2007-09-14 15:07:11 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
no there still voiceing there opinon to day on nam , you cant sweep dirt under the rug and exspect it to go away
2007-09-14 15:11:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Since Viet Nam, America has had a good relationship with the military. Up until Iraq, when the liberals began to bash the seated President, nothing was said negative about any military person.
First of all, they follow orders. Don't matter if its a four star General or a four strip Petty Officer, they all follow orders. They may not like the orders but they follow them. How many of you work in a job and do things you don't like, but follow orders from your boss???
Congress killed 54,000 plus people in Viet Nam. They lost the war when they tried to run it from Capitol Hill. You cant second guess the people who are in charge and in country. If Congress and the President give the military clear and concise orders on what they want done, get the hell out of their way and let them do their mission.
In Nam, Congress would stop the bombing of Hanoi for weeks at a time. Then they would start it again and we would lose B52's, F4's and such, cause all kinds of SAM'S sites were moved in during the bombing halts.
You cannot have civilians run a war. Give the military their directions and get out of their business.
2007-09-14 15:15:17 · answer #2 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
During the Kosovo air war, some of the generals were criticized for putting the US into a situation where a ground invasion of Yugoslavia might be required. However, Milosevic surrendered before that became necessary, so the criticism faded.
2007-09-14 15:11:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not at all. There has been a lot of criticism directed towards generals since Vietnam. Schwartzkauf (sp?) had a LOT of criticism directed towards him during the first Gulf War as well as many of his subordinate generals.
2007-09-14 15:16:50 · answer #4 · answered by Patriotic Libertarian 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes it was. General Westmoreland demanded that give body counts to prove that we killed so many of the Viet cong which was used to prove that we were winning the war. People took to the streets and were arrested because they protested the war.
2007-09-15 05:37:01 · answer #5 · answered by John 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
reagan had his iran contra parties -- vice admiral poindexter (i am not making that up) and little ollie north his lieutenant colonel were about the finest examples of how to tow a line you could have. ollie even tried to run for congress on his popularity. contrary to popular belief jane fonda was never a general and never waged a war.
2007-09-14 15:24:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Robert J has a short memory. Apparently he doesn't remember that Republicans whined about Clinton's decision to go into the former Yugoslavia in the mid- to late-1990s.
2007-09-14 15:13:19 · answer #7 · answered by hansblix222 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
They disagreed with Gen Westmoreland. No war is popular and the leaders always take some bashing.
2007-09-14 15:12:08 · answer #8 · answered by Bill 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Patton had quite a few people disagreeing with him.
2007-09-14 15:35:59 · answer #9 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, seems so...
No one seems to have a problem with anything anymore, as long as their cell phone works and daddy gives them there allowance..........
2007-09-14 15:14:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