English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

President Johnson messed the thing up, so congress deciede to fix things. That made things worse. We have one commander in chief and he has made mistakes, but if you check past history they come to their senses and come up with a good plan.
I'm not going mention names because people will accuse me of comparing him to them and he is no where as good.

2007-03-08 17:25:34 · 7 answers · asked by rastus7742 4 in Politics & Government Military

7 answers

Which one? The French fought a war in Vietnam for about 20 years. Then the US took over and fought another ten. I think few people remember the French war even though it was much bloodier and beastlier than the US intervention. The French basically blew up, mutilated, incinerated, and poisoned over a million Vietnamese. The US did not do much there. Most of US history about the war is fabrication, braggadocio, collective hallucination, and childish wish fulfillment due of course to getting our butts whooped by a bunch of bushwhackers.

2007-03-08 17:49:29 · answer #1 · answered by randy_beastwood 1 · 0 1

Viet Nam was a war worth fighting, but it was approached with too little forces and too many political constraints on the troops (can't bomb Hanoi, can't chase VC into Cambodia or Laos). Because of these political decisions many more troops made the ultimate sacrafice than should have. This is regardless of whether it was Johnson or Congress.

But look what happened when Nixon took over. He started bombing Hanoi, increasing troop levels, and going into Laos and Cambodia and got the North Viet Nam government to agree to talks (because they were beginning to lose and had somebody who didn't care about the political fallout). It was congress that eventually sabotaged that progress by cutting funding. That ended with Nixon being forced to pull out and South Viet Nam becoming communist.

Now let's take Iraq. Not enough troops, can't secure the borders to stop insurgents, fighting a limited war (don't want too much collateral damage because that plays bad on CNN), and not keeping areas secured once we go through them. The result is the enemy has freedom to operate anywhere outside the base camps and can pick IED attacks when they want.

President Bush and his advisors figured this out, that's why they want a troop increase. That's why they are keeping areas secured as they systematically search them. That's why they want the Iraqi's to close the borders. They are trying to take away the enemy's ability to operate and IT IS WORKING! But becasue we are 4 years into this and there have been casualties, people are blaming Bush and wanting us to pull out without finishing the job.

American People must support the war, the Congress must support the war, and the President must be willing to take the heat and get the job done. Without these three Iraq could be an issue for many more years to come (or we withdraw in defeat).

Great question, hope this helps!

2007-03-09 02:04:06 · answer #2 · answered by Drop Zone 2 · 0 0

I remember that we couldn't bomb within a 12? mile radius of the Russian embassies (how many do you need in one country?) so guess where the VC based their operations and stockpiled all their munitions? Now we are playing the same game in the Middle East, one hand tied behind our back, and war protestors back home encouraging the insurgents into thinking there is some magic number at which we will turn and run away, so they can slaughter all those working for democracy in Baghdad, as happened in Vietnam (and neighboring Cambodia once they saw the USA was broken). Yes I hate how everyone wants to accuse you of being on one party side or the other, no intelligent debate, just insults.

2007-03-09 02:06:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Lyndon B. Johnson sucked azz. More blood on his hands then Lincolns. Vietnam in no way shape or form can be compared to the current war. Too many differences as well as the training of troops.

2007-03-09 01:42:49 · answer #4 · answered by Nasty Leg 2 · 0 0

Unfortunately, we're dealing with human lives here -- AMERICAN lives at that. As a country it is irresponsible to allow our troops to be killed in a war that we had no right to be in hoping that the commander-in-chief will figure it out eventually. I am a Republican who voted for Bush and I can't forgive myself or the party for doing this to the American people. We're a country of justice and we should act like it. I am a true patriot and I don't believe that sticking our boys in a meat grinder until Bush has an epiphany is the wise thing to do.

2007-03-09 01:37:37 · answer #5 · answered by kohai4 2 · 0 1

No i dont remember it. But I worked at a veterans hospital for a long time now. All i gotta say is even though the war was not justified, YOU CANNOT BLAME THE TROOPS, they were just doing their job. Well except the troops that performed illegal and racist war crimes.

2007-03-09 01:30:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Compairing to Bush, eh?

2007-03-09 01:33:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers