Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He seems to offer proof of his theorySome of them only voted in favor of it because they were up for re-election in just a few weeks, not because they really supported the war. Of the 13 Democrat Senators up for re-election, 9 of them voted yea.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.
An unproven theory. But even if true, it shows their views were out of sync with the majority of people.
Its an assumption that people vote a certain way because they are facing an election, not proof.
Difficult to admit 60,000 were unnecessarily killedWhat can’t be disputed is that it is a conflict that we never should have gotten involved inLBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office
But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.
But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam
Not stupid at all. Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower both supported LBJ sending large ground combat units to South Vietnam in 1965. They may have had differences with how the war was fought or US forces used, but there was no difference when it came to the necessity of the United States helping South Vietnam defend itself from Communist aggression from North Vietnam, which was supported by the Soviet Union and China. Had the new 1973 congress not cut off future US military involvement in South Vietnam after August 15, 1973(Case Church Amendment passed with veto proof majority passed in June 1973) as well as cut funding for South Vietnam, South Vietnam today would be an independent democratic state as rich and prosperous as South Korea. Instead, the 1973 congress turned its back on South Vietnam, a country the United States had sworn to defend and was obligated to defend through signed treaty commitments. Total abandonment, the most shameful act in the history of the United States government.
WOW.
Hope I never get prescribed whatever you're snorting.
I'm a lazy vegan, no drugs. There are a lot of myths about Vietnam that fall apart once you see the facts. But some people have wrapped themselves up in these myths so tightly that they are unable to handle the truth when confronted with it.
Most Vietnam veterans believe the war was just and necessary including my own father who served there from December 1967 to December 1968 when U.S. casualties were the heaviest. Just over 16,500 US troops died and a little over 80,000 wounded in 1968.
Opinions are still heavily divided over the war 45 years later. Still a strong majority against involvement though, although for different reasons.
01. There is the faction that believe it was not necessary or unjust
02. Then the second faction who look back in hindsite and see it as a waste after the congress gave up and abandoned South Vietnam in 1973.
Those two factions are how a majority of the entire public feel. But when Vietnam Veterans are asked though, a slight majority believe the conflict was just and necessary and the war would have been won had congress not abandoned the effort in 1973.
Generals Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell both feel this way. Both fought in the Vietnam War when they were Junior officers.
General Creighton Abrams who was the last commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam also felt this way.
Dr. Lewis Sorley wrote a great book "A BETTER WAR" in which he showed how much improved U.S. military and South Vietnamese military strategy and policy was in the later years of the war. By 1971, the rebel Vietcong element in South Vietnam had largely been eliminated. The war was no longer really the insurgent war of the past but took on the look of a more general conventional war. The was made abundantly clear in 1972 during North Vietnam's Easter Offensive. Despite there being few U.S. combat troops on the ground at that point, primarily advisors, U.S. Airpower combined with the South Vietnamese ground forces threw the North Vietnamese back and inflicted massive losses on their forces. This showed the way forward for the future. Limited numbers of U.S. advisors on the ground supported the South Vietnamese military combined with U.S. Airpower were now enough to defeat anything that North Vietnam could throw at them. Such a strategy or composition forces would not of worked in 1968 which shows the dramatic improve in the South Vietnamese fighting ability.
Still, the South Vietnamese military was totally dependent on re-supply from the United States U.S. advisors at the battalion level, as well as U.S. airpower. In March 1973, the last U.S. advisors left. In August 1973, all U.S. airpower and other military activities were ended. Then from August 1973 through all of 1974, congress cut back on supplies for the South Vietnamese military.
By early 1975, the South Vietnamese military was running low on ammo and fuel to support their divisions in the field. By contrast, the Soviets and Chinese had poured Billions of dollars into the North Vietnamese military to rebuild and replace its losses from the 1972 Easter Offensive. So in early 1975, North Vietnamese regulars faced a South Vietnamese military with little ammo and fuel to put up a fight, nor the U.S. advisors that were still needed, or U.S. Air Power. Naturally under these conditions, the South Vietnamese military collapsed after a couple of months. But had the United States kept supplying the South Vietnamese military, supporting its Units with U.S. advisors and kept plenty of U.S. combat aircraft in the region to support the South Vietnamese military, the North Vietnam offensive of 1975 would have crushed just as it had been back in 1972.
Read Obamas opinion of the war sometimeHe seems to offer proof of his theorySome of them only voted in favor of it because they were up for re-election in just a few weeks, not because they really supported the war. Of the 13 Democrat Senators up for re-election, 9 of them voted yea.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.
An unproven theory. But even if true, it shows their views were out of sync with the majority of people.
Its an assumption that people vote a certain way because they are facing an election, not proof.
Agreed and a very dark assumption that those politicians cared more about their reelection chances than sending American soldiers to their deaths.
If one believed Saddam was an evil that needed removed that's one thing. But to not believe that and voting to start a war so they could get reelected is quite an accusation.
I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.
You should probably have 3 different list:
A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.
I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.
That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.
But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.
In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three
View attachment 258597
I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.
LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office
But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.
But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam
Not stupid at all. Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower both supported LBJ sending large ground combat units to South Vietnam in 1965. They may have had differences with how the war was fought or US forces used, but there was no difference when it came to the necessity of the United States helping South Vietnam defend itself from Communist aggression from North Vietnam, which was supported by the Soviet Union and China. Had the new 1973 congress not cut off future US military involvement in South Vietnam after August 15, 1973(Case Church Amendment passed with veto proof majority passed in June 1973) as well as cut funding for South Vietnam, South Vietnam today would be an independent democratic state as rich and prosperous as South Korea. Instead, the 1973 congress turned its back on South Vietnam, a country the United States had sworn to defend and was obligated to defend through signed treaty commitments. Total abandonment, the most shameful act in the history of the United States government.
WOW.
Hope I never get prescribed whatever you're snorting.
I'm a lazy vegan, no drugs. There are a lot of myths about Vietnam that fall apart once you see the facts. But some people have wrapped themselves up in these myths so tightly that they are unable to handle the truth when confronted with it.
He did get them all out aliveNo Jimmy "can't free the hostages" Carter?
No, “he” did not.
Read Obamas opinion of the war sometimeHe seems to offer proof of his theorySome of them only voted in favor of it because they were up for re-election in just a few weeks, not because they really supported the war. Of the 13 Democrat Senators up for re-election, 9 of them voted yea.
An unproven theory. But even if true, it shows their views were out of sync with the majority of people.
Its an assumption that people vote a certain way because they are facing an election, not proof.
Agreed and a very dark assumption that those politicians cared more about their reelection chances than sending American soldiers to their deaths.
If one believed Saddam was an evil that needed removed that's one thing. But to not believe that and voting to start a war so they could get reelected is quite an accusation.
...
His Sec of State did.
.....
...
His Sec of State did.
.....
Maybe if you were a little older you’d remember what finally convinced the fucking animals to agree.
Thé UN urged Bush not to invadeRead Obamas opinion of the war sometimeHe seems to offer proof of his theoryAn unproven theory. But even if true, it shows their views were out of sync with the majority of people.
Its an assumption that people vote a certain way because they are facing an election, not proof.
Agreed and a very dark assumption that those politicians cared more about their reelection chances than sending American soldiers to their deaths.
If one believed Saddam was an evil that needed removed that's one thing. But to not believe that and voting to start a war so they could get reelected is quite an accusation.
I have. And agree with him it was a dumb war with an undetermined cost and consequences. I also agree that Saddam was an evil and brutal dictator who committed genocide, killed hundreds of thousands, tortured thousands including women and children and should have been deposed.
I don't think it was a either go in now or let him rule forever, and a better solution involving the UN should have been taken, emphasizing the atrocities he was committing and a plan after the war. I think sanctions tend to hurt the most vulnerable who are the ones that should be being protected.
But also I know I don't have a plan to solve that, so without seeing one in place I have faith in, I wouldn't go in.
He was Cheney and Rumsfeld's puppet.
I think Bush was a decent man
But the worst President in modern History
Very trueHe was Cheney and Rumsfeld's puppet.
I think Bush was a decent man
But the worst President in modern History
...
His Sec of State did.
.....
Maybe if you were a little older you’d remember what finally convinced the fucking animals to agree.
Oh you want his name?........
He and Bush should have been impeached their first year for collusion and corruption at the highest levels. And Reaganomics ( put on steroids by Clinton and Bush Jr) killed the American middle class.The name that made things happen after 444 days of Carter's weakness was: Ronald Reagan.
It's not unproven that members of Congress often vote to please their constituents, against their own interests. That's how they get elected. And its not a coincidence Bush pushed for that vote just weeks before an election, knowing he would get at least a few votes from folks running for re-election who wouldn't want to look weak against a call to reign in Iraq. In the shadow of 9.11, no less.Some of them only voted in favor of it because they were up for re-election in just a few weeks, not because they really supported the war. Of the 13 Democrat Senators up for re-election, 9 of them voted yea.The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?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.
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.
An unproven theory. But even if true, it shows their views were out of sync with the majority of people.
By a quickly dying number of people like you unapologetically making excuses for how bad Reagan was.Carter is already remembered as a weak, .
