Skip to comments.Truman radio address explaining what is necessary to win in Korea (1950) [Sounds like Bush re Iraq]
Posted on 11/11/2006 5:57:22 AM PST by syriacus
We know that the cost of freedom is high. But we are determined to preserve our freedom--no matter what the cost.
I know that our people are willing to do their part to support our soldiers and sailors and airmen who are fighting in Korea. I know that our fighting men can count on each and every one of you.
Our country stands before the world as an example of how free men, under God, can build a community of neighbors, working together for the good of all.
That is the goal we seek not only for ourselves, but for all people. We believe that freedom and peace are essential if men are to live as our Creator intended us to live. It is this faith that has guided us in the past, and it is this faith that will fortify us in the stern days ahead
(Excerpt) Read more at teachingamericanhistory.org ...
We've lost 3,000 American lives in Iraq, under Bush, in approximately the same period of time.
It took Eisenhower to end that conflict... sort of.
It is the same speech..and it still holds true....its just that we have changed...and for the worse....sad...very sad..
And millions of South Koreans are still free.
It was Truman and his incompetent State department that caused the war to begin with
A Report to the President Pursuant to the Presidents Directive of January 31, 1950 [Top secret]
our determination to fight if necessary to defend our way of life, for which as in the Declaration of Independence, "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." [snip]
The assault on free institutions is world-wide now, and in the context of the present polarization of power a defeat of free institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere.[snip]
we must with our allies and the former subject peoples seek to create a world society based on the principle of consent.
re: millions of South Koreans are still free
There's probably no where on Earth that the comparison between a free society and one that chose the other route. The difference between the two Korean way of life should convince even the most skeptical that the other way does not work, has not worked and won't work, regardless of who runs it or how hard the try.
Yes. We lost 33,686 men in the Korean "police action" and saved millions of South Koreans.
What happened? I'm trying to learn more about the Korean non-War.
At the present moment in world history nearly every nation must choose between alternative ways of life.
The choice is too often not a free one.
One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression.
The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio, fixed elections, and the suppression of personal freedoms.
I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.
I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way. I believe that our help should be primarily through economic stability and orderly political process."
This is no longer true.
It was not easy to make the decision to send American boys again into battle. I was a soldier in the First World War, and I know what a soldier goes through. I know well the anguish that mothers and fathers and families go through. So I knew what was ahead if we acted in Korea.
But after all this was said, we realized that the issue was whether there would be fighting in a limited area now or on a much larger scale later onwhether there would be some casualties now or many more casualties later.
So a decision was reachedthe decision I believe was the most important in my time as President of the United States.
In the days that followed, the most heartening fact was that the American people clearly agreed with the decision.
And in Korea, our men are fighting as valiantly as Americans have ever foughtbecause they know they are fighting in the same cause of freedom in which Americans have stood ever since the beginning of the Republic.
Where free men had failed the test before, this time we met the test.
We lost more men while negotiating with the Red Chinese, then when we were actually fighting them and the NK's.
Ofcourse, the liberals had no problem with Korea because it was a U.N. operation, while Vietnam was not.
Had Truman told General Ridgway to continue advancing northward against the Communists, who had already suffered heavy losses, we might have united the country or gained a far more favorable peace. Then the GOP would not have been able to use Korea as a campaign issue in 1952--and there would be no North Korean nuclear threat today.
And, 56 years later, the Democrats have yet to offer an "exit strategy" to withdraw U.S. troops from Korea.
I don't think it's the fact we're at war, I think it's the fact that there hasn't been much progress (at least visible progress) in the last three years. Americans can deal with war, but they cannot deal with a war of attrition, holding patterns and occupancy.
In WWII, for example, if we had stopped in France after the Normandy invasion, and sat for three years while negotiating with Germany and trying to set up a provisional government in France, taking a few losses every day, I think the citizens would have said, "screw this, bring them home."
One lesson American presidents should learn is that if you want to keep the citizenry behind you in a war, you have to keep showing progress.
Maybe someone should remind Pelosi of the "situation" in South Korea
Interesting. I need to learn more about our presence in Korea. I only remember a friend's older brother and his friends talking about their chances of going to Korea.
Did the UN initiate the operation or did the US manipulate the UN to initiate the operation?
Unfortunately, enemy body counts don't carry any weight, since the enemy is made up of "freedom fighters."
And all those Chinesse troops that attacked in Korea, had been stationed on the Twiwan straights guarding against a possible invadsion by Chen-Ki-Sheck, but Truman wanting to appease the Chinesse sent the 7 fleet to the straights to insure Chen-Ki-Sheck did not invade. So the troops were free to go to Korea and fight. Truman was a terible president. MacAuthor didn't want war in main land China but he did wabt to attack Chinesse supply lines bringing supplies into China.
The problem is more and more people just don't believe it. A president with better communication skills would have helped keep them on message. Dubya spent 1/2 of 2005 and all of 2006 not making a particularly good or convincing case for anything.
Keep this in mind for election 2008.
We took the lead, but it was under U.N. authority.
We were fortunate that the Soviets had walked out of the U.N. in protest and were not there to veto the actions.
Thank you for answering my question.
What war? That was explained by HST to be a United Nations police action. (:^)
My sister's husband was in the Army, and his group got all the way to the Chosen reservoir. Then the Chinese entered the police action (on the North Korean side).
As someone noted, it took Ike to end the police action (sort of).
Clinton was comfortable with using empty platitudes or lying when he didn't want to share his thoughts about something in particular.
Bush is not at ease with vagueness or abstraction or dissembling. He is more down to earth.
The current fashion is for politicians to be glib, to have the verbal skills of a successful lawyer, to have a quick answer for everything.
I think Bush should say, "No comment," more often. He's allowed to do that, just as presidents prior to the Garrulous Bill Clinton have done. I noticed, just today, that Harry Truman could say, "No comment," quite a bit.
Bush is not dumb. He can see the big picture, think through problems, and plan well into the future.
I think he is a visual thinker who is aware of too many things when he talks. The result is that he combines the different ways of looking at things into one sentence which is disjointed to listeners who are verbal thinkers , rather than visual thinkers.
Bill Clinton, media star, was a hard act to follow.
Whoever follows Bush will have a much easier time.
we never won Korea
I remember being disappointed when I learned that fact in 8th grade. It was a shocker.
Yet, even without a win, 50 years later, millions of South Koreans are still free.
Yeah and the French and British before WWII appeasing Hitler had nothing to do with WWII