Reply With Quote
Ha! LBJ bowed out because there were about 30 other Democrats with a better chance of being elected.
Ha! LBJ bowed out because there were about 30 other Democrats with a better chance of being elected.
W's approval rating is equal to LBJ's, does that mean he should resign? If LBJ wanted to run, he would have run.
With whose support? He had no backing. Kennedy and McCarthy had already announced their candidacies by the time he bowed out.
W's approval rating at election time was enough to get him re-elected.
Again, LBJ would have lost to anyone he ran against. He could have run against a Hitler-Stalin ticket and would have gotten clocked 80-20.
I can say without much hesitation that George W. Bush will not seek reelection in 2008.W's approval rating is equal to LBJ's, does that mean he should resign?
That said, it may prove to be similar because the Job Approval rating (if it holds) may prevent Cheney from pursuing a legitimate candidacy.
If you look at last summers approval rating W shouldn't be President now...those polls are largely BS.
And Cheney has no intention of running for President and never did...he's just not the type.
There was also an absence of legitimate Republican challengers. The Republicans are much more aligned on this war than the Democrats were on Vietnam.
Aligned or intimidated?There was also an absence of legitimate Republican challengers. The Republicans are much more aligned on this war than the Democrats were on Vietnam
I think there are Republicans who have spoken out about the war, Hagal, McCain and others.
But he's been vice-president for eight years! And he's Sharon Stone's cousin! God bless America, and no place else!And Cheney has no intention of running for President and never did...he's just not the type.
Cheney doesn't have the demeanor to pull it off...
There's a reason he's never been a Presidential contender...and the Republicans have a lot better candidates for the next election.
I figure the top 4 candidates in the next election(in order):
Guiliani
McCain
Clark(if he runs)
Richardson
Don't be surprised if Richardson winds up being the strongest contender in the next election......the guy has a ton of charisma...He's a crappy leader and I won't vote for him..but I can see why a lot of people would...his demeanor is first rate...he's definitely got the Bill Clinton appeal working for him.
Hilary won't win it...and if anyone thinks Condoleza Rice is going to get the Republican nomination they are on some serious crack.
McCain has criticised the handling of the war at some point, I'm sure, but he's always been supportive of the effort.I think there are Republicans who have spoken out about the war, Hagal, McCain and others.
The point is, there's nowhere near as much dissent in the Republican Party as there was in the Democratic Party in 1968.
You think those things aren't still happening or going to happen? I do. Iraq ain't gonna make a damn bit of difference. You have some unemployed idjits from Syria taking potshots at our guys. Meanwhile, the REST of the 95% of al Qaeda is making plans and checking them twice.You're right, we're much worse off having the assholes (AQ) go to fight our military, armed to the teeth, than if we sat around waiting for them to cross our porous borders, sneak in through BS visas, and blow the civilian population of America to .
Exstatic, first of all by the end of the V war the VC was crushed. Iraq and Vietnam are totally two different wars. BTW, We never lost a conflict in Vietnam that my freind is true.
your only desire is to see America lose. otherwise your idealogy wouldnt have a chance under a winning america.
gtownspur...good call on excstatic....he won't be satisfied until he sees another generation of American Soldiers disgraced.
All because he doesn't want to get his hands dirty with those "savages" in the middle east...
ecstatic is the biggest bigot on this board...he just hides it well.
By the way....
Tota US KIA's in Viet Nam:
47,000.
Total NVA/VC KIA's in Vietnam:
1,100,000.
Yeah...we reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally got our ass kicked there. Imagine if we'd actually tried to win it.
US KIA's for the Tet offensive, the battle where we effectively "lost" the Vietnam War thanks to our anti-war movement, the media, and LBJ's secrecy :
US: 1,536.
NVA/VC: 45,000.
That means in one military operation we killed as many VC as they killed for the entire rest of the war.
Casualties under the Crat administration:
30,824.
A one year high of 14,000 in 1968.
Casualties under Nixon:
15,486.
Highest one year total was 9400 in 1969 and declined every year thereafter.
Ah, Whott, daily "body counts" on the evening news, what (horrible) memories they bring back. yep, typically 10 to 1 in our favor, simplistic "Army thinking" to convince the USA the Army was winning. B52 carpet bombing, jets dropping napalm ( a terrorist tactic, not a military tactic) in living, daily TV color, yet still needing to invade Cambodia in May 1970, and poisoning the entire country for decades with defoliating agents. Destroying the village/country in order to save it. ah, the (insane) memories.
The US lost the VN war.
NO objectives were achieved.
Extreme costs were paid (and for the phsyically and mentally maimed, are still being paid).
Winning battles and body counts didn't equal winning the VN war.
Through no fault of their own, the mililary were buggered by the politicians of both parties. NEVER EVER trust the govt. EVER!
The red-staters have nobody but themselves to blame for Iraq, which was on shrub's agenda when he took office in Jan 2001, 8 months before 9/11.
okay, I'll start. How about this glaring error... The article says we lost 142,000 soldiers in Korea. uhh...that figure is waayyy off.
The Department of Defense reports that 54,246 American service men and women lost their lives during the Korean War. (This includes all losses world wide - if you deduct those military personnel who were never in Korea, war losses are closer to 38,000). That's what you get for getting American war data from a weak foreign source. Besides the fact that they can't get basic, readily available stats correct, isn't it obvious that when an article refers to American puppet governments, it isn't an objective source?
There you go bringing facts to the table in a discussion with NBadallah.
Too bad the only sources he acknowledges are democraticunderground.com, Al Jazeera, and the Chinese News Agency.
Oh we definitely lost the Vietnam War....
But we didn't lose it militarily...and we didn't lose because the majority of Americans bought into the anti-war movement...
We lost the war because they knew if they could hold long enough our anti-war movment would get to our politicians come election time.... and I will put that on Nixon and I will put the South Viet Namese massacre after we pulled out on Ford
But it aint gonna happen with W. He's not worried about getting re-elected.
Look you can spin it however you want it...but in the long run we sold the Pro Western Vietnamese out...
We left them to get massacred, their lands and property taken from them, and imprisoned in their own country and your outlook was the primary reason for it...and it was something the NVA were counting on...and you can through like champs...
It's something Usama is counting on now....but it's not going to happen this time. Anytime we see the horrors of war...all we have to do is think back to September 11...
So you guys might as well just STFU...because we are already there...and all you are doing when calling for a pull out is giving aid to the Islamo fascists.
We'll go at the request of the government....and if it has to be a little on the Islamic side then so be it...Rebuilding our image in the mid-east and separating our selves from their European concept of us is at a premium. As long as all the elements of the Iraqis are represented it will be a sucessful war and it will impact the middle east. And it's the only way we are going to beat the Islamofascist movement...capturing Usama is not going to do it.
Exstatic, first of all by the end of the V war the VC was crushed. Nope. Alive and well and running tons of goods down the HCM trail every night.
Iraq and Vietnam are totally two different wars. Geographicly, yes. Otherwise we were involved in both without a "win plan" or a withdrawal strategy.
BTW, We never lost a conflict in Vietnam that my freind is true. Right, which is why we left, and the communists rule to this day.
your only desire is to see America lose. otherwise your idealogy wouldnt have a chance under a winning america. Actually, my preference is to not get involved in places where we don't belong.
Practically all historians agree that the U.S. won every major battle in Viet Nam. If you don't know that, then you, like so many others, have only bothered to learn about Viet Nam through the superficial soundbites of equally uninformed talking heads. Yes, militarily, there is no question that the United States won that war...but it was just at too great a price. The American people did not want to sacrifice 5,000 lives a year for a cause not many of us cared about. And before you jump on the 5,000 figure as evidence of us "getting our asses kicked", keep in mind we inflicted casualties 10 times that amount against the enemy.
Viet Nam is a classic example of how you can win the battles but lose the war.
Look, I didn't do the numbers research for the article, but if you want to get minute about it the Korean conflict was a UN backed war.
Here is the exact quote from the article:
The article clearly says soldiers, not Americans. So how many UN countries were in Korea under McArthur?The United States government was severely concerned about the success of communism in South East Asia. Between 1950 and 1953 they had lost 142,000 soldiers in attempting to stop communism entering South Korea.
Also, you've got to be kidding me if you are naive enough to believe that the U.S. hasn't had puppet governments.Relations between them became increasingly strained, and on June 25, 1950, North Korean forces invaded South Korea. The United Nations quickly condemned the invasion as an act of aggression, demanded the withdrawal of North Korean troops from the South, and called upon its members to aid South Korea. On June 27, U.S. President Truman authorized the use of American land, sea, and air forces in Korea; a week later, the United Nations placed the forces of 15 other member nations under U.S. command, and Truman appointed Gen. Douglas MacArthur supreme commander.
Last edited by Nbadan; 08-18-2005 at 05:06 AM.
And most historians also agree that Vietnam would have gone to the communist no matter what the U.S. did.
The US won in won militarily in Vietnam?? HAHAHA that's a laugh! Last time I checked superior bodycount does not cons ute victory my friends. The Vietnam war was a fiasgo from every ing angle.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions