I'll address each of your questions below.  However, please use proper grammar/capitalization when communicating in this online world and take the time to write coherently.  Some statements are mere fragments, audio conversational in nature, yet we do not have that luxury unless we are talking on the phone.

i cant seem figure out what you want to get a good grade.
My comments posted to all students after Journal #1 explicitly state:
In an online class, convincing the instructor that you are reading the textbooks, watching the videos, and incorporating both into your knowledge-base is of the utmost importance.

both books state that the advisors to kennedy, and johnson were unqualified in foreing relations and vietnamese culture to make many of the decisions they made in relation to the war and politics in vietnam.
You are correct.

i did not realize that i need to cite the actual pages.
i havent seen anyone else do this, or maybe im mistaken. i havent seen anyone give quotes or anything indepth, only opinions.
Again, you do not see what other students are submitting in the Journals.  You only see the Forums.  I do not expect that students simply accept the opinions of other students.  Students who back up their statements with facts and citing sources, prove themselves to be not only learning the material, but more historically correct as well.

i cant figure out what you want from me as a student to imporve my journals.
i am trying to do a good job at reading the material and replying to your questions.

what exactly should i be doing, and what is it that i need to turn in now?
There is nothing to turn in now, concerning Journal #2.  You are currently engaged in Episode 4 Forum where you are tasked with trying to answer the posed question, backed by facts from the books and DVD's, of course.

i feel like i answered questions fully and from my point of view, based on the readings and the films.
do you still want me to go to tell you the page where i got this quote?
No, the problem is not with including the page number of the quote you used in the Journal #2.  That long quote was more than you wrote yourself to answer part 2 of the question.  That's the problem.  Excessively long quotes are not a good idea.  Often, they are used by students who don't have enough to say.  The good news is that I know that is not the case with you.

In the future, you should cite your sources, such as following these quotes or facts with an abbreviated citation, such as (Appy, p.124) or (Herring, p.77) or (DVD Episode 4)  You've already done so when you've included your wikipedia information.  And use the wikipedia info sparingly.  It's easy to do a wikipedia search.  It takes more time to read the books and watch the DVD's and use specifics you find in THEM as your support.

should i not be quoting?
You should certainly quote where applicable, to prove your points.  It's like saying "Hey, expert historian George Herring agrees with my point of view as well."

am i just giving too much information about the topic?
You only did that on your first Forum post which was 3 pages long, included way too much outside information (and wikipedia links... lots of information but none of your own words and/or explanations of it).  But you'll notice that you received your full 15 points for that post.  It had a great page worth of answers to the question among the three pages of text.
  
what to do?
doesnt my opinion work toward a grade?
Ahh.  No, your opinion doesn't mean anything by itself.  Your INFORMED opinion means everything.

i am totally confused.
No you're not.  I think that you should take more time to organize your thoughts, write a draft, re-read that draft, be sure that you are addressing the posed question(s), and making logical sense.  For example, I'm still not convinced of the logic behind your choice of Khruschev as a "positive".  You write:
it isnt a matter of democracy vs. communism, its genocide. that is what i got from the quote. 
So first, how is genocide can ever be thought of as a "potential for good". That just doesn't seem logical.  Now I'm not saying you can't find something positive about Khruschev's story, but you sure haven't yet take the time or the words to explain it well to me.
Second, when Khruschev says in essence, it's not ideological (dem vs. com) but it's genocide, that's just his opinion, and it's not a provable one at that.  The U.S. was not committing genocide in Vietnam.  It wasn't good, but it wasn't genocide.

please help fill in the gaps here.
Hope I've been clear in filling in the gaps.