Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should the US have become involved in the Vietnam conflict?
The History Channel ^ | 18 OCT 2002 | Producers

Posted on 10/18/2002 10:13:43 PM PDT by onedoug

It's that time again...tho re-fight the Vietnam War. This time via the online poll for the program The History Channel cablecast this evening on the subject.

I voted yes, despite the politics that led us there, because I refuse to believe that so many brave Americans lost their lives their needlesly.

I yet feel our involvemnt there was a great enterprise from which, as was the case with the fall of the Soviet Union, we will yet emerge victorious.

I'm curious what Freepers...expecially my fellow Vietnam veterancs, may think.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: vietnamcontroversy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
As I said, I think this poll deserves a Freep.
1 posted on 10/18/2002 10:13:43 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Sorry for the typos. I hit the "post" click-on prematurely.
2 posted on 10/18/2002 10:16:18 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Done. We have a way to go to turn this one around.
3 posted on 10/18/2002 10:19:05 PM PDT by getgoing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
I have often wondered if Vietnam would be free today if Watergate didn`t happen.
4 posted on 10/18/2002 10:20:40 PM PDT by bybybill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
short answer:

The communists slaughtered tens of millions and enslaved hundreds of million more. The U.S. did what was right and noble in opposing such an evil force.
5 posted on 10/18/2002 10:22:15 PM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bybybill
I have often wondered if Vietnam would be free today if Watergate didn`t happen

Probably not, but we might still have a canal... and a good friend in Teheran.

6 posted on 10/18/2002 10:23:58 PM PDT by struwwelpeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Anti NRO
But I guess we will make them "democratic" like we did the Germans and Japanese?

For them to decide, once they have the choice. But it must be made available to them. No more half-assed cr..!

8 posted on 10/18/2002 10:32:21 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
It was justified. The communists brutally killed and tortured tens of thousands of villagers to destabilize rhe countr. It as an easy war to win. The reason we lost is because we had playboys, idiots, and subversives in government undercutting the military effort. Playboy Kennedy had Diem killed for no good reason. McNamara was a leftist subcersive who is described as a admiror of socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas in his own book. By 68 the situation was nearly unrecoverable.
9 posted on 10/18/2002 10:42:44 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: onedoug
Should the U.S. have become involved in the Vietnam conflict.?
What a truly stupid headline.
Who the hell would ask a question like that after all these years. Jesus. ! Fifty thousand plus aluminum caskets later and a question like that comes up.
I can't belive it. HELLO ?
11 posted on 10/18/2002 10:53:15 PM PDT by Pompah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: onedoug
In the early years of the Cold War, Radio Free Europe beamed the message that World Communism was evil, leading to the 1956 Hungarian revolt.

Then the US proceeded to give the freedom seeking Hungarians ZERO support. We were all talk, and no action.

I expect when it came to Vietnam, we saw an opportunity to take the other position, and DEFEND against the spread of communism.

That it turned out as it did is for another discussion.

The past is history; nothing can change it. But today another threat is faced, namely the spread of World Islam, which is a diabolical, authoritan political march, which seeks nothing less than domination, by the sword--now terrorism.

Hopefully we will stand against it RIGHT NOW. President Bush was CORRECT on Sept. 20, 2001 when he likened it to Nazism and Communism.

Islam was political from the first days. Mohammed was a ruler, a general, he taxed, made civil laws and led wars. He simply wrapped up his political conquest as a religion.

We should stand against it no LESS firmly, just because it is claimed to be a religion. It is a power movement, no less than Nazism and Communism. Arafat studied terror in Cuba with communists, as did other muslim terror group leaders.

It may be true that all muslims are not terrorists; but surely today (almost) all terrorists are muslims.
13 posted on 10/18/2002 11:00:31 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
Ping
14 posted on 10/18/2002 11:01:14 PM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Should the US have become involved in the Vietnam conflict?

The real question they should be asking and answering is, "Why did we have to become involved in the Vietnam conflict?"

Then they could start tracing the miserable effects of one foreign policy failure after another, starting with our role in the treaty that ended WWI.

The middle of the program could show how the Vietnam War was fought by politicians, with devastating results for 50,000 Americans.

The ending could depict how George Bush I and his grand UN Alliance fought a half-ass war that left a dictator in power and then fast foward to today, when his son has to clean up daddy's mess.

15 posted on 10/18/2002 11:10:46 PM PDT by CW_Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
The critical distinction today...is that the Muslims that are not terrorists, are NOT taking action or demanding the expulsion of the "radicals" from positions of authority in Islam..

Islamic clerics all over the world are preaching hate, murder and celebrating those killed in the name of Islam....This, more than anything - paints all those "silent" peaceful Muslims as FRAUDS.

Let one Christian preacher, simply use the WORD evil to describe Islam -- and the Muslims go nuts and clerics issue a fatwah for his death! Yes, they are a religion of peace..... NOT!

If Muslims will NOT refute the militant and radical version of their "Holy Book" ----Then Islam is the enemy. How much clearer must this be for people to recognize the real issue?

Semper Fi
16 posted on 10/18/2002 11:37:29 PM PDT by river rat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: river rat
I agree,if one is not part of the solution then he is part of the problem.IMHO there can be no neutrality on this subject,you are either with us or you are with the terrorist.How hard is that for some to understand.
17 posted on 10/18/2002 11:46:45 PM PDT by eastforker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: river rat
If a Christian pastor stood in his church, and using religious/political double-talk admonished his flock to harm, kill abortion doctors, that would be an incitement to commit an illegal act of violence.

If a muslim cleric stood in his mosque, and using religious/political double-talk, admonished his flock to harm, kill Americans, Jews, Hindus, infidels, that would be an incitement to commit an illegal act of violence.

IOW he who issues the order is just as guilty, as he who pulls the trigger, flies the plane, etc. That the "order giver" is a religious figure makes no difference.

Surely this is easy to understand. It was understood at the Nuremberg trials.

A muslim cleric should NOT free to incite, by standing behind some protected veil of "religion." The effect is the same outcome: an illegal act of violence.

So for now, any nation wishing to enter/remain in the realm of civilization MUST clamp down HARD.

Those who can't or won't are the ENEMIES of civilization, and are explicitly permitting evil.

So Indonesia, Philipines and other nations had best get going. If the citizenry wishes to live under Sharia Law, let them be isolated.

Should a muslim nation allow their "islamic warriors" to roam the globe, that nation is the ENEMY. There should be perfect clarity, and no exeptions (Pakistan?).

It will be long, messy, hard to understand. But it must follow easily understood clarity.

Incitement, financial support, sanctuary must all be included in the test of who is our friend, and who is our ENEMY. I expect in the long run, Saudi Arabia, perhaps Egypt, Pakistan and others could have great difficulty.

In some places, the citizenry may overthrow the present civil governments, in favor of terrorist leaders. That will make the distinction of ENEMY status much easier for our side.
18 posted on 10/19/2002 12:15:45 AM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
In retrospect many argue that we should not have gotten involved at all. Counter to conventional wisdom the domino theory was actually correct in reality. The involvement in Vietnam actually resulted in taking the wind out of the sails of other communist insurgencies in the region (i.e. Indonesia is a perfect example of this). Had we not gotten involved more nations besides South Vietnam, Laos, Burma and Cambodia would've fallen. Nixon's Vietnamization scheme could've worked. We now have no way of knowing that. Unfortunately, during the end-game the Democratic led congress betrayed the South Vietnamese by refusing to resupply them. Something the democrats seem to quite easily forget.
19 posted on 10/19/2002 12:43:48 AM PDT by Coeur de Lion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
No doubt about it....I see no future cooperation between the House of Saud and the United States..

The bastards tried to play both sides against the middle - until they discovered THEY were the middle.. Now they are caught between the "radicals" and the U.S. -- both capable of destroying them in a blink.

Any current "friendship" is temporary at best. I see no possible salvation for the House of Saud, short of them directing the total destruction and refuting of the Wahhabi sect of Islam.....NOT going to happen...

