When I went into the service.one of the first things I was told.......respect the uniform not necessarily the person in it.

 

Uhh, I believe we had our Pearl Harbor.......... 911 Nuff, said, yes he does fund terrorism

 

Also, by not waiting so long after Pearl Harbor he was able to rally the nation easier. We have already waited too long for Saddam.

 

How would you all like to see them Iraq developed missle guided nuclear bombs start dropping right here in our own back yards? That is exactly what is likely in the future if we do not stop them from developing their terror now! Most of you have never been in war, I have. I would sooner see it in someone elses back yard than my own.

 

franktheman, this is a load of CRAP, and I can't believe you posted it. You're entitled to your opinion, but this goes over the line.

Waxy

 

once a paratrooper always a paratrooper! nuf said.

 

___quote______
Originally posted by franktheman
LBJ cared nothing for the young Americans who died over there, and he was not alone-most politicians at the time were indifferent to the sufferings of the American fighting man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



franktheman, this is a load of CRAP, and I can't believe you posted it. You're entitled to your opinion, but this goes over the line.

Waxy
______________

Did I hit a nerve here? I am sorry if I have offended you Waxy, though why you should take my opinion so personally I don't know.
But sorry or not, it is my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Perhaps I was a bit unfair toward LBJ in that statement-it dos'ent quite tell the whole story.

LBJ was unfortunate enough to have been president during one of the most controversial times in our history. He had many good intentions on domestic issues like education, and civil rights, and I'm sure many men if put in his position could have done far worse than he did. Johnson was a big Texas boy, with a big heart. (Sounds weird to hear this from me considering my last statement huh?) He came from humble beginnings having grown up on the family farm. These beginnings made it easy for LBJ to identify with the nations poor and destitute, whom he made it a priority to serve.

He did have his faults. And for all the good intention in his heart, and all the active lobbying he did on behalf of the nations poor, these faults caused him to fall short. He lost perspective of what really mattered, and this loss in perspective cost many American men their lives. Johnson was vain, spiteful, and above all a glutton. He absolutely resented having to serve as VP to Kennedy
-he felt Kennedy was serving HIS presidency, and he never really "forgave" Kennedy for having beat him in the Democratic Nomination-though he accepted Kennedy's offer to tag along as his running mate.
He had a compulsion to be the best, to outdo everybody, and to go down as the best president in American history. It was this way of thinking that eventually made him so unpopular that he would later not even consider a second term.

Vietnam was a sham. Johnson labeled it as being in the interest of national defense. How could this be? Vietnam is half way around the world from our borders-yet it's China's neighbor-you tell me who had a greater stake in the outcome in Vietnam as far as national defense interests go?

During those days the US government saw the possibility that communism would spread the world over like some kind of cancer if not kept in check. I'm sure the communists felt the same way about capitalism.
Johnsons character flaws caused him to take any and every critisism of his policies as personal attacks. Other flaws in his thinking caused him to believe that he could overcome these critisisms by increasing his efforts to make his policies succeed-regardless of how off course they may be.

To be fair, Johnson did'int want to fight the war simply for the sake of fighting it- he really believed that the communists had to be held back at all costs- lest SE asia should fall to a hostile ideology, and worse the whole world should be shown that the US is not capable of defending the freedoms of another country.

Sounds good in theory, but the fact is he was in China's back yard-and just like in Korea - China with all her manpower was not about to sit idley by and watch a foreign capitalist country come in and dictate Asian policies. This was a war that could never be won. They believed in their cause, very few Americans believed in LBJ's cause.

Johnsons habit of taking critisisms as personal attacks also served to alienate him from those who formerly supported him- he accused those who disagreed with his policies of being disloyal to the country-that would include most of the population at the time. He even went so far as to accuse McCarthy and McGovern of being communists.
The death toll was mounting in Vietnam-Johnson could have easily went with popular demand, and concentrated his efforts on his very good domestic policies. He did not. Vietnam became a personal crusade for him-it became HIS war, Being fought by "his boys"(who again did not want to be there), with his planes, his helicopters, and his guns.

Withdrawl, or defeat became unthinkable to him. More and more his focus was Vietnam and only Vietnam -at all costs-including lives lost,and including the expense of being detrimental to his civil rights agendas. He failed. For all his good intention he failed and failed big.

His preoccupation and obsession with the war caused many men to lose their lives needlessly. It caused him to lose focus on the important agendas he had initiated at home. It caused him to lose the trust of the American people, along with any hope of re election(which would have been a good thing if he could see fit to stick to his very good plans he had at home-and save wars for when it really matters). And last but not least, he caused the US to become involved in a conflict that would change nothing in the end.
all in all LBJ was'int a really bad guy- but when the chips were down and it came time to do the right thing-he dropped the ball.

Sorry if you got a personal thing for LBJ-he did have many admirable qualities....but his decision making abilities concerning Vietnam were not one of them. My opinion of course.



Regards.

 

I don't have a personal thing for any president, I'm not even American. It's offensive to all American's to suggest that their President and politicians care nothing for the lives of their military men. To make a statement like that about anyone is truly arrogant and in poor judgement. Your oh so impartial little history lesson does very little to make it less so.

How about if I stated that you, franktheman, care nothing for your country or its servicemen, that you are completely indifferent to lives of Americans that could be lost in Iraq because you believe that it is just Bush's crusade for personal glory. I don't know what your true thoughts are, but that's my OPINION of you. Is that a fair statement? Would you find that offensive?

You should.

Waxy

 

Our losses in Viet Nam were too many and for no reason other that to try to stop the spread of communism. So we did not prevail there. Viet Nam was not developing weapons of massive destruction that could terrorize the rest of the world either like Iraq is doing. These people have lived in a violent world for centuries and it has become their nature. I believe that letting them continue building weapons like that are a detriment to us and to the rest of the free world and it needs to be stopped before they have the capability of launching nuclear weapons right here into our own backyards.

 

You know, I am with franktheman, once again...
I find it perfectly plausible that a man in a powerful position could view the soldiers in his army not as men, but as pawns. Historically, that model has held true, from the wealthy lords of the middle ages to the wealthy politicians of the new age.
Waxy, have you ever been in an omni-powerful position? Are you wealthy, and were you and your predecessors raised wealthy, and in powerful circles? Do you not have a valid connection with the lower-class of citizens in your country? Do you have a political advancement agenda?
If you answered no to these questions, then you don't know how a president, especially one in the 1960's, may have viewed his soldiers. The descriptors I listed apply to every president since Eisenhower left office, including Bush.
So yes, it seems perfectly reasonable to say that LBJ had little regard for the lives of the men in his military, in light of the political and personal prestige he thought he could attain, and also in light of how wasteful and superfluous Vietnam was. If he really cared all that much, he wouldn't have kept pumping young men and tax dollars into a conflict he had been advised was unwinnable, and was wildy unpopular.
BDV

 

Great post BDV !!!

Once again, side by side, but when shall we meet......J/K

I'm glad my position made at least some sense to someone, people around here will make you think your going crazy...when emotions start replacing objective thinking-it becomes very hard not to become emotional yourself!...lol.

Thank you.

Regards.

 

BDV, I know that in your world all politicians and people who come from "wealth and privilege" are evil, but that's your opinion of the world.

Many of the world's greatest philanthropists are from this "class" of people. Neither money nor power eliminate the ability to care about your fellow man.

Quote:

If you answered no to these questions, then you don't know how a president, especially one in the 1960's, may have viewed his soldiers.

My point here, is that you have no idea how LBJ actually felt about the servicemen either. The majority of accounts suggest that his decisions eventually overwhelmed him, and his feelings of guilt for what the servicemen endured not only prevented from seeking a second term, but haunted him for the remainder of his life.

Maybe it's my rose colored glasses, but I find it very difficult to believe that any leader of a free and democratic society cares nothing for the servicemen that preserve his freedom, and his ability to remain "wealthy and privileged".

Waxy

 

I dunno about the rest of you, but I live in the REAL world, where
wealth and privilege harbor ignorance and greed. Sure, lots of philantropists come from wealth and privilege; in fact, I am sure that most philantropists are wealthy. You gotta have money to give away money. I don't think that all wealthy people are evil, but throw in politics, self servitude and power, and you have a recipe for evil that is unmatched for consistancy and quality.
I know that LBJ was haunted by the losses in Vietnam, but I also think that he gambled with those mens' lives and lost, and that's what he felt guilty about.
You are absolutely correct, Waxy. I don't ACTUALLY know how he felt. I merely said that it seems reasonable that he would feel separation between himself and the soldiers, and base his valuation of them upon that, that's all.
BDV

 

The History channel had taped accounts of LBJ and how terrible he felt.

In his defense, Kennedy was the one that got us into the war, it just progressed more visibly when LBJ was in office.

None of us know how they trully felt, but isn't it fair to say that anyone in a position of power would likely feel disconnected from the frontline? A presidents job is to look out for his people and to try and minimalize casualties but is not to neglect political problems at the cost of life. Hence the reason I could probably not do their job during war time. I commend anyone who has the ability to feel that confident in their decisions.

You have to remember that this was during a time in which their were two super powers, 1 communist and 1 capitalist. I'm sure the sentiment was that whichever one spread would eventually take over the other and look, that's more or less what happened. We're the only super power left.

The same goes for terrorism today, we feel the need to knip it in the bud so to speak, in order to stop it from escalating. Hence, pre-emptive.

Everyone says that pre-emption is some sort of new thing, Vietnam was a pre-emptive attack. The Gulf of Tonken incident was made up political propoganda to justify it.

By all accounts Iraq is already a justified attack, from it's firing at the plane's policing the "no fly zone" to their numerous resolution infringments and now today threatening our U2 spyplanes.

I'd fight for my country, although they wouldn't take me because of my Asthma, at least not until they run out of people

 

Arw we forgetting what the original post was about??????????