JFK

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:56:10 -0700, "Tom S."
wrote:


"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
om...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Since LBJ's wife was a major shareholder in the transportation company
(marine shipping) that had virtually a monopoly contract to ship war
material to Vietnam...well, you can guess the rest.

Lady Bird was owner of the Johnson businesses in name only.


Probably. I wonder what the rules were in the early 60's regarding blind
trusts, etc., for government officials.



For the record, to clarify my initial reply, I would not defend LBJ
politically, or Lady Bird. (I am not a democrat.) I was only trying
to point out the inherent weakness in the Asian commitment. As a
congressman who had a reputation as being pushy to get his way, Viet
Nam seems to be more of somebody else's war, (McNamara's, and the
military's), not his.

A blind trust was a notable factor in burying us into Viet Nam?
Mentioned in this newsgroup? That's a joke, right? But it might
actually clarify reasons for being indescisive. How much blood money
does one really need?

It may be a bit silly to give full credit to Jacqueline. But I've had
enough of JFK, a long time ago. I don't see it all, and I'm not
surprised that I don't. _I've seen no personality from him._ We
cried for JFK because we were told to, because we were of the type
back then who could still cry. Those are the sorrows, both of them.

Mike

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:55:11 -0600, Mike Rhodes
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:56:10 -0700, "Tom S."
wrote:


"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. com...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Since LBJ's wife was a major shareholder in the transportation company
(marine shipping) that had virtually a monopoly contract to ship war
material to Vietnam...well, you can guess the rest.

Lady Bird was owner of the Johnson businesses in name only.


Probably. I wonder what the rules were in the early 60's regarding blind
trusts, etc., for government officials.



For the record, to clarify my initial reply, I would not defend LBJ
politically, or Lady Bird. (I am not a democrat.) I was only trying
to point out the inherent weakness in the Asian commitment. As a
congressman who had a reputation as being pushy to get his way, Viet
Nam seems to be more of somebody else's war, (McNamara's, and the
military's), not his.

A blind trust was a notable factor in burying us into Viet Nam?
Mentioned in this newsgroup? That's a joke, right? But it might
actually clarify reasons for being indescisive. How much blood money
does one really need?

It may be a bit silly to give full credit to Jacqueline. But I've had
enough of JFK, a long time ago. I don't see it all, and I'm not
surprised that I don't. _I've seen no personality from him._ We
cried for JFK because we were told to, because we were of the type
back then who could still cry. Those are the sorrows, both of them.

Mike


I am a Reppublican, ("but" or "therefore") am against the venture
capitol in Iraq. Accusing Lady Bird is silly, except to screw up an
argument.

Also, the activists of the civil rights battles of the 60's probably
found the Viet Nam distraction useful, if not crucial; regardless of
McGovern's policies. Who would say they wanted Viet Nam? Except
imperialistic, communist killing (in other countries, we're all
Americans here, (after that McCarthy)) conservatives? Oh, if they had
minded our home instead!

U.S. activity in Iraq is active imperialism, to save the Iraqis and
make a 'safe' area in the mid-east. It's quite a risk, I think. Too
much. Doing so only increases our susceptibility to terrorism. The
Arabs, (crazy or no), have a point, in hating our interference. It is
natural, and a big sacrifice (to the point of one's real manhood) to
accept it. Why keep them around, anyway?

"Mike Rhodes" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:55:11 -0600, Mike Rhodes
wrote:
I am a Reppublican, ("but" or "therefore") am against the venture
capitol in Iraq. Accusing Lady Bird is silly, except to screw up an
argument.

Talking to yourself?

Also, the activists of the civil rights battles of the 60's probably
found the Viet Nam distraction useful, if not crucial; regardless of
McGovern's policies. Who would say they wanted Viet Nam? Except
imperialistic, communist killing (in other countries, we're all
Americans here, (after that McCarthy)) conservatives? Oh, if they had
minded our home instead!

U.S. activity in Iraq is active imperialism, to save the Iraqis and
make a 'safe' area in the mid-east. It's quite a risk, I think. Too
much. Doing so only increases our susceptibility to terrorism. The
Arabs, (crazy or no), have a point, in hating our interference. It is
natural, and a big sacrifice (to the point of one's real manhood) to
accept it. Why keep them around, anyway?

Hey, only one person at a time can post in here while intoxicated. Get to
the back of the line.

We
cried for JFK because we were told to, because we were of the type
back then who could still cry. Those are the sorrows, both of them.

We cried for many reasons.

I cried because I was five years old, and everyone around me was crying, and
I was scared.

Many cried for Jackie's anguish. And bravery.

Many cried at the sheer horror of seeing (in their mind's eye -- the
Zapruder film wouldn't be made public for years) a man's head blown apart on
a public street.

Many cried because they knew intuitively that the event marked a turning
point in our history, a loss of innocence. Never again would we see our
President as "one of us" -- rather, he would be made "one of them",
protected from "us" behind bullet-proof glass.

Never again could we look at political crowds in the same way, knowing that
there would always be Oswalds lurking in the shadows, with rifles. Because
of the lunatics and *******s amongst us, we would see no more top hats in
open carriages.

The national mourning for JFK that resonates till today had very little to
do with the man himself, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

We cried for many reasons.


Nicely put.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:07:13 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

We cried for many reasons.

I cried because I was five years old, and everyone around me was crying, and
I was scared.

Many cried for Jackie's anguish. And bravery.

Many cried at the sheer horror of seeing (in their mind's eye -- the
Zapruder film wouldn't be made public for years) a man's head blown apart on
a public street.

Many cried because they knew intuitively that the event marked a turning
point in our history, a loss of innocence. Never again would we see our
President as "one of us" -- rather, he would be made "one of them",
protected from "us" behind bullet-proof glass.

Never again could we look at political crowds in the same way, knowing that
there would always be Oswalds lurking in the shadows, with rifles. Because
of the lunatics and *******s amongst us, we would see no more top hats in
open carriages.

The national mourning for JFK that resonates till today had very little to
do with the man himself, IMHO.

Jay,
I am your age, less one year, and remember it as you, though not
as well as you.
As you said, when the story was told afterwards, it was the
bullet-proof glass which came after and separated us from our leaders
that cost us. (But why such dangerous politics?) We -did- hurt over
that, but I think there was more. We cried (we were shocked!) because
a king _was_ killed. We thought he was our king because we were a
'we' then, (or thought we were), and then in the following years we
weren't us anymore.
We thought he was our king, but he was not. He was their's, and
even now they continue to pretend as if he were our's, as if that were
even possible. That's part of the reason why there was trouble,
though it wasn't ours in the making -- unless we could be blamed for
his killing, for establishing them in office in the first place. But
could we be blamed for killing their king? (I write that believing it
were the commies who got to him, not 'us'. They had the grudge then.)
The question I haven't answered is who are 'they?' Those who
demand civil rights, where such rights (and most everything else) were
not of their own making, and could not have been.

.... Give credit where credit is due, and don't allow them to take it.
.... Ownership by demand is simply theft.
.... R-A-C-I-S-M, (look at it!) It cannot 'just go away.'

------------------------------------

Off-topic, back to on-topic...
I read this newsgroup almost everyday, though rarely posting. I do
have plans, but not yet a flyer. I read it because I am interested in
flight, but that would not keep me here. (It is not for it's in-depth
coverage of political issues. :') RAP is the clearest in
communication, most personable newsgroup at least that I'm aware of.
I like it, a lot. (But please keep those occasional Kennedy floods to
a minimum. I know, it isn't 'your' group. But at times it does seem
that way.)

Thanks,
Mike

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:16:21 -0600, Mike Rhodes
wrote:

snip

.... That's part of the reason why there was trouble,
though it wasn't ours in the making -- unless we could be blamed for
his killing, for establishing them in office in the first place. But
could we be blamed for killing their king? (I write that believing it
were the commies who got to him, not 'us'. They had the grudge then.)

Why Was JFK killed?

JFK was out the Fighting Irish family. He was glory-seeking and
confrontational. (Like some people I know.) That is what killed us.
And that is likely what killed him.
The fights that came to us, including the Cuban Missile Crisis,
were of his own making. In a sense, he was McCarthy reprised,
world-wide. I hate communism, think it is insanity. But he bit off
more than he could chew, and was willing up front to risk our peace to
do it. The Russian missiles in Cuba were a response to JFK's missiles
near their territory. (I heard some reporter explain that a few years
ago, but only heard this once; and I'm not surprised at the why's.)
And what the hell was he doing going into the jungle of Viet Nam?!
Imperialism, the glory thereof. It's our business to keep the world
at peace, and if we gotta knock heads (anywhere) to clear the world's
perspective then so be it. But the jungle war that followed, that had
to be expected, (so near China), was nonsensical on its face.
Being confrontational, just for the apparent glory of it, is by
its nature asking for a return. JFK was puffed up by the
circumstances he created. Lee Harvey Oswald probably killed him in
order to pop that balloon. He killed a facade.

Just after the WTC collapse, I saw President Bush make his visit to
Ground Zero. What I saw was a big smile that wouldn't go away, except
by force; the smile of someone getting the fight he always wanted.
(Must be out of that typical Fighting Kraut family.) But I saw
insanity on that face, and nothing has changed since the insanity of
that election.

Mike

"Mike Rhodes" wrote in message
...
Probably. I wonder what the rules were in the early 60's regarding blind
trusts, etc., for government officials.

For the record, to clarify my initial reply, I would not defend LBJ
politically, or Lady Bird. (I am not a democrat.) I was only trying
to point out the inherent weakness in the Asian commitment. As a
congressman who had a reputation as being pushy to get his way, Viet
Nam seems to be more of somebody else's war, (McNamara's, and the
military's), not his.

The military was against the war from the beginnings in the EARLY 60's.
McNamara ran it into the ground, but it was LBJ's war.

A blind trust was a notable factor in burying us into Viet Nam?

Excuse me?