1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An Interesting Take on Bush Presidency

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Boom_70, May 15, 2007.

  1. Gold

    Gold Active Member

    It was more than 500 when Eisenhower left office. The real number would be tough to obtain because there were a lot of CIA people in the country and they wouldn't count as military troops. Kennedy did increase the number of troops, but Eisenhower made the US committment. The 16,000 troops were less than the number in Korea and less than the number in Europe and probably not that much more than the number of US troops in the Phillipines. Kennedy and LBJ knew how shaky the situation was in Viet Nam because there wasn't a stable government and South Viet Nam was divided - there were Viet Cong supporters and the pro-Western groups, the Catholics and the Buddhists, were divided. Eisenhower's famous speech near the end of his presidency expressed concern about the growing "military-industrial" complex, but few people understood what he was talking about.

    How do I explain the expansion of US involvement in Viet Nam? Well, you see, we were going over to prevent Communists from ruling Viet Nam before they would take over the Phillipines, Japan, and those Commies weren't going to stop until they were on the beaches of Honolulu slaughtering some people and brainwashing the rest of us good, true-blue Americans. Our soldiers are over here to bring Viet Nam democracy, and these people are shooting at us. In Congress, the largest group of critics of LBJ weren't anti-war folks but legislators who wanted more more action to defeat the Communists, who would close all of our churches and force us to play soccer.

    Now I realize that if you graduated college after 1990, the above paragraph might seem ridiculous. But that was the mentality (somewhat exaggerated, I grant you) in the 1960s. Our government wouldn't lie to us, especially on foriegn policy.
     
  2. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Does anyone remember a Liberal vs. Conservative debate during the 60s and 70s? The whole establishment was the enemy of the "counter culture."

    Being a Democrat or Republican didn't mean much in those days if you still wore Haggar slacks.
     
  3. Uh Oh, Ragu's defending Ike again. I wish the old bastard had shot up some HgH before he hit the links. Ragu's life would be easier.
     
  4. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Gold nailed it.

    The mindset at the time was relentlessly anti-communist and no one (well, almost no one) argued against the Domino Theory. You have to remember, it wasn't THAT long after the McCarthy witch hunts.
     
  5. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    You know, I wonder sometimes how Bush would be viewed had he not decided to abandon the fight against terrorism and invade Iraq.

    No one can deny that what we did in Afghanistan was good, good, work. We entered a fight that had bogged down another rather large army and never took a punch. In the span of months, we had crippled al Qaeda. We had wiped out 80 percent of its members, destroyed over 90 percent of its training facilities and cut off almost all funding. The top leaders were separated, on the run and scared to death. We had drove a horrible government out of power, liberated millions of women and had almost overnight created a solid, dependable ally in the Middle East. And even better: We had the full support of almost the entire world.

    Then we left .. out of greed.

    Since the day we pulled the majority of troops out of Afghanistan, the country has slowly returned to the same terrorist haven it was before our arrival. The Taliban is once again controlling large portions of the country. Al Qaeda has once again set up training facilities in the country and is slowly rebuilding its ranks there. The search for the top leaders was all but abandoned, and they've had a big hand in restoring the outfit. And now, because of our greed and stupidity, a large portion of the Middle East believes it is this country's goal to stamp out Muslims. Even worse: The majority of the rest of the world does not support us any longer.

    We had in Afghanistan exactly what Bush and Co. claim they wanted from Iraq: A stable, dependable, democratic country in the Middle East.

    But I'm guessing it was missing the key ingredient that would've made the Bushies happy: Oil.
     
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I got news for you old timer. Julie Christie was nothing before she started cycling on HGH.
     
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    That anti-communist mindset was a staple of the cold war. The whole reason we were sending money to the French puppet government was anti-communism ferver. It's also the reason the Soviets and the Chinese were funding the other side...

    Ike still didn't create and mismanage the Vietnam War. LBJ did. No amount of twisting history changes the fact that the troops started to get massed under Kennedy (although typically of Kennedy, he took a one foot in and one foot out approach that he would have likely stayed with if he hadn't gotten shot). It took LBJ to escalate it and turn it into the disaster history remembers. Only the most convoluted trace it to Ike, and if you are going to do that, you really have to trace it to Truman. Either way, it's ridiculous. Neither one had a crystal ball to foresee the idiot that was LBJ.
     
  8. Pastor

    Pastor Active Member


    I'm surprised that the original spam email/posting wasn't responded to with further spam postings. This could be a great resource for finding links to penis enlargment pills, fake Viagra and obtaining university diplomas for Joe and Bob's shed.
     
  9. I warned you about my hobby.
    En garde, beeyotch!
     
  10. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Ragu

    I was referring to Gold's second paragrah. He nailed the mindset at the time which, if you weren't around, can't really appreciate.

    If you want to point fingers (which I don't), you can blame the American anti-communist fervour as the catalyst of the war.
     
  11. IU90

    IU90 Member

    The difference is we did not need the Bush administration to do the initial "good work" in Afghanistan. With Bin Laden operating with protection in Afghanistan, the Taliban's defiant non-cooperation, and the full support of the UN and international community, it was the obvious necessary move after 9/11. Almost certainly Clinton, Gore, or just about anyone else (except maybe Carter) would've made the same decision to invade Afghanistan. The difference is they would've actually followed through and completed it. That part would've happened regardless of who was in the White House at the time.

    But I can't imagine any other presidency other than this Bush Administration, with its foreign policy driven by Neo-Con whackos Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz & Perle, would've made the bizarre decision to pull the money and troops out of Afghanistan before the job was complete in order to start a completely unnecessary 2d war against a country that had never attacked us, had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and posed no real threat to us. That part ONLY happened because of who (by virtue of a stolen election) happened to be in the White House at the time.
     
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Nah. I can do what most people do and blame LBJ, who was responsible for sending massive numbers of troops and launching the offensive, and then sending more troops, even after it was clear that the thing was a disaster.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page