who should be judged more harshly?

[bododie]

Who should be judged more harshly for going to war based on a lie?

Johnson: 58,000 dead American soldiers in Viet Nam

Bush: 4,186 dead American soldiers in Iraq

 

[top gun]

Who should be judged more harshly for going to war based on a lie?

Johnson: 58,000 dead American soldiers in Viet Nam

Bush: 4,186 dead American soldiers in Iraq

Both were wrong. Although in Vietnam we were originally asked in and in Iraq we were led in by complete and utter lies, half truths and misconceptions.

The goal here is to not let the Republicans repeat the mistake of the continuation of Vietnam.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Who should be judged more harshly for going to war based on a lie?

Johnson: 58,000 dead American soldiers in Viet Nam

Bush: 4,186 dead American soldiers in Iraq

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....you ran over here.

How "conservative", of you.

'Nam was still Truman's War.

O.K., you can run-away....again.....like Lil' Dumbya.....

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Both were wrong. Although in Vietnam we were originally asked in.....

Yeah......that's what happened.....

"The French return to their former colony was not easy. First, they had to arm and use former Japanese POWs to establish a foothold; not a move fated to win much popular support. They were able to retake towns but not the countryside. In 1950, General Giap launched a general offensive against the French, which, though it was premature, resulted in 6,000 French killed or captured. In 1954, the French were decisively defeated at Dien Bien Phu. Although the French government described Dien Bien Phu as a "victory," it was more truly portrayed by commentator Bernard Fall as France's "greatest colonial defeat since Montcalm died at Quebec."

According to international agreement, Vietnam was to be temporarily divided into north and south, with free elections to take place nationwide in 1956. Even before the French were out, the U.S. was moving in. Prior to Dien Bien Phu, the U.S. set up MAAG (Military Assistance and Advisory Group) consisting of 350 U.S. personnel operating in Saigon in support of the French. Between 1950 and 1954, the U.S. contributed over $3 billion to their French allies in the fight for Vietnam. By 1954, the U.S. contributions were providing 80% of the cost of the war.

The situation was desperate. More and more American troops were put in to replace Saigon troops who could not, or would not, get involved in the fighting. The Saigon government had no real base other than the aid it got from the U.S., and we got exactly what we paid for: pimps, prostitutes, cowards and gangsters, masquerading as a government and a military.

This was bad enough. But it was coupled with the incredible arrogance on the part of the U.S. government and military leaders. They could not believe that Asians could stand up to the might and technology of the U.S. As the war progressed, we went from one stage to another without any real change in the situation. Strategic hamlets, Vietnamization, search and destroy, pacification: the French had tried all these programs, but somehow the U.S. thought we could make them work. They did not."

.....But, it's gonna be different, in Iraq.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

 

[GenSeneca]

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Yet... you still want Socialism... even though its never worked anywhere in the world before...

 

[bododie]

The goal here is to not let the Republicans repeat the mistake of the continuation of Vietnam

It was Johnson.

 

[bododie]

'Nam was still Truman's War.

the whole idea of aiding the French to defeat the Vietminh goes back to Harry Truman. Both parties and the media blamed him for losing China to the communists. He (and most high-ranking Americans) saw communism as monolithic. He did not want to involve U.S. troops. So he paid the French to fight the Vietminh, which they were happy to do, given the economic benefits to France of retaining their colony.

Lyndon Johnson and the U.S. Navy faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to justify even greater U.S. military intervention

http://iiipublishing.blogspot.com/2008/03/vietnam-harry-trumans-war.html

Your boy Johnson sent Americans to DIE! It's difficult to learn from history when you don't know it in the first place, and you don't!

 

[primerib]

Who should be judged more harshly for going to war based on a lie?

Johnson: 58,000 dead American soldiers in Viet Nam

Bush: 4,186 dead American soldiers in Iraq

Tough one to answer, both were wrong. One was done for cold war communism and the other was done for oil.

What does this have to do with Not Voting For Nobama?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yet... you still want Socialism... even though its never worked anywhere in the world before...

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....so, besides being psychics, you "conservatives" also have the magical-ability to read minds, huh?

Yeah....those super-skills surely are serving-you-well, to-date!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It was Johnson.

Yeah.....unlike "conservatives", I rely too-heavily on historical-fact.

 

[Sihouette]

I don't know who should be judged more harshly. But I do know both those men suck and are devious Texans heavily tied to oil.

Must just be a coincidence..

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Your boy Johnson sent Americans to DIE!

Yeah.....that's what I said....he held Harry Truman, in a head-lock, and made Truman turn-his-back on the Vietnamese that helped us fight the Japanese (in Southeast Asia).

"Yeah.....that's what happened!!!" ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Tough one to answer, both were wrong. One was done for cold war communism.....

.....And, givin' the Vietnamese Colony back to the other White-guy....

 

[top gun]

Mr. Shaman;68646]Yeah......that's what happened.....

I wasn't saying we should have went... history obviously shows that we shouldn't have. I was just saying there was an already present ongoing struggel going on that we became intwinded in more & more.

.....But, it's gonna be different, in Iraq.

Iraq was worse as far as how we got there. We will either responsibly and safely leave under a President Obama or we'll be looking to start a few more major boots on the ground conflicts under John McCain.

I'm pushin' for the former!

 

[BigRob]

I wasn't saying we should have went... history obviously shows that we shouldn't have. I was just saying there was an already present ongoing struggel going on that we became intwinded in more & more.

We absolutely should have gone. In the context of the day it made perfect sense. We can judge it in hindsight all we want, but it does not change the logic of the day.

Iraq was worse as far as how we got there. We will either responsibly and safely leave under a President Obama or we'll be looking to start a few more major boots on the ground conflicts under John McCain.

I'm pushin' for the former!

That is a misrepresentation of reality. Obama is shifting back to Afghanistan. We are winning in Iraq because of the surge (which Obama opposed). Without that, we would not be able to leave at all without causing a disaster.

On top of that, the next President will have to deal with Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and many other spots. A nuclear Iran means a nuclear Saudi Arabia and nuclear Egypt.

Continued overt raids in Pakistan (which Obama supports openly) will further destabilize a nuclear Pakistan. (which destabilizes India)