I do apologize, I said there are letters of Galbraith reporting to the president of the urgency to reconsider Vietnam, I sincerely believed there was, however, I cannot find one, does that also discredit me? I don't know, however, I did, though all the hoopla and posts by many top notch researchers come to believe as they did that Galbraith did write a letter regarding Vietnam, sadly, there is none.
08-03-2016, 11:04 AM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2016, 11:52 AM by Tom Scully.)
Scott Kaiser Wrote:I do apologize, I said there are letters of Galbraith reporting to the president of the urgency to reconsider Vietnam, I sincerely believed there was, however, I cannot find one, does that also discredit me? I don't know, however, I did, though all the hoopla and posts by many top notch researchers come to believe as they did that Galbraith did write a letter regarding Vietnam, sadly, there is none.
~Scott Kaiser
Scott, I am bothering to present the evidence that should influence you (if you were a reasonable person) to hide your head in shame and apologize, then fall silent, and contemplate your methods!
The following are arranged in chronological order, from November 3, 1961.:
209. Paper Prepared by the Ambassador to India (Galbraith)[SUP]1[/SUP]
Washington, November 3, 1961.
A PLAN FOR SOUTH VIETNAM
The situation in South Viet-Nam is perilously close to the point of no return. Serious thought is being given to a military operation in South Viet-Nam which would entail all the risks of the operation in Korea of ten years ago, without the justification of a surprise attack across the boundary, without the support of the United Nations, and without a population determined to fight for independence. This paper suggests a United States program which would entail neither abandonment of South Viet-Nam nor a major military involvement on our part.
The proposal assumes that our long-run objective in South Viet-Nam should be the creation of an independent, economically viable and politically neutral state, rather than a limping American satellite. As a beginning, we would want an end to the fighting in South Vietnam, and a United Nations presence to supervise the keeping of the peace. We would also hope that a start could be made towards a strong, responsive and popularly based government in South Vietnam.
Certain circumstances seem to make this a propitious time for an approach along the lines suggested here. The Geneva Conference on Laos appears to be reaching its climax. The split between the Soviet Union and Communist China has come into the open, and seems to be at an acute stage. Prime Minister Nehru will be in position to transmit in both directions the thoughts of the President, and of India and others at the United Nations. The Taylor Mission and some of the accompanying press reports have given credibility to possible United States military intervention, and have thus probably increased our bargaining position vis-a-vis the Russians, the Chinese Communists and the neutrals.
I would recommend:
1. Replacement of Ambassador Nolting by an ambassador of the character and prominence of Governor Harriman. We need someone who can hold his own with both Diem and the United States military, who will insist once and for all on government reform, and who will understand the United States political implications of developments there. If Harriman himself is unavailable, I would suggest David Lilienthal or George McGhee.
2. A United Nations resolution confirming the independence of the Republic of Vietnam, and calling for immediate dispatch of United Nations observer groups to Vietnam.
The proposal for such a resolution should come, if possible, from a country not directly associated with the United States, and the program for an observer team, as in Lebanon, or a UNEF as in the Gaza Strip, should be in response to an invitation from the Government of Vietnam. The observers should be drawn primarily from the national forces of United Nations members other than the permanent members of the Security Council. The United States should make it clear, however, that it stands ready to supply personnel and equipment for a United Nations contingent in Viet-Nam as needed, and that any American personnel sent to Viet-Nam would share the functions of other United Nations personnel and would be subject to the control of the United Nations command. (This would presumably not affect the present MAAG in Vietnam.)
The scope of the observer group would be to report not only on infiltration into Viet-Nam from outside, but also on any activity within the country dangerous to the peace. The United Nations observer group would be assembled and dispatched under arrangements made by the Acting Secretary General, and its operations would be supervised by him in consultation with a small advisory committee. The theory of the authorizing resolution would, of course, be that the Viet Cong activity against the present Government of Viet-Nam is directed from outside of South Viet-Nam and therefore constitutes external aggression.
This proposal should be presented to Prime Minister Nehru now. Since India is the chairman of the present ICC in Viet-Nam and since the object of the United Nations presence is in part to replace the ICC and to perform more effectively the job of keeping the peace, Nehru's agreement to the proposal would be most important.
3. Prompt agreement at Geneva on a neutral Laos, including an understanding that Laos is not to be used as a corridor or staging point for operations in South Vietnam. If possible, Ambassador Harriman might approach the Russians on the subject of the mutual interests of the United States and the Soviet Union in cessation of fighting in South Viet-Nam as well as in Laos.
4. In any event, the Prime Minister might be sounded out on his approaching Ho Chi Minh along the following lines:
a. Achieving a cease fire in South Vietnam.
b. An indication that the long-range United States goal is an independent South Viet-Nam not necessarily allied with us.
c. Improvement of economic conditions in the country, with increased trade between North and South Viet-Nam along the lines of interzonal trade in Germany, when peaceful conditions make this possible.
d. Possible reciprocal recognition by the Western and Soviet Blocs of both North and South Viet-Nam and ultimate admission of both countries to the United Nations.
5. In talking with Nehru, we should make clear that the United States stands ready both to continue its present program of economic assistance to Vietnam, and to contribute to possible programs of the United Nations Special Fund in the area.
The program recommended here avoids the high risk and limited promise alternative of armed intervention. Its long-range hopes are that South Viet-Nam would become a viable independent state, North Viet-Nam would become less dependent on Communist China, daily life in both countries would become safer and more prosperous, and the Sino-Soviet struggle for dominance in Southeast Asia might abate. [SUP]1[/SUP] Source: Kennedy Library, President's Office File, Viet-Nam Country Series, Security 1961. Secret. The source text was attached to a signed letter of November 3 from Galbraith to the President, which reads in full: "You asked for my views on Vietnam. They are set forth in this paper. I might add that they are shared by Abe Chayes, who has collaborated with me in preparing the paper." Galbraith was in Washington for the State visit of Prime Minister Nehru
https://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers/
..........
On the 40th anniversary of the leak to the press, the National Archives, along with the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon Presidential Libraries, has released the complete report. There are 48 boxes and approximately 7,000 declassified pages. Approximately 34% of the report is available for the first time..... https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/...IV-B-1.pdf :
Highlight of last sentence in above page image and first sentences in page image below the following highlight image.:
.pdf page 177 of 195 :
"This" could have ended here,
Tom Scully Wrote:
Scott Kaiser Wrote:Tom, I'm not disputing the fact he sent letters, is there a serious problem with just me that people don't understand my English? Or, am I not saying what I need to say correctly? Galbraith DID write letters, I'm not disputing that. I never said he didn't write a letter.
If I need to translate in Spanish please let me know, Galbraith DID NOT GO TO VIETNAM FOR KENNEDY AND REPORT BACK TO KENNEDY SENATOR MANSFIELD DID THAT. Do you understand me now?
I am a man, and when I right, I'm right. You're trying to prove Kennedy asked Galbraith to go to Vietnam but you'll never prove it Tom. If I were wrong, I would have admitted it, can you? Be a man Tom!
John Clark Pratt - 2008 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions
Perspectives on the War Years, 1941-1975 John Clark Pratt ... In November President Kennedy receives this hurried message from the ambassador to India, John Kenneth Galbraith, who has ... I HAVE JUST COMPLETED THREE INTENSIVE DAYS IN SAIGON WHICH, WITH CINCPAC [COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, PACIFIC] ...
This is an enlargement of the upper portion of the third page image displayed above ([B].pdf page 177 of 195).[/B] Compare the text to that in the quote box immediately above.: https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/...IV-B-1.pdf :
Scott continued, after appearing to concede. This is the post that convinced me he has taken leave of his senses. What could have possibly justified the following?:
Scott Kaiser Wrote:Here we go again! When I ask for a reference next time please don't give me books, I prefer minute meetings or FOIA documents that can explain everything a little more clearer.
Several books contradict themselves about Galbraith in the Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War that Tom Scully also posted talks about Galbraith and how he opposed the war in Vietnam, however, in his son's book, he says his father and McNamara agreed with how the war was going and McNamara wanted to see it escalate.
In this book, it talks about how Galbraith wrote Kennedy a letter posing his views, however, it also goes on to say that "Galbraith" who was ALREADY in Washington was to fly back to India via Saigon, now does that really make any sense if Galbraith was to fly back to Washington, (your words not mine) and report to Kennedy?
Can you see? If you were to read every book Tom put up they EACH contradict themselves, and I'm not sure Tom even realized that. I believe he was in just too much of a hurry to prove me wrong, which I don't blame him. I'm sure there were multiple researchers looking for the answers, but when it comes down to it, by the time it was all said and done. The bottom line is this, it was Mansfield's report that ultimately had Kennedy realize the seriousness in Vietnam which made him consider the withdraw.
It was because of Galbraith and his later speaking up against the war sending "letters" to Kennedy that had Kennedy send Mansfield to Vietnam.
...before this "declaration of rights" thread was begun.
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.
Tom, You may post your 10 mile long post, and [try] to save face too, what's left of it, you're slowly discrediting yourself the more you post, but, by all means post away. I know it's hard for you to understand, and I don't blame you, big words may be difficult to pronounce. That's okay Tom, still, you'll post away. I don't expect you to understand those letters you posted are forgery. Have a good day Tom.
Oh, and if you decide to follow up with a post after this one, I will completely discredit you, it's your choice Tom.
Mark A. O'Blazney Wrote:Nice post, Tom. The thumbnails kind of nail it. Just what I'd expect from a "DiEugenio protege".
Your turn, Scott. I've learned a bit from that post, have you?
Mark, it's finally nice to be able to speak to someone who is not bias, Tom will have some difficulty in understanding, but I don't expect anything less. It's almost impossible to teach someone something new unless you [stand your ground] and provide much evidence, which I have already done. As I said before, I will blow this wide open in my update. For those of you who don't believe me, the answer is simple, simply don't buy it, problem solved.
Scott Kaiser Wrote:Tom, You may post your 10 mile long post, and [try] to save face too, what's left of it, you're slowly discrediting yourself the more you post, but, by all means post away. I know it's hard for you to understand, and I don't blame you, big words may be difficult to pronounce. That's okay Tom, still, you'll post away. I don't expect you to understand those letters you posted are forgery. Have a good day Tom.
Oh, and if you decide to follow up with a post after this one, I will completely discredit you, it's your choice Tom.
~Scott Kaiser
P.S. Tracy, the Newman statement was for Jim.
Oh wow. So what evidence do you have that those letters are forged, Scott?
Scott Kaiser Wrote:Tom, You may post your 10 mile long post, and [try] to save face too, what's left of it, you're slowly discrediting yourself the more you post, but, by all means post away. I know it's hard for you to understand, and I don't blame you, big words may be difficult to pronounce. That's okay Tom, still, you'll post away. I don't expect you to understand those letters you posted are forgery. Have a good day Tom.
Oh, and if you decide to follow up with a post after this one, I will completely discredit you, it's your choice Tom.
~Scott Kaiser
P.S. Tracy, the Newman statement was for Jim.
Oh wow. So what evidence do you have that those letters are forged, Scott?
Hi Tracy, read my post number #9, then, with understanding, re-read my post #8.
I call this topic "Standing my Ground"
