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

[ ] A Succession of democratic presidents' activities and failures put us there
[ ]. Liberals whined the whole time for us to get out
[ ] Hollywoods nut jobs whined to get out
[ ] hillbilly clinton protested against america while abroad
[ ] the american media was used by the North Vietnamese to influence he ignorant among us supporting withdrawal
[ ] Military leaders warned of a blood bath if we withdrew
[ ] More than 2 million men, women, and children classified as South Virtnamese sympathizers were slaghtered by the North after we left.
[ ] Liberals count it as a victory for them regardless of the dead
[ ] It is the model of how ll wars against the us will be fought , ie, americas enemies+liberals+media vs us military
[ ] All of the above.

2007-09-10 17:22:09 · 10 answers · asked by Libsuc 3 in Politics & Government Politics

Hey dumdum-if you are so myopic you can't see the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, you name is more appropriate than quaint or cute.

If we use your lack of logic, we would I suppose also forget about the civil war-oh I forgot, libs right history to suit todays needs so we would keep that one, right mo?

2007-09-10 17:46:40 · update #1

10 answers

All of the above. We must be experiencing Dejavu.

2007-09-10 17:28:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

want truth? Lets modify:
1. A succession of PRESIDENTS' activities and failures put us there. That means both repubs and dems, check your history sometime. In fact, Eisenhower, a republican president, is well known for having contributed to the initiation of that war.
2. Thank god they did!
3. Nut jobs? Any names? Now you think we should've stayed, do you? Great stuff, lets stay and lose more soldiers in the worst war in our history. Cause that light at the end of the tunnel is getting that much closer, so lets just see it through and kill more Southeast Asians while we're at it!
4. Hillbilly? Be reasonable. He wasn't the only one. In fact, many conservatives were well known for protesting, at home and abroad, the war that was among the most unpopular in our history. Guess what the other most unpopular war is? I'll give you 2 guesses, and the first doesn't count.
5. So, the North Vietnamese manipulated our media into taking pictures of corpses. Our media wouldn't have pictured them otherwise, so I say tahnks to them, it's important for these people to be known, and I'm glad they were. So if you're right, thank them like I am. Oh, and Agent Orange is just a farce too, right? No one came back full of tumors.
6. Yeah, they also said it was currently a bloodbath. At least the country somewhat stabilized over time. And if you haven't noticed, they didn't attack us here, ever. So the reason for going there is lost on me (no, it wasn't to protect S. Vietnam).
7. And that wouldn't have changed if we hadn't left. Or maybe it would, except those numbers would only be N. Vietnamese. Of course, though, you would deem them less worthwhile lives.
8. And many conservatives wanted to go back and have more dead. So less bodies for us, I count that as a win.
9. Yeah, we all hate the military so much, don't we? Provide some examples. Democrats and republicans alike have supported and opposed the war at various times. So how do you say "liberals" are the only ones against it? And obviously it isn't a good model, because we're following the past pretty much word for word. A bad model is normally not followed down the line, but this is much like Hitler deciding to invade Russia. He thought it would be a good idea, despite Napoleon's dramatic past failure. Sounds similar doesn't it?
Now, stop blaming liberals for past problems. Start looking to what actually happened. Don't ignore things like Agent Orange or the terrible massacres that occurred over there.

2007-09-10 17:37:59 · answer #2 · answered by whiteflame55 6 · 0 1

The last seven years (!) of the Vietnam war were orchestrated by Nixon and Ford. Both Republicans. You think we could have won in Vietnam. It was impossible. The South Vietnamese were corrupt, the South Vietnamese army was poorly led and, as in Iraq, America didn't have any idea about the Vietnamese.

And what have been the long term consequences of the North Vietnamese winning? A "Favored Nation" trading partner, a tourist destination and growing freedom (albeit, slowly).

People who try to rewrite history to fit their own current agendas will make fools of themselves. And your GOP heroes today avoided the war - Bush, Cheney, Rush, O'Reilley.

2007-09-10 17:45:04 · answer #3 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 0 0

Unfortunately, I believe that regardless of the provocation or possible consequences, all present wars and any wars in the future will be fought on two fronts - the battle front against our enemies by the military and the political home front against the liberals.
Unfortunately because it's extremely difficult to achieve a military victory when you're losing an enemy driven, public relations war on the home front.

2007-09-10 17:52:08 · answer #4 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1 0

Correction. The estimates are 3 million killed in Laos, Cambodia and S. Vietnam. Pol Pot, Shinning Path and the N.V.A.

Additional. For "I was not a Nazi" below. The North was ready to sue for peace when the Democrat Congress, communist sympathizers, refused to fund the troops. This embolden the North to hold out longer. Our troops never lost a battle in Vietnam. If you weren't there don't try to tell us that were what happened.

2007-09-10 17:30:53 · answer #5 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 5 1

"All of the above" isn't correct. In February, 1955 President Eisenhower's administration sent the first U.S. advisers to South Vietnam to train the South Vietnamese Army. Eisenhower was a Republican.

2007-09-10 17:38:11 · answer #6 · answered by OPad 4 · 2 1

58,000 service personnel were killed in Viet Nam. They gave their lives for a war that we had no business fighting. Any more than we need to be in Iraq. Both wars are (were) micro managed from Washington. One of these days we will learn to leave countries to work out their own problems. The only time I see us intervening is in places like Dar fur where there is wholesale genocide and racial cleansing. Actually none of your choices have any facts to back them up.

2007-09-10 17:35:50 · answer #7 · answered by NavyVet64 2 · 2 2

Yes, let's go back in time to take us away from the harsh realities of the present, why don't we? Can we please speak about more current issues? Why not go back to whining about Clinton again--at least that's only eight years off.

2007-09-10 17:35:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

you left out lady bird Johnson owner of haliburton
did not want to lose assets in Vietnam and Cambodia

2007-09-10 17:29:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

All of the above!

2007-09-10 17:28:17 · answer #10 · answered by Pinyon 7 · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers