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.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
Yeah......that's what happened.....Both were wrong. Although in Vietnam we were originally asked in.....
"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."
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
Yet... you still want Socialism... even though its never worked anywhere in the world before..."Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
It was Johnson.The goal here is to not let the Republicans repeat the mistake of the continuation of Vietnam
'Nam was still Truman's War.
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
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....so, besides being psychics, you "conservatives" also have the magical-ability to read minds, huh?Yet... you still want Socialism... even though its never worked anywhere in the world before...
Yeah.....unlike "conservatives", I rely too-heavily on historical-fact.It was Johnson.
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).Your boy Johnson sent Americans to DIE!
.....And, givin' the Vietnamese Colony back to the other White-guy....Tough one to answer, both were wrong. One was done for cold war communism.....
Mr. Shaman;68646]Yeah......that's what happened.....
.....But, it's gonna be different, in Iraq.
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!