Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Andrew Iler Cannot Clean Up Education Forum  (Read 764 times)

Online Brian Doyle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Andrew Iler Cannot Clean Up Education Forum
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2026, 03:33:21 PM »
Sure it can! We can just ignore you, as everybody else seems to do.


You are ignoring the evidence...

You can't ignore important evidence and still claim credibility...
« Last Edit: September 19, 2026, 03:34:34 PM by Brian Doyle »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Andrew Iler Cannot Clean Up Education Forum
« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2026, 03:40:13 PM »


Most participants on the JFK internet are organized around avoiding the evidence for conspiracy and not exposing it...

Online Mark A. Oblazney

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
Re: Andrew Iler Cannot Clean Up Education Forum
« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2026, 03:55:36 PM »
“From now on, Doyle, Griffin, Cole and everybody else is BANNED from the other forum AND the White House press conferences”
     ———————— me me me me me me me, the great hoax buster, buster
« Last Edit: September 19, 2026, 03:57:07 PM by Mark A. Oblazney »

Online Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
Re: Andrew Iler Cannot Clean Up Education Forum
« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2026, 05:29:14 PM »
"These people who say that we ought to withdraw from Vietnam are wholly wrong because if we withdrew from Vietnam the communists would control Vietnam. Pretty soon Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaya would go and all of southeast Asia would be under the control of the communists. Another domination of the Chinese. Then India, Burma would be the next target. So I think we should stay." --- JFK to Walter Cronkite, September 2, 1963.

JFK: "So I think we should stay."

Was JFK lying to the American people about this? Was he going to run on a promise - and the need - of staying and then after re-election withdraw? How could he pull that off? With no consequences? If so then the JFK conspiracists are describing one of most duplicitous people ever to be President (up to that point). They don't even seem to realize it.

From what I've read, JFK didn't want to send combat/infantry troops to Vietnam. In fact, he was adamantly against it. But he also didn't want to see it fall to the communists. As he said above, that fall would affect all of southeast Asia. But not intending to send troops is not the same as intending to simply withdraw, to leave unconditionally. Again, as he said above, those advocating withdrawal were "wholly wrong." Not a little wrong, or a lot wrong; but "wholly wrong."

Go to the 14:30 mark to hear the above:

« Last Edit: Yesterday at 02:13:11 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Online Benjamin Cole

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1049
Re: Andrew Iler Cannot Clean Up Education Forum
« Reply #25 on: Yesterday at 02:41:42 AM »
SMG--

Thanks for posting. BTW, there are clips of RFK in 1967 backing US actions in SV, which by them were much enlarged.

JFK was an ardent and global anti-communist. So was RFK.

The idea that some group would assassinate JFK for his unclear plans on Vietnam in 1963 is very weak. LBJ was also unclear on what to do in 1964.

There was a great deal of animosity in the Cuban exile crowd towards JFK, and, of course, Castro had been the target of multiple assassinations attempts during the JFK years.

President LBJ put the kibosh on following any leads from LHO back to Havana or Moscow.




Online Brian Doyle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Andrew Iler Cannot Clean Up Education Forum
« Reply #26 on: Yesterday at 04:34:21 PM »


Galbraith is sniping quotes and ignoring the vast evidence of JFK preparing to do detente with the communists in all the theaters he mentions...

The reason they assassinated Kennedy was because he very much intended radical moves and intended to negotiate peace with the Russians and Cubans - and, yes, the North Vietnamese...It is clearly spelled out in Douglass and was done in order to keep from chasing emerging 3rd world countries that were nationalizing in to the hands of the all too willing communists...

Douglass made clear that Kennedy had to get elected in 1964 and if he showed his hand before that he would probably lose...

Online Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
Re: Andrew Iler Cannot Clean Up Education Forum
« Reply #27 on: Yesterday at 05:11:50 PM »
SMG--

Thanks for posting. BTW, there are clips of RFK in 1967 backing US actions in SV, which by them were much enlarged.

JFK was an ardent and global anti-communist. So was RFK.

The idea that some group would assassinate JFK for his unclear plans on Vietnam in 1963 is very weak. LBJ was also unclear on what to do in 1964.

There was a great deal of animosity in the Cuban exile crowd towards JFK, and, of course, Castro had been the target of multiple assassinations attempts during the JFK years.

President LBJ put the kibosh on following any leads from LHO back to Havana or Moscow.
Round and round we go on this while those that insist he was going to unconditionally leave - not try to negotiate first? just surrender? - ignore it all. They simply can't give up the Camelot myth, the view of JFK as some sort of historic peace maker who was going to end the Cold War (they don't think the communists were responsible for the conflict; only the US). And it was for that that he was killed.

The RFK comments on the war and what JFK's plan was are additional evidence. Not that it's needed. If JFK was going to withdraw wouldn't he have told RFK? But RFK said there was no plan in place to unconditionally withdraw at that time. The idea was to keep South Vietnam from being taken over by the communists, i.e., containment. They thought in 1963 they could still achieve that goal. It was why JFK supported the coup; to put a better (he thought) government in place that could in turn better defend Saigon from the communists. Why go all of that coup intrigue if we have going to leave anyway? Besides, wouldn't JFK at least tried to negotiate with Hanoi over this? Get something in return? The idea that he would simply unilaterally leave, essentially surrender to the communists, is silly.

Remember as well that during RFK's presidential campaign when he turned against the war, a war waged by a man he utterly detested, RFK never said, "This is not what President Kennedy wanted to do. Johnson is going against what he wanted." If JFK had decided to withdraw I would suggest that RFK would have used that against LBJ, used the words of the martyred president against Johnson. As we all know, RFK and LBJ hated each other intensely. Using JFK to go after LBJ would have been irresistible.

As to LBJ and any foreign government involvement leads: We've gone over this again and again. Sorry, I see no evidence for that. Who said LBJ ordered this shutdown? Besides, the HSCA investigated the assassination and they found no evidence of Cuban or Soviet involvement. So who told the HSCA to not look into them? LBJ was dead at the time.

From the report:

1.  The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
2.  The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy
.

Okay, ignore the WC on this question. What about the other investigations?

« Last Edit: Yesterday at 09:55:31 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »