Id is almost correct. It depends upon what aspect of war you are talking about.
Roosevelt sent OSS (forerunner of the CIA) operatives into Vietnam in 1944 to train and arm the Viet Minh (Ho Chi Minh and General Giap) to fight against the Japanese.
Truman sent arms and airforce personnel into Vietnam in 1948 to assist the French fight against the Viet Minh.
Eisenhower violated the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Indochina with CIA operatives in the North of the 17th parallel and installing President Diem in power and arming him and supplying advisers etc.
JFK increased the number of advisers, both military and civilian.
LBJ escalated the war by sending in more troops and increased their role to open combat.
Tricky Dicky initially increased the role of the military then slowly decreased the number of troops and negotiated, through Kissinger, a peace agreement.
Ford was in power when the Vietnam war finished.
2007-09-25 17:29:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Walter B 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You can't put the blame on party politics. I think their are unknown elements which are to blame for these wars. The French were getting tired of Viet Nam and the USA conveniently came along to grab the baton. That doesn't sound like party politics. As for the democrats having a mandate, it is not from the public but of their own making. A mandate is an overwhelming majority supporting an issue. Bush is having the same problem. His polls are way down but still treats the Iraq war like a mandate. However sometimes there are dangers the public is not aware of. But we must not point fingers and blame people to even the score.
2007-09-25 11:13:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by JesusIsTheAnswer 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Both are to blame as if they had just tested out a Communist Party it would have had truoble suceeding anyway and this would have avoided the mess. Iraq is more complicated as only the citizens can end it by not using oil. Citizens who want to avoid future unecessary oil wars will have to ration oil or use the railways again for transport. only reason they were gone was oil was discovered. The we wont do anthing cause everyone else is using oil attituide has to end. Oil is about to run out
2007-09-25 11:14:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by darren m 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
De-funding the war is a Republican trap. If the Democrats do that, Fox News will run stories about the troops not having ammunition or food. We need a time table to pull out.
2016-05-18 03:54:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
correct. It was JFKs fight. However, when they had the chance to pull out, Nixon and cronies did not. In fact they escalated combat, conducted covert ops and bombings in cambodia, displacling that government and setting up the Killing Fields, and sent more US soldiers to die in the last few years than had died up to that point. So yeah the democrats started it. Doesn't justify Bush starting this one. At least Viet Nam had some sort of point.
2007-09-25 11:11:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by BROOOOOKLYN 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes. -With ONE caveat; it STILL took a Republican SIX YEARS to get out of Vietnam - and even THEN- only because he was THROWN OUT OF OFFICE. Johnson at least had the Courtesy NOT to run again- when he realised that Vietnam was a mistake. We might STILL BE in Vietnam- if Nixon hadn't been Impeached.
2007-09-25 11:10:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by Joseph, II 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Correct. But it shows the Republicans learned nothing from Vietnam.
2007-09-25 11:27:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Simplistic analysis, simplistic replies.
Politics got the US into both wars. Oil and a willingness to tell and a willingness to ignore lies helped for Iraq. Fear by the sheeple made it all that much easier.
Eisenhower, a republican, sent the first US troops to VN, not many, but he started it.
2007-09-25 15:05:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by Sp II Guzzi 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Vietnam was probably Bush's fault too. Just Kidding.
2007-09-25 11:08:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by I wanna talk to Samson 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Essentially, that is correct.
2007-09-25 11:28:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by your_dear_old_mother 5
·
0⤊
1⤋