Worst Presidents of all Time:

[rightwinger]

Truman and Eisenhower were responsible for postwar alliances. After WWII, Vietnam expected to be free of their colonial bonds. Both Truman and Eisenhower supported France in restablishing their IndoChina holdings.
Selling out the Vietnamese people pushed Ho Chi Minh into the hands of the Communists

Ho Chi Minh was already in the hands of the Communist. Ho Chi Minh did much of his studying and training in Russia. Ho Chi Minh had no interest in democracy, freedom of religion, or human rights. He was dedicated to Soviet style authoritarian communism which is what Vietnam is ruled by today.

Actually, he initially went to the US to support his pleas for independence. The US decided to back DeGauls claims to Vietnam

That decision cost France 100,000 lives, the US 60,000 lives and the poor people of Vietnam, several million lives

Of course the U.S. supported DeGual. DeGual was better than communist dictatorship and all the deaths and human rights abuses associated with communist dictatorship. In later years, failure to stand up for the new country of South Vietnam would have been dangerous for the United States elsewhere in the world. If the Soviet Union sensed weakness of resolve by the United States over Vietnam, it may have challenged the United States over West Berlin in the late 1960s again. A new Berlin crises with the Soviets having near nuclear parity with the United States could have resulted in a dangerous situation that could have led to armed conflict in Germany and then escalated to the use of nuclear weapons in Europe and then a worldwide nuclear war. The stakes were high during the cold war and could never be isolated to one region or country.

The fault for the for the Vietnam War lays with the North Vietnamese Authoritarian Communists supported by the Soviet Union and China. They were against any sort of democracy, were against human rights, and against freedom of religion. It was not enough for them to just enslave the north of Vietnam, they wanted the south to as well as their neighbors and they were willing to do anything to get it. This was about a communist elite imposing their will over all the people's of southeast asia. Sadly, they succeeded in this attempt because the 1973 United States congress decided to abandoned South Vietnam.

To Vietnam
Communism was a better option than Colonialism

Our support of French Colonialism in Vietnam caused a war that killed millions needlessly

To North Vietnamese Elites, it was the only option and they ruthlessly imposed their will on the rest of Vietnam. I don't think French Colonialism was a good thing, but at least they had more freedom, freedom of religion, and better human rights.

My father fought in Vietnam and worked with the South Vietnamese military. You do not want to know what happened to South Vietnamese military personal and their families after the North took over in 1975. If they were not executed, they were sent to brutal Communist re-education camps for years. Find me an equivalent to these executions and communist re-education camps under French Colonialism. You won't.

Where do you think a human being as a better chance to achieve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Vietnam or South Korea?

South Korea is one of the most modern and developed countries in the world. Its a democracy, where human rights, and freedom of religion are all respected and valued. South Vietnam had a chance to be like South Korea, but the 1973 United States Congress ruined that chance when it abandoned the country with the veto proof majority Case Church Amendment.

Defend the current communist dictatorship of Vietnam all you want. Its a sad reminder of the fate we abandoned the South Vietnamese people to. South Korea is a reminder of what South Vietnam could have been and should have been.

The overwhelming majority of Vietnamese supported Ho
The South was corrupt at all levels and was a puppet state of the US
It was agreed that a free election would be held within two years after the French left. The US did not allow that election because they knew Ho would win easily

Unlike the fear mongering of what would happen if the Communists won, Vietnam is now a stable, prosperous country and a good trade partner of the US

 

[rightwinger]

Most Democrats in Congress voted against an Iraq invasion.
That is an undeniable fact

Iraq was a decision of George W Bush
If it was a success, he would deserve credit. Since it was a dismal failure, he holds the blame

NOT in the United States Senate. In the United States Senate, a majority of Democratic Senators supported the war.

Its only in the House Of Representatives, typically where you will have younger, less experienced people, where a majority of Democrats were against the war.

The war in Iraq was a success in every relevant respect. Saddam was removed from power. A new government was successfully put in place. That new government is not a threat to its neighbors and is not interested in the production and manufacture of WMD. Stability inside the country was initially a problem, but that seems to be in the past now. In 2019, the government in Iraq is viewed primarily as stable and respecting most of its tribes and ethnic groups. It is not a threat to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. It is seen as a possible bridge between Saudi Arabia and Iran in terms of relations and resolving conflicts and political differences.

United States losses in Iraq were a tiny fraction of what it lost in similar sized wars like Korea, Vietnam, World War I, and World War II. 3,500 killed by hostile fire in Iraq compared to 48,000 killed by hostile fire in Vietnam. Total civilian casualties are also much lower at around 200,000, mostly as a result of terrorist bombings and insurgency. Much lower than the millions of civilians that died in the other wars. 16 years after the invasion, Iraq is a thriving developing country with a murder rate lower than California's murder rate in 1990. It is not a threat to any of its neighbors unlike Saddam's Iraq. The Iraq war has been a success by any measure. But all wars have their cost. But the cost have been light relative to similar wars and conflicts in the past.

In addition, total US defense spending as a percentage of GDP averaged less than 5% during the whole period from 2001 to 2019. During the peacetime of the 1980s, U.S. defense spending averaged 6% of GDP. So the financial strain on the country and the economy has been much less than similar size wars the United States has engaged in the past.

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.

Again I am talking total Democrats

Let’s do the math together

Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats

I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
Most did not
I was one of those who did not

 

[U2Edge]

Ho Chi Minh was already in the hands of the Communist. Ho Chi Minh did much of his studying and training in Russia. Ho Chi Minh had no interest in democracy, freedom of religion, or human rights. He was dedicated to Soviet style authoritarian communism which is what Vietnam is ruled by today.

Actually, he initially went to the US to support his pleas for independence. The US decided to back DeGauls claims to Vietnam

That decision cost France 100,000 lives, the US 60,000 lives and the poor people of Vietnam, several million lives

Of course the U.S. supported DeGual. DeGual was better than communist dictatorship and all the deaths and human rights abuses associated with communist dictatorship. In later years, failure to stand up for the new country of South Vietnam would have been dangerous for the United States elsewhere in the world. If the Soviet Union sensed weakness of resolve by the United States over Vietnam, it may have challenged the United States over West Berlin in the late 1960s again. A new Berlin crises with the Soviets having near nuclear parity with the United States could have resulted in a dangerous situation that could have led to armed conflict in Germany and then escalated to the use of nuclear weapons in Europe and then a worldwide nuclear war. The stakes were high during the cold war and could never be isolated to one region or country.

The fault for the for the Vietnam War lays with the North Vietnamese Authoritarian Communists supported by the Soviet Union and China. They were against any sort of democracy, were against human rights, and against freedom of religion. It was not enough for them to just enslave the north of Vietnam, they wanted the south to as well as their neighbors and they were willing to do anything to get it. This was about a communist elite imposing their will over all the people's of southeast asia. Sadly, they succeeded in this attempt because the 1973 United States congress decided to abandoned South Vietnam.

To Vietnam
Communism was a better option than Colonialism

Our support of French Colonialism in Vietnam caused a war that killed millions needlessly

To North Vietnamese Elites, it was the only option and they ruthlessly imposed their will on the rest of Vietnam. I don't think French Colonialism was a good thing, but at least they had more freedom, freedom of religion, and better human rights.

My father fought in Vietnam and worked with the South Vietnamese military. You do not want to know what happened to South Vietnamese military personal and their families after the North took over in 1975. If they were not executed, they were sent to brutal Communist re-education camps for years. Find me an equivalent to these executions and communist re-education camps under French Colonialism. You won't.

Where do you think a human being as a better chance to achieve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Vietnam or South Korea?

South Korea is one of the most modern and developed countries in the world. Its a democracy, where human rights, and freedom of religion are all respected and valued. South Vietnam had a chance to be like South Korea, but the 1973 United States Congress ruined that chance when it abandoned the country with the veto proof majority Case Church Amendment.

Defend the current communist dictatorship of Vietnam all you want. Its a sad reminder of the fate we abandoned the South Vietnamese people to. South Korea is a reminder of what South Vietnam could have been and should have been.

The overwhelming majority of Vietnamese supported Ho
The South was corrupt at all levels and was a puppet state of the US
It was agreed that a free election would be held within two years after the French left. The US did not allow that election because they knew Ho would win easily

Unlike the fear mongering of what would happen if the Communists won, Vietnam is now a stable, prosperous country and a good trade partner of the US

IF Ho and North Vietnam were so great as you contend, then people from the North would not of had to flee to the South. Large numbers of Christians at to flee HO and North Vietnam because of the persecution they were suffering and threatened by. That is as corrupt and evil as one can get. The idea that there is any accurate measure of support for HO even in the North or South is absurd. The Communist North Vietnamese elites would do whatever it took to make sure they won any election even if it required trickery or subterfuge. Just as the Communist did in Russia in 1917.

The election was not allowed because they FEARED HO would win by any means necessary. They did not want the people of South Vietnam to be subjugated to a communist dictatorship as well as the implications it would have on the region and the Cold War.

Its disgusting that you would white wash the suffering of the South Vietnamese people at the hands of the communist of the North. My father worked closely with these people. Many of them were executed after the fall of Saigon, and their families sent to communist re-education camps.

So you think Vietnam is a prosperous country eh? Guess where it ranks on the Human Development Index, a measure of standard of living: #116. South Korea ranks at #21, just ahead of France! South Vietnam could be where South Korea is today if it had not been for the 1973 United States congress that abandoned the country. South Korea is a FIRST WORLD COUNTRY. Vietnam is a Third World Country that ranks in the lower half of the Third World.

Vietnam today has made reforms but its still largely a Communist Country mired in Third World mediocrity. In terms of trade, its good for low wage labor. Their opposition to Chinese expansion today makes them a relative ally of the United States and other democratic states in the region.

But the idea that you suggest, that communist dictatorship is good for Vietnam is easily refuted when a side by side comparison is made with South Korea. South Vietnam could have been South Korea. Instead, its mired in third world mediocrity as a member of a country that is a communist dictatorship.

I must say, you like standing up for Dictatorships whether they be in Vietnam or Iraq.

 

[SandSquid]

NOT in the United States Senate. In the United States Senate, a majority of Democratic Senators supported the war.

Its only in the House Of Representatives, typically where you will have younger, less experienced people, where a majority of Democrats were against the war.

The war in Iraq was a success in every relevant respect. Saddam was removed from power. A new government was successfully put in place. That new government is not a threat to its neighbors and is not interested in the production and manufacture of WMD. Stability inside the country was initially a problem, but that seems to be in the past now. In 2019, the government in Iraq is viewed primarily as stable and respecting most of its tribes and ethnic groups. It is not a threat to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. It is seen as a possible bridge between Saudi Arabia and Iran in terms of relations and resolving conflicts and political differences.

United States losses in Iraq were a tiny fraction of what it lost in similar sized wars like Korea, Vietnam, World War I, and World War II. 3,500 killed by hostile fire in Iraq compared to 48,000 killed by hostile fire in Vietnam. Total civilian casualties are also much lower at around 200,000, mostly as a result of terrorist bombings and insurgency. Much lower than the millions of civilians that died in the other wars. 16 years after the invasion, Iraq is a thriving developing country with a murder rate lower than California's murder rate in 1990. It is not a threat to any of its neighbors unlike Saddam's Iraq. The Iraq war has been a success by any measure. But all wars have their cost. But the cost have been light relative to similar wars and conflicts in the past.

In addition, total US defense spending as a percentage of GDP averaged less than 5% during the whole period from 2001 to 2019. During the peacetime of the 1980s, U.S. defense spending averaged 6% of GDP. So the financial strain on the country and the economy has been much less than similar size wars the United States has engaged in the past.

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.

Again I am talking total Democrats

Let’s do the math together

Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats

I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
Most did not
I was one of those who did not

Well it was a split vote. Most Dems in the house didn't. Most in the senate did.

In both houses it wasn't a majority Democrat. Only in the house, but not the senate. Combined sure, but I've never heard it talked about that way.

If I fill one glass full of water, and another glass 1/3 of the way full, I can't say both glasses are over half full because if I switch water from one to the other I can get both half full.

Anyways point remains. Senate majority leader and house minority leaders who were Dems cosponsored the bill, and it wouldn't have passed without Democrat support.


Kinda like that yougov set of polls. In 2003 the majority of Dems (52%) supported war with Iraq. But in 2015 of those of voting age in 2003 only 19% recall supporting it.


So most Dems supported the war overall, as did most in the senate.

 

[U2Edge]

NOT in the United States Senate. In the United States Senate, a majority of Democratic Senators supported the war.

Its only in the House Of Representatives, typically where you will have younger, less experienced people, where a majority of Democrats were against the war.

The war in Iraq was a success in every relevant respect. Saddam was removed from power. A new government was successfully put in place. That new government is not a threat to its neighbors and is not interested in the production and manufacture of WMD. Stability inside the country was initially a problem, but that seems to be in the past now. In 2019, the government in Iraq is viewed primarily as stable and respecting most of its tribes and ethnic groups. It is not a threat to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. It is seen as a possible bridge between Saudi Arabia and Iran in terms of relations and resolving conflicts and political differences.

United States losses in Iraq were a tiny fraction of what it lost in similar sized wars like Korea, Vietnam, World War I, and World War II. 3,500 killed by hostile fire in Iraq compared to 48,000 killed by hostile fire in Vietnam. Total civilian casualties are also much lower at around 200,000, mostly as a result of terrorist bombings and insurgency. Much lower than the millions of civilians that died in the other wars. 16 years after the invasion, Iraq is a thriving developing country with a murder rate lower than California's murder rate in 1990. It is not a threat to any of its neighbors unlike Saddam's Iraq. The Iraq war has been a success by any measure. But all wars have their cost. But the cost have been light relative to similar wars and conflicts in the past.

In addition, total US defense spending as a percentage of GDP averaged less than 5% during the whole period from 2001 to 2019. During the peacetime of the 1980s, U.S. defense spending averaged 6% of GDP. So the financial strain on the country and the economy has been much less than similar size wars the United States has engaged in the past.

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.

Again I am talking total Democrats

Let’s do the math together

Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats

I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
Most did not
I was one of those who did not

Do you have a poll of registered democrats at that time on whether they supported the invasion or not? Otherwise your claim that most democrats were against the invasion is questionable.

The majority in the Senate of Democrats supporting the invasion was significant and a big contrast to the level of support for the 1991 Gulf War. By and large, Democrats were more supportive of Operation Iraqi Freedom that they were of Desert Storm.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, he initially went to the US to support his pleas for independence. The US decided to back DeGauls claims to Vietnam

That decision cost France 100,000 lives, the US 60,000 lives and the poor people of Vietnam, several million lives

Of course the U.S. supported DeGual. DeGual was better than communist dictatorship and all the deaths and human rights abuses associated with communist dictatorship. In later years, failure to stand up for the new country of South Vietnam would have been dangerous for the United States elsewhere in the world. If the Soviet Union sensed weakness of resolve by the United States over Vietnam, it may have challenged the United States over West Berlin in the late 1960s again. A new Berlin crises with the Soviets having near nuclear parity with the United States could have resulted in a dangerous situation that could have led to armed conflict in Germany and then escalated to the use of nuclear weapons in Europe and then a worldwide nuclear war. The stakes were high during the cold war and could never be isolated to one region or country.

The fault for the for the Vietnam War lays with the North Vietnamese Authoritarian Communists supported by the Soviet Union and China. They were against any sort of democracy, were against human rights, and against freedom of religion. It was not enough for them to just enslave the north of Vietnam, they wanted the south to as well as their neighbors and they were willing to do anything to get it. This was about a communist elite imposing their will over all the people's of southeast asia. Sadly, they succeeded in this attempt because the 1973 United States congress decided to abandoned South Vietnam.

To Vietnam
Communism was a better option than Colonialism

Our support of French Colonialism in Vietnam caused a war that killed millions needlessly

To North Vietnamese Elites, it was the only option and they ruthlessly imposed their will on the rest of Vietnam. I don't think French Colonialism was a good thing, but at least they had more freedom, freedom of religion, and better human rights.

My father fought in Vietnam and worked with the South Vietnamese military. You do not want to know what happened to South Vietnamese military personal and their families after the North took over in 1975. If they were not executed, they were sent to brutal Communist re-education camps for years. Find me an equivalent to these executions and communist re-education camps under French Colonialism. You won't.

Where do you think a human being as a better chance to achieve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Vietnam or South Korea?

South Korea is one of the most modern and developed countries in the world. Its a democracy, where human rights, and freedom of religion are all respected and valued. South Vietnam had a chance to be like South Korea, but the 1973 United States Congress ruined that chance when it abandoned the country with the veto proof majority Case Church Amendment.

Defend the current communist dictatorship of Vietnam all you want. Its a sad reminder of the fate we abandoned the South Vietnamese people to. South Korea is a reminder of what South Vietnam could have been and should have been.

The overwhelming majority of Vietnamese supported Ho
The South was corrupt at all levels and was a puppet state of the US
It was agreed that a free election would be held within two years after the French left. The US did not allow that election because they knew Ho would win easily

Unlike the fear mongering of what would happen if the Communists won, Vietnam is now a stable, prosperous country and a good trade partner of the US

IF Ho and North Vietnam were so great as you contend, then people from the North would not of had to flee to the South. Large numbers of Christians at to flee HO and North Vietnam because of the persecution they were suffering and threatened by. That is as corrupt and evil as one can get. The idea that there is any accurate measure of support for HO even in the North or South is absurd. The Communist North Vietnamese elites would do whatever it took to make sure they won any election even if it required trickery or subterfuge. Just as the Communist did in Russia in 1917.

The election was not allowed because they FEARED HO would win by any means necessary. They did not want the people of South Vietnam to be subjugated to a communist dictatorship as well as the implications it would have on the region and the Cold War.

Its disgusting that you would white wash the suffering of the South Vietnamese people at the hands of the communist of the North. My father worked closely with these people. Many of them were executed after the fall of Saigon, and their families sent to communist re-education camps.

So you think Vietnam is a prosperous country eh? Guess where it ranks on the Human Development Index, a measure of standard of living: #116. South Korea ranks at #21, just ahead of France! South Vietnam could be where South Korea is today if it had not been for the 1973 United States congress that abandoned the country. South Korea is a FIRST WORLD COUNTRY. Vietnam is a Third World Country that ranks in the lower half of the Third World.

Vietnam today has made reforms but its still largely a Communist Country mired in Third World mediocrity. In terms of trade, its good for low wage labor. Their opposition to Chinese expansion today makes them a relative ally of the United States and other democratic states in the region.

But the idea that you suggest, that communist dictatorship is good for Vietnam is easily refuted when a side by side comparison is made with South Korea. South Vietnam could have been South Korea. Instead, its mired in third world mediocrity as a member of a country that is a communist dictatorship.

I must say, you like standing up for Dictatorships whether they be in Vietnam or Iraq.

And South Vietnam persecuted the Buddhists to the degree they would set themselves on fire

Made good viewing on the six o’clock news

 

[SandSquid]

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.

Again I am talking total Democrats

Let’s do the math together

Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats

I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
Most did not
I was one of those who did not

Do you have a poll of registered democrats at that time on whether they supported the invasion or not? Otherwise your claim that most democrats were against the invasion is questionable.

The majority in the Senate of Democrats supporting the invasion was significant and a big contrast to the level of support for the 1991 Gulf War. By and large, Democrats were more supportive of Operation Iraqi Freedom that they were of Desert Storm.

Sure.

Poll: Dems more likely to forget supporting the Iraq war

And not bashing Dems here. Their choice was based on trusting Muellers report, which most did, because when the leader of the FBI says the evidence is there, most believed him.

I still think Saddam was one of the most evil leaders in the world, and my problem is less with fighting evil, than doing so under false pretenses and not having a post war plan in place.

 

[rightwinger]

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.

Again I am talking total Democrats

Let’s do the math together

Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats

I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
Most did not
I was one of those who did not

Do you have a poll of registered democrats at that time on whether they supported the invasion or not? Otherwise your claim that most democrats were against the invasion is questionable.

The majority in the Senate of Democrats supporting the invasion was significant and a big contrast to the level of support for the 1991 Gulf War. By and large, Democrats were more supportive of Operation Iraqi Freedom that they were of Desert Storm.

Most Americans supported their presidents judgement

He was wrong

 

[rightwinger]

Now you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous

Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy

Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.

Again I am talking total Democrats

Let’s do the math together

Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats

I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
Most did not
I was one of those who did not

Well it was a split vote. Most Dems in the house didn't. Most in the senate did.

In both houses it wasn't a majority Democrat. Only in the house, but not the senate. Combined sure, but I've never heard it talked about that way.

If I fill one glass full of water, and another glass 1/3 of the way full, I can't say both glasses are over half full because if I switch water from one to the other I can get both half full.

Anyways point remains. Senate majority leader and house minority leaders who were Dems cosponsored the bill, and it wouldn't have passed without Democrat support.


Kinda like that yougov set of polls. In 2003 the majority of Dems (52%) supported war with Iraq. But in 2015 of those of voting age in 2003 only 19% recall supporting it.


So most Dems supported the war overall, as did most in the senate.

 

[SandSquid]

Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.

Again I am talking total Democrats

Let’s do the math together

Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats

I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
Most did not
I was one of those who did not

Do you have a poll of registered democrats at that time on whether they supported the invasion or not? Otherwise your claim that most democrats were against the invasion is questionable.

The majority in the Senate of Democrats supporting the invasion was significant and a big contrast to the level of support for the 1991 Gulf War. By and large, Democrats were more supportive of Operation Iraqi Freedom that they were of Desert Storm.

Most Americans supported their presidents judgement

He was wrong

Agreed.

 

[MisterBeale]

Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.

Again I am talking total Democrats

Let’s do the math together

Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats

I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
Most did not
I was one of those who did not

Do you have a poll of registered democrats at that time on whether they supported the invasion or not? Otherwise your claim that most democrats were against the invasion is questionable.

The majority in the Senate of Democrats supporting the invasion was significant and a big contrast to the level of support for the 1991 Gulf War. By and large, Democrats were more supportive of Operation Iraqi Freedom that they were of Desert Storm.

Most Americans supported their presidents judgement

He was wrong

Americans think what ever the press tell them to think.

 

[rightwinger]

Again I am talking total Democrats

Let’s do the math together

Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats

I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
Most did not
I was one of those who did not

Do you have a poll of registered democrats at that time on whether they supported the invasion or not? Otherwise your claim that most democrats were against the invasion is questionable.

The majority in the Senate of Democrats supporting the invasion was significant and a big contrast to the level of support for the 1991 Gulf War. By and large, Democrats were more supportive of Operation Iraqi Freedom that they were of Desert Storm.

Most Americans supported their presidents judgement

He was wrong

Americans think what ever the press tell them to think.

When they stop, he is gone

 

[SandSquid]

Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.

Again I am talking total Democrats

Let’s do the math together

Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats

I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
Most did not
I was one of those who did not

Well it was a split vote. Most Dems in the house didn't. Most in the senate did.

In both houses it wasn't a majority Democrat. Only in the house, but not the senate. Combined sure, but I've never heard it talked about that way.

If I fill one glass full of water, and another glass 1/3 of the way full, I can't say both glasses are over half full because if I switch water from one to the other I can get both half full.

Anyways point remains. Senate majority leader and house minority leaders who were Dems cosponsored the bill, and it wouldn't have passed without Democrat support.


Kinda like that yougov set of polls. In 2003 the majority of Dems (52%) supported war with Iraq. But in 2015 of those of voting age in 2003 only 19% recall supporting it.


So most Dems supported the war overall, as did most in the senate.

It's splitting hairs. Most Democrats did support the war overall. Most Dems in the senate did. Most Dems in the house didn't. Sure overall if you take away the separation of congress from reality you can say most Dems in congress did. But that's not how Congress works in the real world and is considered a split congressional vote among democrats (one chamber for and one against). House votes don't count in the senate and Senate votes don't count in the house. I don't see why you want to add them together when that isn't reality. But if you want to, sure. In meaningless terms most voted against. In meaningful terms most Democrats were for the war and the two houses of congress were split among dems

 

[rightwinger]

Again I am talking total Democrats

Let’s do the math together

Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats

I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
Most did not
I was one of those who did not

Well it was a split vote. Most Dems in the house didn't. Most in the senate did.

In both houses it wasn't a majority Democrat. Only in the house, but not the senate. Combined sure, but I've never heard it talked about that way.

If I fill one glass full of water, and another glass 1/3 of the way full, I can't say both glasses are over half full because if I switch water from one to the other I can get both half full.

Anyways point remains. Senate majority leader and house minority leaders who were Dems cosponsored the bill, and it wouldn't have passed without Democrat support.


Kinda like that yougov set of polls. In 2003 the majority of Dems (52%) supported war with Iraq. But in 2015 of those of voting age in 2003 only 19% recall supporting it.


So most Dems supported the war overall, as did most in the senate.

It's splitting hairs. Most Democrats did support the war overall. Most Dems in the senate did. Most Dems in the house didn't. Sure overall if you take away the separation of congress from reality you can say most Dems in congress did. But that's not how Congress works in the real world and is considered a split congressional vote among democrats (one chamber for and one against). House votes don't count in the senate and Senate votes don't count in the house. I don't see why you want to add them together when that isn't reality. But if you want to, sure. In meaningless terms most voted against. In meaningful terms most Democrats were for the war and the two houses of congress were split among dems

Back to the purpose of the thread

The Iraq War was a Bush initiative. In terms of his presidency, it is his legacy

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm glad to see Wilson got the votes he deserved, coming in at #2.

In his defense he knew how bad he fucked up and became very depressed about it, even though revisionists blame this on personal problems. His own writings reveal he knew how hard he fucked our nation with the Federal Reserve and everything that came with it.

That being said, I'm shocked John Adams remains at 2 votes. If only people knew about the Sedition Act and how it was used to prosecute anti-federalists (Thomas Jefferson types).

I also don't think Obama should have so many votes, unless it's proven he was knowingly complicit in Spy-gate vs Trump.

 

[Faun]

I voted for:
John Adams (Sedition Act and XYZ Affair)
Pierce (civil war)
Bush Jr.
Obama

It's ironic that our last two president both make this list.

Here, a real poll...

Quinnipiac poll: 41% say Trump worst president since World War II

Only 41%. I'd like to see how they rated the callers.
Conservatives Can't be polled because they don't answer phones to people they don't know.

That's 41% spread out among 13 presidents. That's pretty high. Worst ever in the history of that poll. But I understand, you can't come to grips that Trump is among the least liked of presidents, so you have to feed yourself excuses to make yourself feel better about it.

 

[U2Edge]

Of course the U.S. supported DeGual. DeGual was better than communist dictatorship and all the deaths and human rights abuses associated with communist dictatorship. In later years, failure to stand up for the new country of South Vietnam would have been dangerous for the United States elsewhere in the world. If the Soviet Union sensed weakness of resolve by the United States over Vietnam, it may have challenged the United States over West Berlin in the late 1960s again. A new Berlin crises with the Soviets having near nuclear parity with the United States could have resulted in a dangerous situation that could have led to armed conflict in Germany and then escalated to the use of nuclear weapons in Europe and then a worldwide nuclear war. The stakes were high during the cold war and could never be isolated to one region or country.

The fault for the for the Vietnam War lays with the North Vietnamese Authoritarian Communists supported by the Soviet Union and China. They were against any sort of democracy, were against human rights, and against freedom of religion. It was not enough for them to just enslave the north of Vietnam, they wanted the south to as well as their neighbors and they were willing to do anything to get it. This was about a communist elite imposing their will over all the people's of southeast asia. Sadly, they succeeded in this attempt because the 1973 United States congress decided to abandoned South Vietnam.

To Vietnam
Communism was a better option than Colonialism

Our support of French Colonialism in Vietnam caused a war that killed millions needlessly

To North Vietnamese Elites, it was the only option and they ruthlessly imposed their will on the rest of Vietnam. I don't think French Colonialism was a good thing, but at least they had more freedom, freedom of religion, and better human rights.

My father fought in Vietnam and worked with the South Vietnamese military. You do not want to know what happened to South Vietnamese military personal and their families after the North took over in 1975. If they were not executed, they were sent to brutal Communist re-education camps for years. Find me an equivalent to these executions and communist re-education camps under French Colonialism. You won't.

Where do you think a human being as a better chance to achieve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Vietnam or South Korea?

South Korea is one of the most modern and developed countries in the world. Its a democracy, where human rights, and freedom of religion are all respected and valued. South Vietnam had a chance to be like South Korea, but the 1973 United States Congress ruined that chance when it abandoned the country with the veto proof majority Case Church Amendment.

Defend the current communist dictatorship of Vietnam all you want. Its a sad reminder of the fate we abandoned the South Vietnamese people to. South Korea is a reminder of what South Vietnam could have been and should have been.

The overwhelming majority of Vietnamese supported Ho
The South was corrupt at all levels and was a puppet state of the US
It was agreed that a free election would be held within two years after the French left. The US did not allow that election because they knew Ho would win easily

Unlike the fear mongering of what would happen if the Communists won, Vietnam is now a stable, prosperous country and a good trade partner of the US

IF Ho and North Vietnam were so great as you contend, then people from the North would not of had to flee to the South. Large numbers of Christians at to flee HO and North Vietnam because of the persecution they were suffering and threatened by. That is as corrupt and evil as one can get. The idea that there is any accurate measure of support for HO even in the North or South is absurd. The Communist North Vietnamese elites would do whatever it took to make sure they won any election even if it required trickery or subterfuge. Just as the Communist did in Russia in 1917.

The election was not allowed because they FEARED HO would win by any means necessary. They did not want the people of South Vietnam to be subjugated to a communist dictatorship as well as the implications it would have on the region and the Cold War.

Its disgusting that you would white wash the suffering of the South Vietnamese people at the hands of the communist of the North. My father worked closely with these people. Many of them were executed after the fall of Saigon, and their families sent to communist re-education camps.

So you think Vietnam is a prosperous country eh? Guess where it ranks on the Human Development Index, a measure of standard of living: #116. South Korea ranks at #21, just ahead of France! South Vietnam could be where South Korea is today if it had not been for the 1973 United States congress that abandoned the country. South Korea is a FIRST WORLD COUNTRY. Vietnam is a Third World Country that ranks in the lower half of the Third World.

Vietnam today has made reforms but its still largely a Communist Country mired in Third World mediocrity. In terms of trade, its good for low wage labor. Their opposition to Chinese expansion today makes them a relative ally of the United States and other democratic states in the region.

But the idea that you suggest, that communist dictatorship is good for Vietnam is easily refuted when a side by side comparison is made with South Korea. South Vietnam could have been South Korea. Instead, its mired in third world mediocrity as a member of a country that is a communist dictatorship.

I must say, you like standing up for Dictatorships whether they be in Vietnam or Iraq.

And South Vietnam persecuted the Buddhists to the degree they would set themselves on fire

Made good viewing on the six o’clock news

At least the government being developed in South Vietnam in general respected religion while the Communist North believed in destroying all religion.

Who do you think does better on human rights, freedom of religion, and democracy? Vietnam or South Korea.

 

[U2Edge]

I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
Most did not
I was one of those who did not

Well it was a split vote. Most Dems in the house didn't. Most in the senate did.

In both houses it wasn't a majority Democrat. Only in the house, but not the senate. Combined sure, but I've never heard it talked about that way.

If I fill one glass full of water, and another glass 1/3 of the way full, I can't say both glasses are over half full because if I switch water from one to the other I can get both half full.

Anyways point remains. Senate majority leader and house minority leaders who were Dems cosponsored the bill, and it wouldn't have passed without Democrat support.


Kinda like that yougov set of polls. In 2003 the majority of Dems (52%) supported war with Iraq. But in 2015 of those of voting age in 2003 only 19% recall supporting it.


So most Dems supported the war overall, as did most in the senate.

It's splitting hairs. Most Democrats did support the war overall. Most Dems in the senate did. Most Dems in the house didn't. Sure overall if you take away the separation of congress from reality you can say most Dems in congress did. But that's not how Congress works in the real world and is considered a split congressional vote among democrats (one chamber for and one against). House votes don't count in the senate and Senate votes don't count in the house. I don't see why you want to add them together when that isn't reality. But if you want to, sure. In meaningless terms most voted against. In meaningful terms most Democrats were for the war and the two houses of congress were split among dems

Back to the purpose of the thread

The Iraq War was a Bush initiative. In terms of his presidency, it is his legacy

In reality, the Iraq war really started when Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait in August 1990. Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and even now Trump have all left their mark to a degree on the conflict there. The United States bombed Iraq every year from 1991 through 2003. This was not something that just suddenly started in 2002/2003.

 

[Pogo]

This poll leaves much to be desired.

No FDR, Lincoln, wtf, are you even American, motherfucker? WTF?!

And GFY for including Truman, because he was straight up.


You need to include Bush Sr. and Lincoln.

Truman's on my shit list for the four worst since 1900.

Then again the OP only put 13 Prezzes on the list. So I voted for them all.

 

[Pogo]

The contrast between worst and best has to go to Grover Cleveland. Cleveland 22 must have been atrocious, because by the time Cleveland 24 came about he had changed into a totally different guy.