The Worst President In American History Poll

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by bossmann

funny, i never stated my political party (or race for that matter), you just took for granted that i must be a white republican rather than an open minded democrat who does not blindly follow the party line and sees when the party screws the pooch, and calls them out for things that i would call ALL parties out on.

Maybe we should all pause for a moment and reflect that others can oppose our views without therefore being bad people. There is no moral imperative to support President Obama or even to denounce President George W Bush, who does have accomplishments in office to show (like it or not). Neither does Mr Obama's skin colour mean that all who oppose him are automatically driven, even on a subconscious or unintentional level, by racial prejudice. Some people just disapprove of his policies, which is permitted in a free society.

Just one small point: I prefer capital letters and paragraphs in long posts, not because I am a purist, but simply for the benefit of everyone else who wants to read and understand.

[Puhbear69]

The downturn of the (lower-) middle class and the workers began with those two guys. I think so too, and reliable statistics approve it too.




Opposite to him -the poster- the I think the Social Security Standard in the US hasn't been very high at all the time. But in case of "you have a job" the Social Standard was higher indeed and it was easier to get one to for "one's spendings/costs".
This dramatically changed after 1985, regardless there where Democrats or Republicans in the US government.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by savage560

I would actually aknowledge the honesty & a persons courage to state that reason of race,allthough I cannot agree or give the race card reasoning merit,is the reason they think Obama is such a bad president!At least they do state someting.

Hopefully you will never get the chance, Sav, old boy: I delete all the openly racist posts I come across and I always warn, or ban the member behind the post; this is a red line. Possibly this covert racism of which you speak is a sign that members know that VEF enforces its prohibition of open racism whenever necessary. People who want to post that sort of thing should find an extremist website to join instead, because its totally unwelcome with us and we don't sit still for it.

Anyone who encounters an openly racist post here or anywhere on VEF, please click the red triangle and report the post asap. We moderators will take it from there.

[haroldeye]

Can't give you double thanks Scounds, but I would if I could for 2305.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by savage560

The truth is escalation came when LBJ took office ,allmost 600k at its max. in US troop stength , & RMN continued to have a large troop force in VN.

Did the USA really ever have close to 600,000 servicemen in theatre in Vietnam all at once? That is a collosal number of men in the modern age; about 6 times the entire troop strength of the British Army today. This speaks of a clear failure of policy. What was the achievable goal which was worth blood and treasure on this incredible scale? It beggars belief, doesn't it?

JFK was a great speaker, had exceptional charisma, was even a reasonably handsome fellow (most politicoes look like stage villains) and inspired many in his own generation. But the outstanding passage in his inauguration speech was:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This sounds terrific; until you parse the meaning. Take out the glowing rhetoric and you are left with a very foolish policy. Always one must measure the balance between what we want and what we can afford to have, and the same is true for nations. Uncle Sam can't bankrupt himself to guard the freedom of people who can't or won't stand up for their own freedom; neither can Miss Britannia.

I am about to say a really brutal thing now. If people on the ground show no inclination to resist Communist or Islamo-Fascist tyranny, or any other flavour of oppression, then they have no right to expect outsiders to do this on their behalf. If you yourself decline to stand up and fight for your own liberty, you don't deserve to be free. It's a very hard thing to say, but not everyone in this world does deserve to be free. Our "human rights" aren't given to us on a plate; if we won't fight for them, we won't get them. If you are willing to stone female rape victims to death because they are unchaste, and to cheer and chant religious slogans when you hear about the murder of ordinary people, then you deserve nothing; this goes for pastors in Florida who want to burn someone else's holy book as well, and for all people everywhere who proclaim hate, intolerance and cruelty as religious virtues

President Kennedy was taking the wrong turn. His duty was by all means to defend his allies, the way they can then defend America in their turn, but not to commit the American people to a blank cheque in favour of unspecified people who were not friends of America and not either entitled to or even desirous of American "protection". It is impossible to "give" anyone freedom; they have to first want it and then take it for themselves, and only then can you stand by them and help them fight against those who want to take it away again. This is a lesson from history. JFK's basic thesis was flawed and naive and this thinking underpinned the increasingly brutal American presence in South Vietnam, helping people who didn't want their help and quite legitimately wanted them gone.

The Vietnam War was really LBJ's crowning folly. But Mr Kennedy led the way. If only I could buy into the conspiracy theory that LBJ had his predecessor murdered, I could take some satisfaction in feeling that the Vietnam War and the disgrace it brought on LBJ's head was Mr Kennedy's posthumous revenge on his murderer.

[blueballsdc]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Did the USA really ever have close to 600,000 servicemen in theatre in Vietnam all at once? That is a collosal number of men in the modern age; about 6 times the entire troop strength of the British Army today.

