so liberals are the reason we fought for 20 years and lost the vietnam war
we had no clue how to war in the jungle, plus we were too stubbord to admit defeat
President Lyndon Johnson, considered a liberal Democrat, escalated the Vietnam War, and Richard Nixon, a moderate Republican ended it. Johnson believed in the domino theory that if one country falls to Communism, then a neighboring country will be next. This was still during the Cold War and there was no profit motive on Johnson's part. Even though he was wrong and made things worse, he believed he was doing the right thing.
The U.S. didn't lose the Vietnam War. It was a draw, a tie. The U.S. formally ended its part in the Vietnam War when all sides signed the Paris Peace Accords on January 27, 1973. Following this the U.S. started removing its troops.
Vietnam was supposed to work on unification through peaceful means, but the North broke the deal and invaded the South. This means after the peace that the North started a civil war against the South. There was a provision that the U.S. could resume bombing the North if it broke the deal, but the Democratic Congress refused, and the South collapsed. So South Vietnam lost the civil war to North Vietnam.
faithful 1 since when is someone exempt from prosecution because they thought they were doing the right thing, now, you are a very intelligent man... that remark is beneath you.
didn't Himmler, Eichmann. all the S.S. troops think they were doing the right thing. they THOUGHT they were. the war tribunals found them all guilty of war crimes.
if you remember after McNamaras book was published, the head of the American legion, on the today show, said and I quote. " what he said in that book is close to treason" I strongly suggest you read his book. Johnson knew full well we couldn't win that war, but kept sending kids in.
Binnie, there you go misinterpreting again. Where in anything I wrote did I claim that motives exempt someone from prosecution? Hint: NOWHERE. I never said anything about whether or not LBJ deserved prosecution or not, only what his own personal intentions were. That's all. Either you or Oak claimed that his motives were financial profit, and I responded to that claim. I'm no fan of his and I couldn't care less if you could go back in time, prosecute him and burn him at the stake.
