Actually, Eisenhower got the USA involved in Vietnam in 1958, not JFK as someone else stated above. Kennedy inherited Vietnam and planned to pull out. Johnson, who was preoccupied with communism, sent combat troops to Vietnam. Up until then, the USA only supplied arms and advisers to South Vietnam.
There are more similarities between GWB and LBJ than any other presidents. They both came from Texas. They both ran up an enormous national debt. They both got the USA involved in an ever escalating war. They both polarized the nation.
2007-07-25 08:48:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by Perplexed Bob 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes, thankfully he is no JFK. That would be bad. No there is absolutely no basis of comparison between the two conflicts you cite. Vietnam had an order of magnitude more losses. Our presence in those conflicts is needed for completely different reasons. Iraq, is largely terrorism containment, and as is evidenced by the lack of it here, it works well.
The economy is doing great, the stock market is booming, national security has been bulletproof since the Clinton-preventable 911 attack,unemployment is at an all time low. yep, those are just a few things you can blame President Bush for.
2007-07-25 08:39:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
There are similarities between Bush and Nixon, and Iraq and Vietnam. The biggest difference to me is that Iraq is not over, there is no draft and civil unrest is contained. I don't support Bush, but I don't hate him either. I respect the rules of the president to serve 4 year terms, and I look forward to 2008.
2007-07-25 08:37:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Pfo 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Umm, Nixon got us out of Vietnam. JFK got us INTO Vietnam (you know, because he's a great president and all), and his former vice president, Johnson, was the one who really escalated that war.
Or are you making this comparison because you don't know what you're talking about and since Nixon's known for Watergate and therefore known as a "bad" president you want to mindlessly rip Bush and compare him to Nixon? Yep, sounds like that's what's going on!
2007-07-25 08:38:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
No Nixon promised to pull out of Vietnam on a plan, Bush put us into the war but no out plan. The Iraq war is not like Vietnam, in Vietnam, a lot more people died in the everyday activities, but however it is the same in the way that the terrorists are using geurilla tactics. Someone once said, "In Organized warfare, if you don't winm you lose; but in guerilla, if you don't lose, you win"
2007-07-25 08:37:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by James H 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
JFK or Johnson...they both escalated us from a few hundred troops in Vietnam to several thousand and a full-blown war. It was Nixon who got us out of there.
Abe Lincoln, by the way, was Republican. My favorite quote from Lincoln: "If fight makes right, then let us to the end dare to do our duty." Sound like something Bush might say.
2007-07-25 08:37:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Granny Gruntz 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well seeing as Bush took us into Iraq and Nixon inherited Vietnam I don't really understand the comparison.
2007-07-25 08:37:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by Brian 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
George Bush does not have anything in common with Nixon (other than party affiliation?). The Iraq war is not like Viet Nam because in Viet Nam, the goal was to simply hold the border between North and South Viet Nam and prevent the spread of Communism. We are in Iraq up to our neck.
2007-07-25 08:36:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
YOU SHOULD THANK GOD THAT HE'S NO KENNEDY. JFK ESCALATED THE WAR IN VIETNAM. SENDING THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN TROOPS TO THEIR DEATH. 56THOUSAND PLUS DIED AS A RESULT OF JFK'S INTERVENTION IN VIETNAM. LEARN YOUR HISTORY.
John F. Kennedy won the 1960 U.S. presidential election. In his inaugural address, Kennedy made the ambitious pledge to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty." In May, 1961, Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson visited Saigon and enthusiastically declared Diem the "Winston Churchill of Asia."Asked why he had made the comment, Johnson replied, "****! Diem's the only boy we got out there. " Johnson assured Diem of more aid, in order to mold a fighting force that could resist the communists.
Kennedy's policy towards South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that "to introduce U.S. forces, in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences."
The quality of the South Vietnamese military, however, remained poor. Bad leadership, corruption and political interference all played a part in emasculating the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). The frequency of guerrilla attacks rose, as the insurgency gathered steam. Hanoi's support for the NLF played a significant role. But South Vietnamese governmental incompetence was at the core of the crisis. Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow recommended that U.S. troops be sent to South Vietnam disguised as flood relief workers. Kennedy rejected the idea, but increased military assistance yet again. In April, 1962, John Kenneth Galbraith warned Kennedy of the "danger we shall replace the French as a colonial force in the area and bleed as the French did." By mid-1962, the number of U.S. military advisers in South Vietnam had risen from 700 to 12,000.
EISENHOWER SENT 500 AMERICAN ADVISORS INTO VIETNAM. JFK ESCALATED IT BY SENDING IN 16,000 TROOPS. THEN LBJ SENT IN THE REST.
2007-07-25 08:44:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by strike_eagle29 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
The left has worked overtime and in conjunction with the media to make Iraq equal to Vietnam, at least in the mind of as many Americans as possible.
2007-07-25 08:36:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