Bush thinks the USA should have stayed in Vietnam. Do you agree?

Question

Bush announced today that the USA should have stayed in Vietnam. Do you agree?

How does this make you feel about the outcome in Iraq?

PI Gray, were you even listening to the speech? Read the transcript at whitehouse.org, moron.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTE5MjMzMTFlYmIyZGE2MzQ4YWUyMTM1MmJiNmFkYTQ=

Sorry, it wasn't whitehouse.org Correct Link is above.

Answer 1

Rosebee, Yeah I saw that on the news ! Jerk, like Iraq we never should have been there. The United Nations should have handled it !

Answer 2

When the US pulled out of Vietnam, South Vietnam was beginning to get a head of North Vietnam... The South was able to hold back the North for a short time but without American support they were taken over . the result was millions of South Vietnamese were put into concentration camps sold into slavery or tortured than murdered.. In Cambodia over four million were slaughtered.. Do I want this same result for the Iraqi population... NO I don't.. We see it through not feed them to the dogs...Was South Vietnam a true Democracy.. no , not really but a dang lot better then Ho Chi Minh and his government... I guess there are a few similarities in the fact that the surge in Iraq is working,South Vietnam was getting the upper hand.. Both instances the Democrats want us to tuck tail and run.. We did in Vietnam..

Answer 3

The problem here is that liberals have been teaching dogma as history. Here are the FACTS:

The US won the war in Vietnam. Nixon ignored you radicals and forced the North Vietnamese to the table. He negotiated an end to the war and set up a secure border between north and south vietnam, ending the hostilities.

All offensive US military forces were pulled out of Vietnam, and South Vietnam was developing a stable govt, free from attack from the North.

Nixon was forced out of office. The Democrats took the Congress.

The Democratic Congress CUT OFF ALL AID to the South Vietnamese govt. At this time THE WAR HAD BEEN WON AND ALL US MILITARY FORCES HAD LEFT THE COUNTRY.

Recognizing this signal from the Democratic Allies, North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam once again. President Ford fought to get renewed aid to the South Vietnamese, but the Dems refused to allow any aid.

South Vietnam fell to the Communists. Tens, or possibly hundreds, of thousands of South Vietnamese who had worked the the Americans were killed or imprisoned.

As in Iraq, the Dems have invested their political hopes in the belief that America will lose the war. As in Vietnam, good news for the US is BAD NEWS FOR THE DEMOCRATS. Shame on you.

Answer 4

Nope, while there was some bloodshed in the area until things settled down the dominos didn't fall and now Vietnam is getting a taste of capitalism. They have a totalitarian regime but people have more to spend today and aren't afraid to go out of their homes lest they be blown up. In Iraq there will be continued bloodshed if we leave and the region will be a little unstable for awhile but things will settle down and no more American blood will be shed.

While today, the Vietnamese dominate much of the semiconductor manufacturing industry the Arabs will be the next big bunch of refugees and who knows where they will end up. What idustry will they take up? Don't like Arabs, don't like Muslims? Wars cause refugees and refugees often end up in your neighborhood.

Answer 5

a million. Saddam became continuously a risk! he all started the Iraq/Iran conflict interior the eighty's. And Gulf conflict a million. 2.supply "the surge" time to paintings. Who ever suggested it could be person-friendly? 3. Pres. Bush under no circumstances lied. The U.N and different countries believed Saddam ahd WMD's there. Saddam used them in the process the Iran/Iraq conflict AND his very own human beings.(the Kurds!)The U.N. became sluggish to envision for them! Saddam moved them to Syria. 4. A dumb butt assertion. 5. yet another dumb butt assertion. 6. the sole "conflict" goin on in Iraq is in and around Baghdad! 7. I trust this assertion. in basic terms time will tell for them to "get it jointly". 8. This assertion is only as out of your butt as #'s 4 & 5. This aint the 60's!!

Answer 6

If Bush feels we should have stayed in Vietnam, why did he not enlist, instead of hiding behind his father? at what point was this "Armchair Captain America" going to step in? He was a man of fighting age at the time. Bush needs to be quiet about this issue. He needs to bring this war he has on his plate to a succesfull conclusion, which I doubt will happen under his presidency.

Answer 7

Vietnam seems to have devolved into a civil war LONG before we got involved - we shouldn't have stepped into that (as a civil war) and I believe the same advice applies to Iraq. We have no business picking sides in civil wars. That's the surest way to prolong them.

Edit: and Anderson, we, as outsiders, can't win or lose somebody else's civil wars just like we can't win or lose an occupation. You're using the wrong words to bolster your buddy.

Edit2: Interesting speech - reading that I'd almost think that we gave a crap (at the time) about Cambodia - we did not and truly, Cambodia *was* the bigger atrocity. Look at the two countries today. (okay, correction - we *cared* enough to stop Nixon's illegal bombing, but we let them keep all the g/d land mines).

Answer 8

Yes we had it won and in the Tet offensive the cut and run Commie Democrats who started the war pulled the funding just like they tried to again so they could secure defeat as the left owns defeat.

But thank GOD they did not have enough votes and the news now is less on Iraq by he drive by media as we are today up to the full influx of troops and it has been working.

Since you must work for a cut and run Lib why don't you tell us who you work for seeing the news is good and we are winning this is bad for you. Just like that ugly man James Carvel said it was bad for the left as it gets better.

And yes the left are pulling out their Commie left wing so called Historians to say that the lies they tell are true but Bush put in for the first time strait and true.

If you do not want to believe me than read your hero ma Ho chi min's Bio where he says they were ready to surrender but the left and our drive by media secure our defeat just like you want now.

But when we where hit in the 1990's under Clinton while Monica was under him " twin towers, Mogadishu, USS Cole. 2 Embassies and then 911 we will never forget. And if you wan defeat than go to France and speak Arabic or learn Farsi as you will have to leave under Shari and be some Muslims’ play toy and be beat in his Harem and hen is is done with you he will sell you or kill you as you will be his to do what he wants. And on a personal note this might be good for all of the NAG's of the left.

Finally Bush came out with the facts and not playing your game. And guess what Iran is next and Hillary knows this which is why she flips from one side to the other. And Obama bin laden is ready to surrender to Shari before he wins here which he will not or any one on the left.

Answer 9

Ofcourse he would say that HE wasn't there...! My step-dad served 5 tours as a Green Beret in Vietnam and a lifer in the army.. I believe he feels completely different than the president ! Just ask someone whose really been there.... !

Answer 10

If the war in Vietnam was so righteous,
why did he have his Daddy get him into the gaurd which was closed to everyone else in the state of Texas?
why did he go A W O L
instead of wasting 1/2 million dollars being trained as a fighter pilot only to shirnk from that duty?

Answer 11

Bush and anything he thinks I give no credence to.

I wonder if we had stayed in Viet Nam if even he, chicken that he is, would have to have gone to fight.

How dare he second guess another president when he is such a poor one himself.