Semper Fi
20 posted on 10/19/2002 12:53:25 AM PDT by river rat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
JFK left a Communist regime 90 miles off our shore when he should have whacked it out out of existence, and it has been leaking Commie bacteria into the Western Hemisphere ever since.

Then he mired us in Nam, in an attempt to salvage his reputation, his re-election, and his ego.

Vietnam was every bit as unimportant to American strategic interests as Cuba was important to Communist strategic interests. The Russians were laughing at us the whole time, and rightly so, for giving a damn about Vietnam while they fomented revolution right under our noses.

But nobody, including some on this website, will stand up and damn this "martyred" scumbag for what he was - a clear candidate for the most destructive President to ever take office, vying for that title with Roosevelt and now Clinton.

21 posted on 10/19/2002 1:04:19 AM PDT by fire_eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
In retrospect, no. The outcome would have been the same: the North conquering the South. Only with fewer American casualties and trauma victims. No memorial wall in D.C.

And the Vietnam War gave the anti-American left a HUGE break, essentially allowing them to "take the moral high ground" and re-define society along the lines they wanted it to take.

The results are all around you.

--Boris

22 posted on 10/19/2002 1:45:51 AM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Our first mistake in Vietnam was backing the French return to Indochina after WWII. Eisenhower was surely correct in refusing the French nuclear weapons after Dien Bien Phu fell, and in refusing to allow American troops to aid the French in Vietnam. Douglas MacArthur, probably the best Asia hand in the US military, opposed our involvement, and was widely quoted as having advised that the US should never become involved in a land war on the Asian continent. Our involvement only became inevitable once the Kennedys started messing about in Vietnamese politics, backing the coup against Diem. I lost many friends and several Brother Rats in Vietnam and always supported our troops, but that was a war in which the civilian political leadership was abysmal and the senior military leadership craven. I still get angry when I think about Vietnam.
23 posted on 10/19/2002 2:34:25 AM PDT by CatoRenasci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
No.

Brave Americans have always lost their lives needlessly.
24 posted on 10/19/2002 2:56:26 AM PDT by karlamayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas_Jarhead
"The U.S. did what was right and noble in opposing such an evil force."

IF we fought it to win it, Vietnam was arguably a war to have been "involved" in, but we didn't. Ergo, my vote would have to be "no".

25 posted on 10/19/2002 2:58:18 AM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CW_Conservative
The French were embroiled in Viet Nam and fighting an action they couldn't hold or win. As usual we sent help which turned into troops and the French as usual pulled out leaving us holding the bag. Sfter President Kennedy was assasinated our President Johnson with no expertise micro managed a war that he screwed up very badly, lied to the people, lied about winning and deserves to rot in hell, right along with Mr. Carter,and Mr.
Clinton.
26 posted on 10/19/2002 3:09:44 AM PDT by wingnuts'nbolts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wingnuts'nbolts
and that about sums it up.
27 posted on 10/19/2002 7:06:07 AM PDT by Enemy Of The State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
I requested assignment to Viet Nam when I went in 67 and I would do it again.
28 posted on 10/19/2002 7:20:57 AM PDT by Ace the Biker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti NRO
And if they chose Islamic Fundamentalism we will allow that?

No. Islamism is incompatable with Western civilization, and must be crushed.

29 posted on 10/19/2002 7:27:45 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ace the Biker
Me too. Welcome home!
30 posted on 10/19/2002 7:29:38 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wingnuts'nbolts
After President Kennedy was assasinated our President Johnson with no expertise micro managed a war that he screwed up very badly, lied to the people, lied about winning and deserves to rot in hell, right along with Mr. Carter,and Mr. Clinton.

Exactly! LBJ was the monster who assured we would lose in Vietnam. We won militarily but weren't allowed to finish the job by scum like LBJ and the Democrat Congress.

The Commies would have taken all of Asia if we had not fought in Vietnam.

31 posted on 10/19/2002 7:37:46 AM PDT by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Should the US have become involved in the Vietnam conflict?

Eisenhower didn't think so, and I agree with him. After Korea many Americans thought we should never become involved in another ground war in Asia. This is not to slight U.S. motives or actions, especially those of our service men and women.

