Why can't LIBERALS put the war in its proper historical perspective?

Question

I understand that most Americans today are victims of the public education system, which refuses to teach kids to think of current situations in terms of historical perspective, but that's a poor excuse. You should always try to educate yourself, and that doesn't mean CNN, Fox News, or Air America.

Most people, but liberals in particular, try to pretend that this war is different, that's it's a unique situation that the U.S. is practically going it alone. As though every other war was everybody versus one bad guy.

To put it in perspective, when the U.S. entered WWII only England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and Russia were on our side. That's it. The entire rest of Europe and large parts of Asia were already under the control of the Axis. Who were our allies in Vietnam and Korea, or the Revolutionary War?

Can people put this in the proper persepctive for once and leave current politics out of it?

"rednotdead1976" ... thanks for the post. I'm not familiar with that, I'll check it out.

"therandman" ... I think, unfortunately, you may be correct.

Answer 1

Liberal history started in November 2000 after BUSH stole the election. They have no other perspective.

Answer 2

.

Mainly, because this war isn't history yet! At least, in WW11 , we had the illusion that we were the good guys. Propaganda doesn't work so well, anymore. Korea was an absolute tragedy. Vietnam a debacle of the first order. Ah, we were learning! NOT!

This war is political, with oil and profiteering it's primary motives. 9/11 gave this administration just the impetuous it needed to gain an American military presence in Iraq, totally disregarding the fact that none of the terrorists were Iraqui, that Osama is a Saudi and Saudi oil money financed 9/11.

Leave politics out of it? Impossible!

Answer 3

The way you present this argument is troubling because it suggest a very basic knowledge of history.

Your argument is that Iraq is not very different from other US engagements.

The US borrowed and depended extensively on the French during the revolutionary war...

True we were the primary forces in Vietnam but as you know Ho Chi Min wanted to set up western style democracy and even wrote to FDR for help during WW2, after which the US back the French to recolonize and as they were our allies and later on we entered Vietnam.

Sadam never wanted to be Western style democracy.

Your example of WW2, puzzling i not sure what point your trying to make except that it was 5 countries versus the German, Japanese, Italians, Spanish to a small degree.

Besides in order for your example to be valid in comparison to Iraq,
The US would have had to attacked Germany before any attack on US Soil or Territory.
Whereas our county was attacked by Japan, a nation state able to sign treaties and surrender

versus the war on terror which is a tactic, not a country or state, for example the people attacking our troops who are they and how do we determine victory, who will sign the surrender or peace treaty?

This statement just seems conflated.

Answer 4

Just to correct you on one point- Ireland was offically neutral during the Second World War, so while many Irish men and women joined the British army, Eamon Devalera used neutrality as a means of underlining the independence of the Irish Free State, as it was called at the time, had recently won from Britain less than a decade before.

Answer 5

Proper perspective?

WW II was nation against nation. When Berlin fell, the war ended because we decapitated the head of a government. The same for Japan.

Baghdad fell in March of 2003, over 3 years ago. Explain that.

Answer 6

can conservatives just admit this was a bad idea to start with?

that is, invading a nation for no good reason other than to "DO SOMETHING" post 9/11

the real threats to american interests are in korea, iran and parts of south america

there was no plan, no clear objective, faulty intelligence or a disregard for intelligence, no plan for withdrawl from iraq, no budget for the war, nothing except halliburton and other oil interest companies wanting to profiteer from the war

please please stop pointing to the fact that mr. hussein is a bad guy, your poster boy reagan armed saddam hussein to the hilt in the 80s, and when iraq DID have WMDs then.... and used them on the kurds, we sat idly by and did nothing

simultaneously regan and bush sr. offered financial aid to gruesome dictators in south america who were no worse that hussein

when YOU can consider history, and realize that this will be viewed as just another quagmire, one in which we cannot even abandon with any more respect than vietmam, mabye then you can preach this b.s.

Answer 7

Yahoo wishes - You said it so right when you said, "Why can't Liberals put the war in its proper historical perspective?" I firmly believe it is not that they can't it is that they won't, too much of what has happened in history from a war stand point has too many Liberal hands in the works, Harry Truman tried to save the French in Vietnam but failed as Communist China took more land and then Dwight Eisenhower refused to allow or honor a Geneva accord that would essentially make all Vietnam Communist. Kennedy sends in more troops to train the south Vietnamese. While saber rattling with the Russian who are helping the North Vietnam and Laos. The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman administration. Kennedy is assassinated.

Johnson appointed William Westmoreland to be in charge of the Army in Vietnam in June 1964 when he succeeded Paul D. Harkins. Troop strength under Westmoreland was to rise from 16,000 in 1964 to more than 500,000 when he left following the Tet Offensive in 1968. On July 27, 1964 5,000 additional U.S. military advisors were ordered to South Vietnam bringing the total to 21,000.

The massive escalation of the war from 1964 to 1968 was justified on the basis of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident on August 2-4, 1964 in which the Johnson Administration claimed U.S. ships were attacked by the North Vietnamese. The accuracy of that claim is still hotly debated and discussed further in the Gulf article.

On the basis of the attack the U.S. Senate approved the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on 7 August 1964, which gave broad support to President Johnson to escalate U.S. involvement in the war "as the President shall determine". The resolution passed unanimously in the House of Representatives and was opposed in the Senate by only Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska. In a televised speech, Morse asserted that history would show that he and Gruening were serving "the best interests of the American people". In a separate televised address, President Johnson claimed, "the challenge that we face in South-East Asia today is the same challenge that we have faced with courage and that we have met with strength in Greece and Turkey, in Berlin and Korea, in Lebanon and in Cuba." National Security Council members, including Robert McNamara, Dean Rusk, and Maxwell Taylor agreed on November 28, 1964, to recommend Johnson adopt a plan for a two-stage escalation of bombing in North Vietnam.

Nikon got us out of Vietnam - just do the research it is all out there. By the way Democrats 3 Republicans 2 depending on your point of view again not a historical perspective here but Dem out did Republicans in causing the damages in vietnam.

This is so very true of all wars - principles are usually involved ie. Freedom from oppression, freedom of religion, how about just plane simply freedom to do as one pleases so long as it does no harm to another individual.

Answer 8

Liberals can't put ANYTHING into perspective: Taxes, marriage, jobs, etc. They forget that Kennedy was the one who escalated Vietnam. They forget that FDR got us into WW II. They just forget whatever they don't want to have used against them.

Answer 9

Why doesn't it suprise me that you're so obsessed with putting down the politically correct and putting your boytoy on a pedestal? Lemme put it to you like this, why don't you, Nickyraage, Menifeedave, and Turbowedgie go on, kidnap Bush, and have your way with him? I'm quite suprised you're all so anti-gay rights...

Answer 10

Most liberals only say and do what their leaders tell them too..they don't have a clue..that's why they can only chant slogans.
They are total followers...they couldn't think on their own if they had too