Lyndon Johnson (democrat) escalated our involvement in Vietnam and turned it into a full fledged war. Yet, the Nixon (re
-
IndigoFlame — 11 years ago(July 04, 2014 07:07 AM)
This ^^^^
https://webwewant.mozilla.org/en/
http://www.opera.com/ -
EastCoastMariner — 12 years ago(October 05, 2013 06:49 AM)
Kennedy would have backed out of Vietnam? The same Kennedy who showed up the Communists during the Missile Crisis of 1962 would have just allowed for them to steamroll over Vietnam? Doubt it. Doubt it very much. He would have escalated the conflict as well, and little bro Robert would have done the same if elected in 1968 to live up to big brother's reputation.
-
carthur27 — 11 years ago(September 22, 2014 01:14 AM)
"Nixon won on a pledge that he would get us out. Nevertheless, the war continued all through his first term."
The Vietnam War continued but our involvement and the number of soldiers being killed dropped rapidly once Nixon took office. The first year of the Democrat Lyndon Johnson's Presidency in 1964 saw 206 soldiers die and his last year in 1968 saw 16,589 U.S. troops being killed. That's right, in the 5 years LBJ was President, U.S. soldier fatalities went from 206 to 16,589 dead.
The number of troops killed in the Vietnam War had fallen to 640 by Nixon's 4th year in office.
Less than 10 U.S. citizens died in Vietnam during the entire Eisenhower Presidency and just over 100 during Kennedy's administration.
Lyndon Johnson is by far more to blame than any other President for Vietnam. Johnson greatly exaggerated the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 and used it to justify sending in the first actual combat troops less than a year later. Previously, there had only been "military advisors" and relatively few casualties. While Johnson was President, the number of U.S. troops went to over 500,000 men by 1968. -
alan-in-houston — 9 years ago(August 17, 2016 08:42 AM)
if we ignore the fact that Truman (D) refused to recognize Ho Chi Minh's government in Vietnam after the Japanese surrender in 1945, and the fact that Truman's (D) administration (remember the guy who ended Roosevelt's (D) war ?),
and if we ignore the fact that Truman's (D) administration recognized Bo Dai's government in 1950,
and if we ignore the $15 million check that Truman (D) sent to the French military in 1951,
and if we ignore the war between French and Viet Minh from 1951 to 1953 (same time as Korea/US WAR),
and if we ignore that in 1953 when Eisenhower (R) takes over the Korean War ends and Eisenhower's involvement is to send money to French for 2 years, and then to prevent US troop involvement and/or nukes,
then yeah, i guess we could say that Eisenhower started it ?!?
NOT!
Eisenhower (R) was in charge of crushing Hitler's Germany, and played a lot of golf during the 50's
Roosevelt (D), Truman (D) drops the bomb, Kennedy (D) sends the green berets in 1961, Johnson (D) sends the B-52's,
Nixon (R) wins 1968 election on peace campaign and begins peace talks with Hanoi -
eddiewareing — 12 years ago(July 20, 2013 02:54 PM)
as a brit I can't tell the difference between republican & democrat, in England its simpler, conservatives are middle & upper class with money, labour are lower & working class with no money (there are other smaller parties but they don't get votes anyway)is there a similar simple description of the American parties?
-
filmscholar35 — 12 years ago(July 20, 2013 07:45 PM)
@eddie,
It's pretty much the same here. There are the two major parties, and then several smaller ones who never win anything. It's literally just a wasted vote for anyone who votes for one of those indie candidates.
And typically, in the USA, Republicans tend to be upper-middle class to wealthy conservative, pro-big business type of people. Democrats tend to be more the lower and working classes. Although the exceptions tend to be that Hollywood rich people tend to be Democrats, and working class southern/cowboy/country type of folk tend to be Republican. It always seems a contradiction to me that lower class country folk are Republicans, when Republicans mainly tend to care mostly about the top 1% rich people. Likewise, it is quite hypocritical to me often that rich Hollywood elitists (called "limousine liberals") tend to vote Democratic and claim to care about the lower classes and the minorities and such, yet generally wouldn't interact with everyday people to save their lives. They want to save the world, but they won't give a guy who approaches them a drink of water to save his life (see: Sean Penn). Both parties remain powerful, however, for tow main reasons: Each has rich and powerful supporters (Republicans have big corporate execs; Democrats have millionaire showbiz people), and each have blind-sheep party members who vote strictly along party lines, regardless that the other side is right once in a while. Today, it is worse than ever since, say, the American civil war, with Republicans and democrats HATING each other to the core, and neither side will give one inch of compromise. -
carthur27 — 11 years ago(September 22, 2014 12:00 AM)
"It always seems a contradiction to me that lower class country folk are Republicans, when Republicans mainly tend to care mostly about the top 1% rich people."
I don't have the statistics from the 2012 election but for the 2008 election, people with assets of over $10 million voted 52% for Obama. Also the wealthiest people in the U.S. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett are Democrats. Wall Street since the 2008 financial meltdown has become decidedly Democrat whereas previously it was evenly split.
Finally, characterizing "lower class country folk" as Republicans is more a product of your prejudices than reality. -
shibez — 10 years ago(July 13, 2015 01:25 AM)
the reason why poor country/cowboy/redneck folks tend to vote republican is pretty simpleGUNS. republicans are always for pro gun laws so thats why those people vote for them. I'm pretty sure that republicans could make a law that allowed country folks property taxes to quadruple and they would still vote for them as long as their gun rights weren't taken away.
-
IndigoFlame — 11 years ago(July 04, 2014 07:09 AM)
That, putting it politely, is booshwah. Third party candidate votes, in America, have led to some terrible outcomes. They split the majority opinion so the minority voice gets the seat. That's not how a republican democracy should work.
https://webwewant.mozilla.org/en/
http://www.opera.com/ -
IndigoFlame — 11 years ago(August 31, 2014 07:11 AM)
Troll much? Just look at the historical record. Third party candidates are manipulated by the party most diametrically opposed to that candidate. They do it to undermine their opposition.
And you are laughably naive of politics if you aren't aware of this tactic. It's the same thing as primary stacking. When New York becomes conservative you'd better believe there will be Democrats will vote in the Republican (or whoever) primary for the least conservative candidate. I've seen it happen in my state.
Maybe when you are a bit older and knowing about the world you won't be so easily fooled.
Some there be that shadows kiss, such have but a shadow's bliss
Merchant of Venice -
IndigoFlame — 11 years ago(July 04, 2014 07:06 AM)
Not only that but the Boat People were the Democrats way of paying Nixon back for Watergate, his politics, being a Republican, having the nerve to get landslide election victories, his career
Yeah, the Democratic Party cut off funding for the peace transition for their own vengeance and they got their own little genocide.
Walter Cronkite has gone on record that he skewed his weekly radio reports to disfavor our troops because he was anti war.
I was looking at a list of good movies to watch this Fourth. How could this flick be at the top? Dear GOD.
https://webwewant.mozilla.org/en/
http://www.opera.com/ -
grp00 — 11 years ago(January 02, 2015 11:03 AM)
Nixon did NOT end the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War ended in 1975 when the NVA tanks crashed through the gates of the Presidential Palace in Saigon! Nixon was long out of office in complete disgrace and there were no US combat troops there by that time. Simply put, the Vietnamese ended the war, not the US.
-
sonofbeach-sheet — 10 years ago(July 19, 2015 07:53 PM)
Wasn't Barry Goldwater against going to war with Vietnam? I thought I recall a speech he made one time that America does not go to war unless it's total in or out and until you win. Or else bomb the hell out of them and it's over in a month.
-
Balberith — 10 years ago(January 30, 2016 04:49 PM)
"Nixon did NOT end the Vietnam War." He did. The peace pacts were signed on January 27, 1973 in Paris and the last US combat forces left on March 29, 1973.
"A real man would rather bow down to a strong woman than dominate a weak one" -
joana-pedroso15 — 10 years ago(September 08, 2015 05:54 PM)
True. You just gave one reason why people should forget party affiliations and look at the values, intentions and honesty of the candidate.
Parties are just part of the system, even in the democrat party you have what they call the wall street democrats that support candidates that frankly to me look more like republicans than anything else. You have smart republicans too like Ron Paul for example (I strongly agree with his foreign policy opinions but that's all, don't agree with social and economic opinions). So just like I said, look at the man/woman character and ideas not at the party he/she belongs to.
To me, I don't give a beep if the person is a democrat, a republican, a libertarian, a socialist, a progressive or whatever you want to call it. I listen to what the candidate has to say, i listen to the ideas. If they inspire good things I support the candidate. If they bring hate, I don't. That simple.