On balance, the Vietnam involvement probably cost us more than it could ever have gained. It unloosed social disintegration and lead to unchecked third world immigration. Would the USSR have disintegrated anyway? Hard to say. Viewnam caused Carter who caused Reagan who caused the downfall of the USSR. (Prior to Carter, Democrats had successfully demonized Goldwater.)

32 posted on 10/19/2002 7:45:19 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: karlamayne
I believe you're wrong in this. I went back to Vietnam in APR 2000. Younger leadership has moved decidedly away from the true totalarian horror of land reform in the eighties to freer form economics. Granted that communists never give over power willingly. But that Vietnam could become the dominant economic force in Asia if they were free, is easy to see given their creativity, innovation, industriousness and straining entrepeneurial spirit. That realized - and I believe it's coming - and we certainly then will have won.
33 posted on 10/19/2002 7:47:20 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
For openers, we never should have supported the French re-colonial conquest of Indo-China after WW11. Subverting the Geneva Accords of 1954 was myopic along the lines of ignoring the nationalistic impulse of the NLF. In not too many years the "Red monolith" would see the NVA in combat with their comrades from China and Cambodia. Respect for thoser who served, but not a pretty page in our nation's history. (In anticipation of rebuttals, I was honorably discharged in 1961.)
34 posted on 10/19/2002 8:43:25 AM PDT by gabby hayes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
Douglas MacArthur, probably the best Asia hand in the US military, opposed our involvement, and was widely quoted as having advised that the US should never become involved in a land war on the Asian continent. Our involvement only became inevitable once the Kennedys started messing about in Vietnamese politics...

From blowing off the original Bay of Pigs invasion plan requirement that air superiority must first be established over the Bay of Pigs beachead before the invasion could proceed to getting the U.S. involved in a land war in Vietnam, John F. Kennedy must rank as one of the most militarily inept Commanders-in-Chief that the United States has ever been saddled with.

From a purely geographical standpoint, Vietnam was not a wise theater of operations to draw the line against Communism.By comparison, Korea was relatively easy.

In Korea, the battlefield was a peninsula. U.S. seapower was dominat and was therefore able to seal off the western, southern and eastern flanks of the peninsula. That left only a relatively narrow northern front to defend without fear of flanking movements by the enemy. Although the unwillingness to wage war directly against Communist China made outright victory in all of Korea impossible, the defense of South Korea was a straight foreward matter of defending a narrow northern front with impregnable flanks.

In Vietnam, the extremely long an narrow geography of South Vietnam and the jungle terrain resulted in an indefensible western flank. No matter where the U.S. fought, one or both U.S. flanks, if any flanks were possible at all, would be "in the air". The enemy could outflank any U.S. position merely by marching more deeply into the neighboring "neutral" country and re-entering South Vietnam either to the north or to the south of the U.S. position.

The unwillingness to wage war directly against Communist China once again made outright victory in all of Vietnam impossible and guranteed a constant supply of war materiel for the enemy across the Sino-Vietnamese border.

The resulting war with no defined front and indefensible flanks meant that the enemy could choose when, where and if to fight and progress could only be measured in the dubious coin of "body counts". America is not psychologically suited for wars of attrition.

Vietnam's geography neutralized America's dominant seapower and forced the U.S. land forces to fight on the enemy's terms. A better theater should have been chosen to make a stand against Communism in the 1960's.

35 posted on 10/19/2002 9:00:57 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gabby hayes
I agree with this early history of the conflict, re Archimedes Patti, Why Vietnam?

Ho Chi Minh solicted Truman through Patti (then with the OSS) for direct US support in resisting French recolonialization, claiming that he wasn't really a Communist, but had simply utilized it in fomenting for independence. Academically, it's certainly interesting to speculate on how the whole scenario may have panned out had those decisions in Washington taken that tack.

Best to you.

36 posted on 10/19/2002 9:06:14 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: fire_eye
[ "But nobody, including some on this website, will stand up and damn this "martyred" scumbag for what he was - a clear candidate for the most destructive President to ever take office, vying for that title with Roosevelt and now Clinton." ]

I will. JFK was as almost as stupid as Al Gore. Ask any Cuban trained by him in Miami for the Bay of Pigs then sent to Cuba and then stranded there, ON PURPOSE. I've talked to some of them. Very few escaped then fled to Miami a 2nd time, most spent their lives in Castro jails. Seems that after they landed at the bay of pigs(in Cuba) they were supposed to get ammo and supplies after the initial landing, guns but little ammo. Well, Kennedy, told the supply ships to back home.... leaving the "troops" recruited, trained, and sent by Kennedy there with no ammo, food, or anybody to talk to on their walky-talkies. Then John's buddy Castro came in and mopped them all up. STRANDED, screwed, blued and tatooed and watching the ship's leave with a "curly salute" and a kyuk, kyuk, kyuk..... Ah!.... did'nt know about that eh!.

The 3 stooges in American politics, John, Bobby, and the inimitable Teddy..... Beverly Hillbillies of Tax-e-chuettes, out shooting for some food, except what came up was CRUD, (not crude), they already had the money.

And to this day children, a pork bellyied double ought spy stills lurks the halls of the Senate... the Jethro Bodine of the idle rich, Teddy Kennedy.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a Moron, but Teddy is beneath contemp.

Have a nice day.....

37 posted on 10/19/2002 9:30:51 AM PDT by hosepipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Only If We Were In It For VICTORY!General Douglas A.MacArthur said that "In War,There Is No Sustitute For Victory"!!
38 posted on 10/19/2002 10:11:35 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
... because I refuse to believe that so many
brave Americans lost their lives their
needlesly.

"I refuse to believe" is the refuge
of the cornered.

39 posted on 10/19/2002 11:46:03 AM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
"...cornered."

Perhaps, but for #33, where I meant, "totalitarian".

40 posted on 10/19/2002 1:43:52 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
The biggest mistake we ever made was to allow France to keep Indochina as a colony after WWII. France would not have joined NATO, if the US didn't allow them to have Indochina. In retrospect, this was bad for two reasons, 1 of course is that we let the French into NATO, and 2 it set us up to attempt to clean up the mess left after Dien Bien Phu.
41 posted on 10/19/2002 1:50:39 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Some here seem to discount the importance of Vietnam. Cam Ranh Bay has figured in our history for a long time, but far more in the history of SE Asia. We all know what happened as a result of the Japanese landing there. Cam Ranh is one of the best natural harbors in the world. One reason why it didn't take the USSR long before they began parking their subs there, after the fall of Saigon. And would it not be crucial now, in the War on Terror?

I always find the issuance of Ho Chi Minhs March,1946 Order to be very interesting. He actually authorized the French to come back in (the North) and assisted them in destroying the Nationalist Vietnamese. Thousands were butchered. "Uncle Ho" as the left loves to call him not only was a founder of the Vietnamese Communist Party, but the French Communist Party as well.

The USA entered Vietnam as a member of SEATO. As did other nations. All were duty-bound to do so (come to the assistance of a member state). The North has ALWAYS been covetous of the South. They invaded numerous times in previous centuries. So many in fact, the South construction a couple of walls on the 17th Parallel to keep them out.

This from UNHERALDED VICTORY by Mark Woodruff:

"America's victories on the battlefield up until 1973 were overwhelmed by later events, and the sad fact is that Communist North Vietnam did later invade and conquer it southern neighbor. Those who predicted that the surrounding countries would fall like dominoes were proven wrong, but the world will never know if they might have fallen if America had not acted when it did. In 1994, Singapore's President Lee Kwan Yew noted that America's actions in Vietnam had given his country ten years to strengthen itself against the Communists, ten years without which Singapore might well have fallen. One can only speculate on how many other then-vulnerable states could also be added to the list."

42 posted on 10/19/2002 2:31:31 PM PDT by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
What you said! Bump
43 posted on 10/19/2002 5:32:31 PM PDT by CatoRenasci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: donozark
Quite happy to see you on this thread, as I've always appreciated your pinging me to related items in the past, and so am somewhat embarrassed that I didn't return the favor for this.

Your points about Cam Ranh Bay are very well met as a deep-water port on the cusp of the western Pacific to the Indian Ocean. Plus, the point you make concerning Singapore can hardly be questioned as asserted from such a unique perspective. One of even my current co-workers in Singapore readily attests to the assistance of the Israeli military in formulating that island's defensive strategies, as no one else had heretofore given them the time of day on that issue.

You'll undoubtedly realize that a good slice of my take on this issue is sociological over even military. This derives from my senses of the Vietnamese people during the war, which - I think to my credit now as I was then a dumb kid - were as greatly reinforced for me during my return trip there in APR 2000 (re#33). You're especially right when you say that, "The North has ALWAYS been covetous of the South." When I went to Hanoi on the final leg of that latter trip, I really sensed their differences. The northerners are decidedly colder and bureaucratic to the point where one could almost feel their notions of superiority.

Yet I'm still optimistic that truth for them will out, and that their latest generation of leaders will yet realize that in order to engage in real terms with the world that their people will have to be freer, because that is the only way that capitalism works. And even in this the realization that capitalism is going to be the way of the world.

I actually hope the same for the Chinese to the north, but still hold out more hope to such ends for the Vietnamese as I truly believe them to be a hardier people.

Everything hopefully as even marking the greater Good to you and yours.

44 posted on 10/19/2002 11:09:11 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
i've always despised JFK, not so much for the reasons you all have stated (good as they were), but because he unleashed that evil, psychotic, insane lyndon banes johnson on america. LBJ singlehandedly destroyed america's worldwide respect and reputation. we were a laughing stock until the 1980's, and we're still quagmired in the War on Prosperity, as i call it. rot in hell, FDR and LBJ. hope carter and x42 will join you shortly.
45 posted on 10/19/2002 11:19:15 PM PDT by Nayt2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Well, my semantics were a bit off, as I realized after I posted that. I meant to say, "most people, including some on this website, will not stand up..." etc.

Regardless, Kennedy's policies w/r/t Cuba/Vietnam make me see red every time I think about them - primarily, I think, because I lived through it, couldn't see what was going on while it was right there under my nose (even though I couldn't stand him and the whole "Camelot" schlockfest at the time), and came far too late to a realization of what he'd done...

46 posted on 10/19/2002 11:34:45 PM PDT by fire_eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
It wasnot a mistake. The French were not the communists, and to get them to join NATO to help fight the Soviets we ahdto assist them.

By the way I see that you are CATO, that means you don't know history, have sorry opinions on foreign policy, but on economics ahve it about right. (As in CATO institue, a joke, yet serious)

MacArthur also wanted to use a nucelar radiataion belt to keep the Chinese from crossing the Yalu. MacArthur was a brillant operational thinker, but at the strategic level he couldn't sind his @ss with both hands.

We got involed when Ike sent advisors first to Vietnam.
Kennedy just upped the advisor count. Before 64' there was no question about American INVOLVEMENT, just about intervention, full blown @ss militarily.

Abrahms from 69' to 70' after the Cambodia invasion, through securing of the villages, and the Phoenix Program(Go read Moyar's Birds of Prey, and don't beleive the assaniation myths)won the damn war. We lost it politically when Ted Kennedy and the Dems halved supplies for the ARVN. The ARVN could not operate on these low supply levels, they ran out of bullets. The end.
47 posted on 10/22/2002 7:39:47 AM PDT by Ridgeway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
He was a communist. period. Look at his speeches to the communist party in the 30's and 40's. The guy was lying to us. Like a brutal dictator isn't capable of lying? LOL
48 posted on 10/22/2002 7:42:00 AM PDT by Ridgeway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
Then the US proceeded to give the freedom seeking Hungarians ZERO support. We were all talk, and no action.

Same with Czechoslovakia 1968.

49 posted on 10/22/2002 7:47:25 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RLK
I guess under ideal conditions, any war is easy to win. We didn't have ideal conditions, as you stated. The reason we lost, is because that's the way it was. I think it is more realistic to plan with what one has, than with what one wants.
50 posted on 10/22/2002 7:47:36 AM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson