpoint which neither Kennedy nor I could embrace: that it's all about the size of one's stick. Kennedy represented the rapier's victory over the broadsword.

*I would request that members notice the editing of the quoted sections. If one is only responding to one aspect of a post, it is more easily coherent if that single aspect is isolated. This post would be an example, while Tom's quoting of the entire previous posts only to respond to one aspect is a counterexample. In the extreme, there have lately been numerous lengthy multi-quote postings which involve voluminous reading, only to have the new input be some single sentence comment.

Tim Carroll

[Thomas H. Purvis]

To those who view the world in the larger scale on "Long-Term" goals, Iraq is merely an extended "Field-Training-Exercise"/aka "Good-Training".... What is being done now, will provide the CORE of extremely well trained military forces for the US for the next couple of generations. A small price to pay for the freedoms which we, in the United States enjoy.

The military mindset has its place, but that place is not in foreign policy. Kennedy himself noted how enthusiasm for war quickly waned when blood began to be shed. This is especially true now, since the onset of 24 hour news. Goals such as a "relatively short" 10 to 20 year "Field-Training-Exercise" in Iraq indicate a mindset which Kennedy sought to transcend, at his own peril.

The only "military mindset" which Tom carries is that he lives in the reality that no matter how we "think" the remainder of the world civilizations should act and behave, it is quite irrelevant. What has relevance is HOW these societies and countries actually conduct business, and when it comes to my personal rights and freedoms, then I most assuredly am thankful that the US Government long ago recognized the necessity of not only having the "Biggest Stick" on the playing field, but in also having the "Biggest/Ugliest/and most Mean MF that exist" who can be utilized to beat people with the stick if necessary. That is how countries remain free.

Yada Yada Yada. Gung-ho soldiers always think they know "reality" while the rest of us armchair peons can only imagine the true nature of human relations. Kennedy's military didn't think he understood the Cold War "reality" either. Learning to crawl in the dirt and shoot guns doesn't qualify one as expert in the areas of diplomacy and international relations. Mankind is no longer willing to senselessly feed the military hunger with our children's lives for the sake of a prolongued "Field-Training-Exercise." Thankfully, President Kennedy understood this.

Tim Carroll

JFK understood what was worth fighting for and what was not. Therein lies much of his understanding of politics and war.

Just perhaps, as a result of those "Gung-ho soldiers" you are afforded the current luxery of dealing with the english language as opposed to Nazi-German (assuming you are not of the Jewish faith and would be speaking nothing) and/or Japanese.

In this same erroneous assumption, you seem to think that all the military does is crawl around in the mud.

Hate to break it to you, but Officer's stay in schools when not in training.

This too is part of the Kennedy Legacy, especially as regards the JFK Center.

JFK did not want an Officer Corps who could not comprehend beyond "attack" & kill.

Therefore the various service schools were expanded tremendously and the Officer Corps was continously rotated to various countries in order to develope a somewhat different perspective other than just the "US" ideas.

You speak of the military as if it were some sort of "monster" which must feed off the babies of the US.

Last time that I looked, there was not a "draftee" among the lot!

It is all volunteer.

If one wants to hand out band-aids and do-nuts, then join the Red-Cross. Otherwise, the ultimate purpose of any military force is to either kill or be killed.

And, as good ole General Patton stated: "Any damned fool can die for his country, but that is not what wins wars. It is making the other damned fool die for his country that wins the war".

Thankfully, George Bush as well as the US Congress understands this!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Kennedy's innate distrust of experts, and particularly his innate distrust of his military experts, led him to make radical changes to the military policies of the country. On a broad level, the big change was away from Eisenhower's nuclear policy of Massive Retaliation and toward a more Flexible Response strategy involving Gradual Escalation.

JFK inherited a military "mind-set" which basically was "Nuke-em all and let God sort em out"! He found it difficult to relate to persons whose only basis in training had been the one of whoever has the "biggest stick" takes home all of the marbles.... What has relevance is HOW these societies and countries actually conduct business, and when it comes to my personal rights and freedoms, then I most assuredly am thankful that the US Government long ago recognized the necessity of not only having the "Biggest Stick" on the playing field, but in also having the "Biggest/Ugliest/and most Mean MF that exist" who can be utilized to beat people with the stick if necessary. That is how countries remain free.

Tom seems to be agreeing about Kennedy's fundamental military change away from Massive Retaliation with nuclear weapons, and that Kennedy "found it difficult to relate to persons whose only basis in training had been the one of whoever has the 'biggest stick,'" yet he goes on to represent exactly that viewpoint which neither Kennedy nor I could embrace: that it's all about the size of one's stick. Kennedy represented the rapier's victory over the broadsword.

*I would request that members notice the editing of the quoted sections. If one is only responding to one aspect of a post, it is more easily coherent if that single aspect is isolated. This post would be an example, while Tom's quoting of the entire previous posts only to respond to one aspect is a counterexample. In the extreme, there have lately been numerous lengthy multi-quote postings which involve voluminous reading, only to have the new input be some single sentence comment.

Tim Carroll

As a Nuclear Weapons Employment Officer, Tom knows exactly what the change was.

The U.S. Military (with the exception of a couple of sensible Generals, of which one was a USMC) was of the opinion that why "waste" any lives. Just drop a nuke on them.

They want to nuke asia, as well as just about anyone else who caused us problems.

In addition, he found that US response to a nuclear strike on our territory was one of what is referred to as "total release".

For an educated individual such as JFK, the military mindset was almost unbelieveable.

Of course, one must recall that most of these were what was considered RA Officers who came out of the Military Acadamies, and who had been nurtured on nothing by military BS from the time that they were 17 to 18 years old.

Many of these persons never grew up in normal life in which they actually had the opportunity to observe and think for their ownself.

18- enter the Academy--22 graduate the academy--6year active duty commitment = 28 years of age and never seen or heard anything other than the BS that the military wanted fed to them.

With JFK and others, this was changed to the policy of "limited retalliation".

And, if we merely want to utilize our "big stick", then everyone could sit at home and we could send a 50mt thero-nuclear device to Iraq and not have to worry with it.

Getting our "Inactive Reserve" units as well as our "National Guard" units a year or so of excellent operational Command & Staff training is what will provide the military force which this country needs to avoid having to draft again, as well as the capability to call up highly qualified combatants in the event of a true national emergency.

Much better than seeing them decimated, as they were in Korea and somewhat in WWII, when they were called up and sent into battle and were neither trained nor equipped.

Lastly, if we were to utilize my personal concept of how to win the war, not one American should have died.

However, parachuting pigs in all over Iraq is somewhat of a political "no-no".

About a thousand pigs on top of Bagdad will pretty well clear the city.

Or, if a muslim force knows that the enemy carries with them pigs to eat the dead they kill, it would be most difficult to get any of the Iraqi/muslims to stand and fight.

[Tim Carroll]

Just perhaps, as a result of those "Gung-ho soldiers" you are afforded the current luxery of dealing with the english language as opposed to Nazi-German (assuming you are not of the Jewish faith and would be speaking nothing) and/or Japanese. In this same erroneous assumption, you seem to think that all the military does is crawl around in the mud.... You speak of the military as if it were some sort of "monster" which must feed off the babies of the US.... And, as good ole General Patton stated: "Any damned fool can die for his country, but that is not what wins wars. It is making the other damned fool die for his country that wins the war". Thankfully, George Bush as well as the US Congress understands this!

I made it clear that I was speaking particularly about the kind of failed colonialist wars that have occurred subsequent to WWII, since colonialism finally became an obsolete construct. Resorting to tired old WWII frameworks to rationalize what is going on in Iraq is a purvision of history. I have great respect for soldiers and appropriate military behavior, as distinguishable from the "gung-ho" types like LeMay, who still wanted to attack Cuba after the resolution of the Missile Crisis. The continuous redneck scandals at the Air Force Academy serve as a contemporary example such gung-hoism gone awry.

For an educated individual such as JFK, the military mindset was almost unbelieveable.... Lastly, if we were to utilize my personal concept of how to win the war, not one American should have died. However, parachuting pigs in all over Iraq is somewhat of a political "no-no". About a thousand pigs on top of Bagdad will pretty well clear the city. Or, if a muslim force knows that the enemy carries with them pigs to eat the dead they kill, it would be most difficult to get any of the Iraqi/muslims to stand and fight.

I believe that the Great Pig Drop strategy for military conquest of Iraq would qualify as an example of the military mindset that JFK considered to be "almost unbelieveable." Besides, dropping pigs would negate the "field training exercise" benefits.

Tim Carroll

Edited November 16, 2005 by Tim Carroll

[John Simkin]

Gung-ho soldiers always think they know "reality" while the rest of us armchair peons can only imagine the true nature of human relations. Kennedy's military didn't think he understood the Cold War "reality" either. Learning to crawl in the dirt and shoot guns doesn't qualify one as expert in the areas of diplomacy and international relations. Mankind is no longer willing to senselessly feed the military hunger with our children's lives for the sake of a prolongued "Field-Training-Exercise." Thankfully, President Kennedy understood this.

Tim Carroll

Unfortunately very few American politicians have understood this. That goes for George Bush as well. Is'nt it about time that America enters the post-imperialist world?

And, as good ole General Patton stated: "Any damned fool can die for his country, but that is not what wins wars. It is making the other damned fool die for his country that wins the war".

Thankfully, George Bush as well as the US Congress understands this!

As long as it is some other "damned fool" that does the dying. How are soldiers dying in Iraq saving people living in America? How did those who died in Vietnam save America. The only people who benefit are those providing arms and services for the American military or those who hope to get control of the region's raw materials.

The Second World War was indeed a fight against being occupied by the Germans and the Japanese. That is not the case today. Nor is it a war against terrorism. As we in the UK have discovered, having troops in Iraq has only increased terrorist attacks in our country.

[Tim Gratz]

John, the Patton quote applies once you are already IN a war.

All Patton was saying was that in a war it is yopur objective not to die fighting but rather to have the enemy die fighting.

Rather tautological.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Gung-ho soldiers always think they know "reality" while the rest of us armchair peons can only imagine the true nature of human relations. Kennedy's military didn't think he understood the Cold War "reality" either. Learning to crawl in the dirt and shoot guns doesn't qualify one as expert in the areas of diplomacy and international relations. Mankind is no longer willing to senselessly feed the military hunger with our children's lives for the sake of a prolongued "Field-Training-Exercise." Thankfully, President Kennedy understood this.

Tim Carroll

Unfortunately very few American politicians have understood this. That goes for George Bush as well. Is'nt it about time that America enters the post-imperialist world?

And, as good ole General Patton stated: "Any damned fool can die for his country, but that is not what wins wars. It is making the other damned fool die for his country that wins the war".

Thankfully, George Bush as well as the US Congress understands this!

As long as it is some other "damned fool" that does the dying. How are soldiers dying in Iraq saving people living in America? How did those who died in Vietnam save America.

The Second World War was indeed a fight against being occupied by the Germans and the Japanese. That is not the case today. Nor is it a war against terrorism. As we in the UK have discovered, having troops in Iraq has only increased terrorist attacks in our country.

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

Unfortunately very few American politicians have understood this. That goes for George Bush as well. Is'nt it about time that America enters the post-imperialist world

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

This would appear to indicate that you are of the opinion that most of the politicians in the United States are either ignorant and/or uneducated, along with George Bush.

Since the Congress of the United States is responsible for approving the funds which pay the cost of ALL those Americans serving in Iraq, must be that the entire Congress of the US is therefore just plain ignorant as well.

Since these members of Congress are democratically elected by the populace of the United States, then obviously, the entire population of the United States must be ignorant and/or uneducated, or else, they would not have voted into office those ignorant & uneducated politicians who support the ignorant & uneducated President of the Country.

Or, on the other hand, it just could be that persons who make such statements, are either extremely niave of the world as it truely is, or else just somewhat left out of what long-term goals governments attempt to establish.

As regards the "imperalist" theory:

1. That I am aware of, we are neither attempting to make Iraq the 51st State of the United States, nor or we attempting to make it a "Territory" of the United States.

2. That I am aware of, we are neither attempting to make Iraq a "dominion" or a domain of the United States, nor are we attempting to force it to become a self-governing portion of some commonwealth.

3. That I am aware of, we were not attempting to extend our "power" base into the country of Iraq, and in fact would like to get out of there and come home as soon as possible and leave it up to the Iraqi people to self-govern themselves.

Since that pretty well eliminates the idea of our motives as being those old (& slightly worn out) "imperalistic" claims, it would appear that someone needs to come up with some other concept for our reasons there.

________________________________________________________________________________

________

As we in the UK have discovered, having troops in Iraq has only increased terrorist attacks in our country.

________________________________________________________________________________

________

Although I have no doubt that attacks in many countries have increased as a result of the support of their governments for the anti-Saddam efforts which are being carried out in Iraq, it is hardly the "cause" of your increased attacks.

The "cause" is that several of the Arab nations (including Iraq; Syria; Lebanon; Afghanistan; etc; have fostered a climate of radical elements who are bound and determined to undermine all efforts at change within their societies.

Therefore, the cause is "Terrorists".

That you have become more of a target which has been hit, just may be more so due to the "liberalism" which seems to expouse, which most certainly makes one somewhat of a "sitting duck".

Perhaps you, and others, should read more about the story of the woman who found the almost frozen snake and brought it into her house to warm it up and thus save it's life.

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

The only people who benefit are those providing arms and services for the American military or those who hope to get control of the region's raw materials.

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

And here I have been all along, operating under the assumption that the Iraqi people would ultimately be the ones who benefit most from this episode in world history.

P.S. Those who get to make the bombs; bullets; clothing; rations; jeeps; tanks; etc; etc; etc;, make pretty good salaries.

Therefore, I would have to assume that the "workers" in the United States are deriving some benefits from this as well.

The "regions raw materials" consist of oil!

Since we were not on the "customer list" of the Iraqi Government and it's oil supplies, I would assume that it would be up to the new Iraqi Government as to whether or not they intend to sell oil to the US, or for that matter any other foreign country.

Whatever the case, it certainly is not like we/the U.S. Government is going to nationalize their oil industry and claim it for the US.

And, it would not matter if Iraq did not have a "drop" of oil. The continuation of and escalation of the acts of Saddam could not be allowed to continue until such time as it drew the world into a conflict which drew into it other of the Arab nations who do supply a goodly portion of the world's oil supply.