At issue isn't whether a democrat or republican president was responsible for Vietnam—although it was Eisenhower who sent the first US military personnel to Vietnam. At issue is that the US had no point being there at all.

The French had their arses kicked in the first Vietnam war and sued for partition of the country into north and south for the sole purpose of being able to hang on to the south a while longer. The 1954 Geneva Convention granted the partition TEMPORARILY and promised free elections and a unified Vietnam within 2 years.(ie., by 1956)

By that time Diem had overthrown Bao Dai and installed himself as a US puppet in the south and the US and Diem together decided to ignore the Geneva Convention and refused to hold elections and unify the country. There was not a shred of justification for these actions. Vietnam had always been one nation. The partition was granted only on the grounds that it was temporary, but the US ignored the Convention and chose instead to prop up a corrupt puppet (Diem) against a legitimate anti-colonial independence movement.

It's a shameful chapter in US history that cost many good lives for no good reason.

Hanoi Dot strikes again.

that's just crazy talk - we went there because of the suffering of the Vietnamese people. The US govt doesn't do bad things like that, and it had nothing to do with a multi-billion dollar military industrial complex

Your recollection would differ from my long time good friend's. He was the youngest representative in the history of the country & a stern anti-communist. So you all are coming at this from different sides. His story, which can easily be backed up, is that Diem was far from a puppet, so much so that Kennedy had him killed, much to the dismay of much of S NV.

Another swing and a miss!

But this is my point. Diem was a US puppet. When his corruption (and intransigence on policy and tactical matters) became too much for the US, he became an embarrassment, and the US supported the generals in their coup against Diem. This is settled history. Well documented.

That is what you do with inconvenient puppets. You cut the strings.

I think the best book written about Vietnam is:

VIETNAM, A History
By Stanley Karnow.

You don't care if he was a puppet or not, you'd criticize the US either way. The new Iraqi gov't is hardly a puppet, and people criticize us for THAT.

"Great, we brought them democracy so they could elect kooky muslim leaders."

Well that's the whole point of democracy, innit?

Great book, I agree. Recommend it to anyone.

Could be a record, we agree on The Rosario and the book.

and probably on the Dillon loading press :p

So our puppet wouldn't perform? A lot of folks in VN liked the guy. And you have to admit, if commies were cutting the heads off babies & America was trying to re-attatch them, you'd be criticizing American medical technology.

You're not paying attention. Democracy was not the issue in Vietnam. The US and Diem blocked the elections mandated by the 1954 Geneva convention because they wanted to hang on to the piece of real estate (South Vietnam) they had just acquired.

As for Iraq, the whole notion of introducing Jeffersonian democracy in deeply fractured tribal culture is flawed in my view. There are countries on this earth where a meaningful democracy is just not possible either because of lack of education of the voters, deep tribal divisions in the population, corruption, or any number of factors. These countries need a strong and benign dictator to keep the lid on. Sadly, these are few and far between — but that doesn't mean democracy is the answer for everyone.

One of the problems was we (Kennedy) put Catholics in power and because of that you had to be Catholic to get anything, land reform went to Catholics, the Monastery's were being destroyed, the Monks were burning themselves in protest. It would be like putting me in charge of Israel, just didn't work.
Our winning the hearts and minds of the people wasn't working well.

It didn't occur to you that we used Vietnam as a proxy to fight the Soviets huh? It was Soviet expansion that we were fighting, no one in power gave one rats ass about Vietnam or it's people.

Seems to be working so far, even despite our gov'ts best efforts to screw the whole thing up.

Dictators are never the answer. You are such an elitist that it actually turns the stomach.

I'm glad you at least admit that the reason for war had nothing to do with caring about the fate of the Vietnamese people.

But I thought we were fighting the Chinese and the spread of *those* godless commies, not the Soviets in this case.

NO BUT Bui Tin, Colonel NVA General Staff is not General GIAP
nore is there any BS about they were ready to quit if the bombing had been keap up
a few days longer

General GIAP was willing to take any loss and keep fighting one day longer
then the other side

so unless we were willing to still be there fighting TODAY how do you win a war against people with that mind set?????



back to the opening question
how could any leader do a worse job then our current fool in chief has

Ike told Kennedy not to get involved.

1 - 2 - 3 - what are we fighting for
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn
I'm heading off for Vietnam.

back to the opening question
how could any leader do a worse job then our current fool in chief has
__________________
QUESTION!!!

If we had elected those other guys we would have found out.

Yes, this country is doomed if the America hating racist bho gets inhttp://forums.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/ear.gif
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1217709364.jpg

Corrected that for you....

You need to get out more.

Democracy is not always the answer. What happens in a country where the populations is simply too ignorant about politics to make an informed choice? Do you remember the Philippines in the 1980's when Corazon Aquino was elected because everyone that voted for her got a yellow T-shirt? Is that a meaningful democracy?

Or what about a place like Iraq or (the former) Yugoslavia, where there are such violent ethnic/tribal and religious tensions, that any merely democratic system would elected the majority tribe/group and ensure the minorities are wiped out?

And what about the many countries in the third world whose institutions are so corrupt that a fair and democratic election is not possible and the result rigged and meaningless?

And what happens when you have a combination of the three scenarios above?

You need to be a giggling virgin to seriously believe a meaningful democracy is possible and desirable in every country on this planet today. It is not. It is a laudable goal no doubt; but it is absolute friggin pie-in-the-sky in many places.

