2006-07-12 19:40:11 · 16 answers · asked by ? 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Nixon Inherited the situation and ended it.
2006-07-12 19:49:26 · update #1
Many people thought that Vietnam went on far to long. It became a sore conversation for civilians and veterans. The reason America went to Vietnam was not the debate. However, the chaos that took place in that country was too much for many soldiers to cope with. And like Bush today, Kennedy and Johnson were 'Glory seekers'. Then and now, the situation that called for our military was ratified early on, but troops remained to 'Keep the Peace' - And Rebuild. Well I say bring them home.
I was a young child during Vietnam, as I am sure many of these people commenting were also young, if they were even born. But I am living today's war and I feel it is time to come home.
As for the war on terrorism...today's headline states, "Major, Major Escalation in the Middle East." so what are our soldiers stopping? Who are they protecting?
The answer to your question is; Every one has they're own opinion, and unless we are part of the solution... that's all it is, An Opinion.
My father fought and was wounded - he did not complain about his tour. Many friends and relatives have served and are currently serving - They are not complaining.. So, even though this is a good question, none of these answers will be correct, not even mine...All are Opinions...Without hearing it from some one over 50 it will not be an informed, fair answer...Any other age under that well, just to young to have fully understood at the time of Vietnam. Have a good day Lionheart.
2006-07-13 10:40:16 · answer #1 · answered by 4mom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
WRONG!!
Vietnam started long before either and if Kennedy had not been assassinated we probably would have never had troops in Vietnam!!
After the Bay of Pigs, JFK had a healthy disrespect for advice from Generals! He did not take their advice and invade Cuba, instead he blockaded them.
LBJ and the Lie about the Gulf of Tonkin got US combat troops involved in Vietnam
However, President Eisenhower, a Republican was the person who sent the first advisers! 100 of them. He was also the architect of the Domino Theory (1954)!!
Please tell me how Bush is fighting terrorism!! It wasn't in Iraq! Only Oil!!
"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... We haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
—Bush, answering a question about Osama bin Laden at a March 13, 2002 news conference.
2006-07-12 19:55:25 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What do party lines have to do with it? Plenty of registered Republicans don't like what Bush is doing, just as plenty of democrats didn't like how Vietnam was handled. You don't have to be a member of a certain party to screw up. And Johnson knew it and didn't run for a second term. Bush didn't have that humility.
But to throw it back - do the Republicans like how Nixon acted in the Vietnam War??
2006-07-12 19:47:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why no, they don't. And they don't like what Nixon did, either.
You may be too young to remember, but I went on many marches over the years, protesting the war, anywhere from 100,000 to a million people in the streets.
I wish the people who don't support the war would speak louder!
Fun fact: The latest spate of polls show that two-thirds of the American public want us to get out of Iraq.
2006-07-12 19:47:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Liberals like Bush as much as I liked Clinton for 8 years. Wouldn't have mattered which Republican was in office. Because of the war, they have more ammunition to fire at Bush. This country hasn't fought properly since WW2. We fight now with both hands tied behind out backs...
2006-07-12 19:48:29 · answer #5 · answered by David S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I seriously wouldn't have had any problems if Bush had actually kept fight Osama and his followers, had keep dogging them, had focused to capturing them.
Instead, when we had Osama surrounded, when we were there in Afghanistan, what did Bush do? He pulled back, put Osama's now unlikely capture in the hands of the local warlords and focused on taking Saddam out.
Its the same thing as fighting the Japanese during WWII, then suddenly deciding to pull back most of your army and navy to go invade Canada.
It was pure stupidity.
2006-07-12 20:09:59 · answer #6 · answered by Doc Watson 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Blah, blah! Democrats and republicans suck!
They both have caused enormous loss of American life. We need to concentrate more on defense than offensive strikes.
We are the most powerful force on Earth, but our spending on the current wars, is going to hurt us. American infrastructure is deteriorated to an extent we have inner city war crimes again.
look at Memphis, TN crime. Police are struggling to regain control of this region, from errant crime. Screw leader designations, we need action.
2006-07-12 20:00:06 · answer #7 · answered by phwar68 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NOBODY likes the way they (and Nixon) handled Viet Nam
2006-07-12 19:43:42 · answer #8 · answered by Paul P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no.
They needed to in brace North Vietnam not fight it. Have you not looked what they talk about today? They want to make us into North Vietnam. All I mean progressive.
2006-07-12 19:44:05 · answer #9 · answered by Craig 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Surprise most Republicans dont like bush either.. they just "support the president" no matter who it is
2006-07-12 19:43:47 · answer #10 · answered by Garrett E 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