Well, there is no denying that the war ended while Nixon was running the show. But he took his sweet time bringing it to an end. When he ran against Humphrey in '68, he made it sound like if elected, the whole mess would go away overnight. As for it being a "Democratic fiasco".....arguable. I am not a scholar of that conflict.....very complex. But I am pretty sure that Eisenhower was the first to send advisors to help the French extricate themselves from the "fiasco" they were involved in forever. And if you prefer to put it on the Democrats because the real escalation happened under the watch of JFK and LBJ, then it is only fair to take a look at their advisors and members of the Joint Chiefs. I don't really think it was so much a Democratic or Republican mess. It was a cooperative effort of too many too eager soldiers and hawkish politicians. From both sides of the aisle. And of course, we can always blame he French. Because, truly, the fighting was originally about resistance to colonization. (In the name of religion.....as were virtually all wars). Any inaccuracies I apologize for in advance. These are just my own recollections. I was very young when I first became aware of what was going on there. I do remember that we were fighting in Laos, and I remember looking for it on a map. And I am pretty sure it was before Kennedy took office. I can count on Max to do my research for me, so I can get off this one easy. Thanks max. Peace, rs7
Well you brought this up: "That people want to believe that the Clinton administration was the worst in history..."
Please, this is totally specious. You had the JCS and the rest of the military completely rendered ineffective to stop Hanoi by virtue of LBJ's meddling, Robert McNamara's cost accounting and the infamous "bombing committee."
I am a bad man. What can I say? Mitigating circumstances....yeah, plenty. My friend was distraught because he lost $350k that day and to cheer him up I said I'd vote for Bush. Ever hear of compassion? Empathy? I was trying anything I could to get him out of his funk. So I made a stupid promise. And then a "blatant and open refusal"....blah, blah, blah.... I am a true villain. Please drop the subject. (Or tell us something about you personally max). You are going to give in to the instigators like Wild and whoever else is clamoring for you and me to start in again with each other? Not going to happen. You can shadow box if you want. Best I can do for you. Thanks
OK, thanks for clearing up my misconceptions. Like I said, I was just going by what and how I remembered things to be. But you have proven time and time again how poor my memory is But I do stick to my earlier assessment of McNamara. He ruined the Thunderbird. He was even more evil than I am. Peace, rs7
Nixon couldn't simply lay down arms and go home, it was a lot more complex than that. It's not a Dem fiasco because I "prefer" it; it was. Ike had a few hundred advisors by the end of his term and when he left office he warned Kennedy of the fiasco to come, but certainly not realizing that there would be 500,000 US troops involved. Nixon started withdrawing troops in 1969, even though troops were continually being withdrawn, Hanoi chose to launch major attacks in 1972. Even with total withdrawal by 1973, it still took Hanoi two years to completley take over South Vietnam.
Did you just protest the draft and your induction because it was "hip?" "But I do stick to my earlier assessment of McNamara. He ruined the Thunderbird. He was even more evil than I am." Well after the war, McNamara, by his own admission, confessed how much damage he had done and the many young lives his decisions cost, of course, those men's lives pales in comparison to your Thunderbird lament.
Actually, to be factual, which I know is your goal, you first responded to my comments concerning my guess that those who have an active sense of humor live longer lives, which Democrats do indeed have more of an active sense of humor than Republicans.....(do you doubt this? I am still waiting for a list of the intelligent funny Republicans, while without thinking it is easy to produce Democrats with wit and wisdom...in addition to the ranks of those artists who happen to be democrats and liberals who make their living writing, producing, and acting either in stand up comedy, or film, TV, or theater which is considered to exist in the comedy category.......)with this: "Probably because they lie about their age. Like Clinton's "I didn't have sex with that woman," fibbing about one's age is probably another of the Crat's non-lies." So, your focus was on lies, not administration, and my response had to do with the "lies" of an administration, not the success or failures in meeting their stated objectives for administration and execution of the Presidential Office.
Thanks for the thoughtful post - which reflects at least the beginning of the kind of strategic discussion that name-calling and readymade ideological diatribes tend to make difficult or impossible. I do disagree, however, with your seeming approval of Representative Paul's "questions." I found them both individually and on the whole to be misleading, presumptuous, manipulative, and shallow, where not so confused and incoherent as to be unintelligible. I suspect that, rightly or wrongly, the concerns you describe are very much what is driving Bush Administration policy. 9/11 and all that it symbolized and threatened may have made forestalling a public decision on long-term strategic issues much more difficult. On another thread, I commended an article that recently appeared in the NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE to those who desire a more "grown-up" view of the geopolitical situation. The author more or less takes the present status of the US as an "imperial" power as a given, with an understanding that, though the history of world empires can be illuminating for us now, a 21st Century democratic capitalist empire is also unlikely to function exactly like other empires in history. Here's the link (NYT registration required): http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/magazine/05EMPIRE.html?pagewanted=1&tntemail1 More to the point, those who would favor a US retreat from its current positions and policies in the world might do well to recall just how wrenching a process of imperial break-up or withdrawal can be, even more for the populations of the former "vassal" states than for those at or near the imperial center. For any number of reasons, those states might still choose withdrawal or rebellion, but anyone who thinks that such a course would be an easy one is deluded. If you don't at least imagine the break-up of Yugoslavia carried out on a worldwide scale, then you're ignoring the real dangers. Without the despised, supposedly unwanted US presence in places like the Middle East or the Far East, it might not be very long at all before the outbreak of regional and civil wars, and the resultant human casualties and economic and environmental destruction, made even the most inflated estimates regarding a prospective Iraqi conflict look trivial. Even seen strictly from the perspective of narrow US self-interest, and setting aside global economic issues, there is no reason to expect that any scenario of withdrawal or appeasement would make further losses, both at home and abroad, less likely. In the minds of US policymakers, and even in the minds of the much-insulted American populace, the choice may actually seem fairly simple: Successful extension and reinforcement of US influence, as peacefully as possible but as forcefully as necessary, perhaps until some future time when devolution of power is safer, more practicable, and more advantageous - or the spread of chaos in a world where increasingly ready access to weapons of mass destruction is combined with staggering economic inequality, immense population and ecological pressure, and fiercely anti-democratic, anti-capitalist ideologies. Pursuing the former scenario may indeed place unfamiliar burdens on America and the world, and may entail numerous losses and setbacks, both military and otherwise, but those who think they possess a better solution cannot be taken seriously, in my opinion, until they fully acknowledge the stakes that are involved.
I stand corrected, your statement then is "That people want to believe that the Clinton administration was the biggest liars in history..."