All the better. Because I'm truly a fan of Nixon in this regard. I feel the liberal media has done him a disservice by concentrating on Watergate in lieu of the fact he was one of the main architects of our exit from Vietnam.

Some people try to call it Nixon's war, they forget about Johnson,-ah will neva escalate the wa in Vitnam- and McNamara
Nixon started pulling troops out his first year in office.

But communism works everywhere right?

yes would have been so sad if we didnot have a falling dollar and sky high oil
along with a war in iraq that is totally with out reason
and maybe limit the war on terror to places that had terrorists
there by actually capture their leader
and a budget that was not only balanced but in the black lowering the nation debts
how did we ever get thru the horror of the 90's

So you think that Iraq has been void of terrorists, eh? :rolleyes:

Liberals don't think, that is the problem:rolleyes:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mopkn0lPzM8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mopkn0lPzM8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

before invasion yes it was
esp the al-kiddies who were hated by God-damm Insane himself

now once we got in there and made a bunch of new ones out of the local nuts
others did flock in to fight too
but mostly, there were damm few real terrorists there before

Obamunists, oh man, the muleaid is strong tonight! I have to apologize for poking the troll with a stick.
yet it was the Vietnamese who whipped our butts...
you are trolltastic

I have no doubt there is someone, somewhere, who would argue that Mr Obama is the spawn of Satan. He is dark, and he is a prince; or was until that euro campaign tour.

Dumbass could have put a digital camera in his shirt pocket, done the stupid hold the camera out and take a picture of the both of you, mail the signed 8 by 10 with a canned ham or a nice big cheese because maybe everybody is not a goy. He did not have to take his press people with him, all he had to do is keep his mouth shut and smile. I thought he was smart. What did those people in Cambridge do to him?
you will see in about 6 months. I am dubious about Mr McCain winning, and things will be very bad if he does not.

Mr Nixon was a great President, his problem is that he was not a good man.

Mr Nixon was a great President, his problem is that he was not a good man.

but he DID believe in America

Is that seriously and ad paid for by the McCain campaign? I mean if it is McCain is even dumber than I thought.

I don't care who paid for or okd that video, it is pretty funny and I think right on.

Really? Nothing like the voters coming to grips with the real issues, eh?

Sad, that this is the level to which politicking is reduced in your fine land.

LOL. Just what issues has Obama come to grips with? "We are the ones we've been waiting for"(?) or maybe; " A light will shine down . . and you will say to yourself "I have to vote for Barrack""(?)

The man is ALL SHOW / no go. (what has he done for anyone ...other than himself?)

What do you mean "admit"? It is a fact. And i am not culpable in any case, why should i deny the truth?

Vietnam was a proxy. A mere pawn...to both sides. The Soviets and Chinese didn't care about Vietnam's people either. Not one whit.

We were fighting the Soviets, the Chinese, and Communism in general. The Vietnam war had nothing at all to do with Vietnam other than that being the place that some of the world's most powerful leaders stuck a pin in a map and said "We will fight the enemy there." On both sides.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Elitist. (spit)

So why are you complaining about it?

In your racist-elitist view the unwashed brown masses weren't fit to govern themselves with democracy, therefore they needed to be 'helped along' by a dictator anyway.

I guess you prefer Uncle Ho to Diem.

Methinx Uncle Ho killed many, many times more people than Diem did.

Where do you come up with that? The CIA has reports from the 1990s that suggest connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

For the US to win a total war is just a matter of willpower and effective leadership. The military power is in place, and has been for decades.

For instance, Al Q and the alphabet soup of Islamist extremist groups are our mortal enemies and have pledged to fight us in Iraq "until the end."

How's that going for them?

Had Bush resigned in 2004 (As LBJ did) and his successor pulled us out of Iraq by early 2006 (As Nixon did), Iraq would be a total disaster right now, and the US war effort a total defeat. History would have repeated itself.

What was the difference this time? The president didn't meddle with the Military, and he didn't QUIT in the middle of a war like Johnson did.

LBJ would've done a WHOLE lot worse. He'd be personally approving/rejecting bombing missions and target lists as he did during the Vietnam War.

At least Bush lets the military run the show. Now that "the military" is not Donald Rumsfeld anymore, things have largely righted themselves and we should have the lions share of our guys out of Iraq and into Afdirtistan by 2010. And we will leave behind a functional representative gov't (the proper term for a 'democracy') in Iraq with a strong and highly experienced military in place.

As opposed to Saddam Hussien, who was a freakin maniac nutcase who liked to agitate us constantly. Invade his neighbors. Lob missiles at the Jews. Attack his own countrymen with nerve gas. Stuff like that.

And Afghanistan is no longer a sanctuary for terrorist groups.

And no attacks on US Soil since 9-11.

Seems to me that foreign policy wise the ONLY thing Bush hasn't done is catch OBL.

His domestic policies and judgement wrt apointees have been terrible though. Just terrible. I am no Bush fan, but he is 100000000000000000000x the war leader than LBJ ever was.

Elitist?

Maybe you can explain to me the value of a vote that is cast without any understanding of why you are casting it or who you are casting it for.

Does the mere act of casting that ballot have some inherent value to you?

That, sadly, is the case in many places in the world with largely rural, uneducated populations.

It is what it is.