“Yes, his commitment to life in the USSR was, oh wait, no it wasn’t.”
Actually, his commitment was solid. So very few carry out such plans. As for not remaining committed after he arrived, that’s another matter. It’s called facing up to grim reality. Fanatical socialists have been honest enough to cop to the Soviet Union being a living hell.
But to arrive at the meat of the matter, your whole committment obsession is off the mark. Oswald was not enlisting in the Marxist army to fight as long as it takes. Assassinating people for lone nuts is not a conscious decision to do the deed and face the consequences for the cause.
It’s more akin to committing suicide by shooting yourself in the head or jumping off a building. You make the decision once, often in the heat of the moment, and then it’s done. Your entire committment is over as soon as it goes into action. Same with Oswald’s decision to shoot Kennedy. He couldn’t take it back, no matter what he felt, unlike with the defection.
So when you speak of him not having the commitment to stick it out in Russia as proof of his not being able to kill JFK, I call bunk. Whatever he did in one case has nothing to do with the other. Think about it closer, and his troubles in Russia is proof of the opposite, i.e. that he’s the sort of person who would throw his life away on a whim. He pulled the trigger and went to Russia without realizing how much he would hate it. He liked to pull big triggers.
your whole committment obsession
<><><><><><
LOL. My commitment obsession? Don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.
I have an opinion about Oswald’s character and intestinal fortitude that clearly differs from yours.