1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

who should be judged more harshly?

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by bododie, Oct 21, 2008.

  1. bododie

    bododie New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  2. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    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.
     
  3. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.....

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah......that's what happened..... :rolleyes:

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

     
  5. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Yet... you still want Socialism... even though its never worked anywhere in the world before... :rolleyes:
     
  6. bododie

    bododie New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was Johnson.
     
  7. bododie

    bododie New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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!
     
  8. primerib

    primerib New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Red State AZ
    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?
     
  9. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....so, besides being psychics, you "conservatives" also have the magical-ability to read minds, huh? :rolleyes:

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

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p
     
  10. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah.....unlike "conservatives", I rely too-heavily on historical-fact. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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..
     
  12. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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).

    [​IMG]

    "Yeah.....that's what happened!!!"
     
  13. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    .....And, givin' the Vietnamese Colony back to the other White-guy.... :rolleyes:
     
  14. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    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.

    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!:)
     
  15. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    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.

    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)
     
Loading...

Share This Page