Maximum US troop strength (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard) in Vietnam was in 1968 at 536,100. Of course this doesn't include all the allied troops (ANZACs, Korea, etc...) which added up to about 100,000 or the South Vietnamese army which was about 800,000. Not all of the US troops saw combat. Only about 40% saw combat or were in combat situations (coming under fire). All total some 3.5 million saw service in the whole SE Asia theatre during the period. This includes Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, etc...
When you consider that there were about 10 million active duty service members during the whole Vietnam era the numbers become even more staggering. At the time of Kennedy's death (by whatever person or persons) there were only 163,000 troops in Vietnam. It steadily grew until 1968 and then dropped after that.

Originally Posted by scoundrel

What was the achievable goal which was worth blood and treasure on this incredible scale? It beggars belief, doesn't it?

We was trying to stop the spread of communism don't ya know.

[9876543210]

blueballsdc,

Originally Posted by blueballsdc

Maximum US troop strength (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard) in Vietnam was in 1968 at 536,100. Of course this doesn't include all the allied troops (ANZACs, Korea, etc...) which added up to about 100,000 or the South Vietnamese army which was about 800,000. Not all of the US troops saw combat. Only about 40% saw combat or were in combat situations (coming under fire). All total some 3.5 million saw service in the whole SE Asia theatre during the period. This includes Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, etc...
When you consider that there were about 10 million active duty service members during the whole Vietnam era the numbers become even more staggering. At the time of Kennedy's death (by whatever person or persons) there were only 163,000 troops in Vietnam. It steadily grew until 1968 and then dropped after that.

If you could, please, where did you get these numbers? They sound roughly accurate but I'd like to know where they came from.

We was trying to stop the spread of communism don't ya know.

Heh, heh. That was the conservative spiel at the time and do remember it. But I also seem to remember that the real reason we were in Viet Nam was rubber. The US needed it and Viet Nam had it. Can I prove that? No, its been 40 some years. And I think there is (was) some pretty compelling evidence. I have a huge book which I read many years ago (but still have) that I think covers that. When I get a chance I'll take a look.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by blueballsdc

We was trying to stop the spread of communism don't ya know.

A bit like trying to eat tomato soup with a fork.

Originally Posted by 9876543210

But I also seem to remember that the real reason we were in Viet Nam was rubber. The US needed it and Viet Nam had it. Can I prove that? No, its been 40 some years. And I think there is (was) some pretty compelling evidence. I have a huge book which I read many years ago (but still have) that I think covers that. When I get a chance I'll take a look.

Might it have been a fetish thing? Left wing politicians proclaiming the rights of the common man tend to be on the take. Right wingers proclaiming God and Country tend to be traitors, cowards and, er, to have unusual tastes.

[9876543210]

scoundrel,

Originally Posted by scoundrel

A bit like trying to eat tomato soup with a fork.
Might it have been a fetish thing?

The fetish thing? No, I seriously doubt it, too small a market. But tires? And other rubber products in the 60's and 70's? Well, the west seriously needs rubber for a ton of things (to this day).

Left wing politicians proclaiming the rights of the common man tend to be on the take. Right wingers proclaiming God and Country tend to be traitors, cowards and, er, to have unusual tastes.

Agree with that whole heartedly. Although, in my experience, right wingers are virtually all on the take while left wingers are about 60% on the take (at least around the US). And right wingers are virtually all traitors and cowards. The only thing they care about is their wallet. Give them a chance to sell their mother and they'll do it for a few bucks. A groups of people that have never understood the concept of honor.

I'll have to take a look for that book on Viet Nam. The author may have been Karnow. Let me check a second. Well, how about that, my memory isn't totally shot after all! The book is called, "Vietnam: A History" by Stanley Karnow. It's huge (about 4 in. wide) but a good read. I read it in the 70's or 80's so it may take me a while to find the info on the rubber subject.

Another one of those wars that made absolutely no sense. Until, of course, you understand the rubber idea. Then you go: Aha! Now I understand!

Pretty damn sick. But that seems to be the way with all of our recent wars.

[scoundrel]

I doubt if Vietnam was a resource war fought over rubber. Even in WW2, after Japan occupied most of South-East Asia, America developed synthetic rubber, a bi-product of crude oil refining, and she got by. Today, natural rubber is only 42% of all rubber consumed, and Vietnam produces rather less than 10% of that 42%; not worth the bones of a single US marine IMHO.

I suspect the answer lies in a deplorable lack of cost-benefit analysis. The war escalated because no one was checking the balance sheet and calling time on an unsuccessful endeavour. With no clearly defined goals, there was no way to say whether the USA had achieved anything; but the persistence and increasing vehemence of armed resistence was a clear proof that there was no victory...yet. The US Army, almost to the end, kept thinking that if it just won some more battles and accumulated some more impressive body-counts, the enemy would crack; but this never happened.

The politicians wanted to "fight communism" as if an idea in the human mind can be eradicated by the use of armed force. The military (brass hats in the Pentagon rather than honest soldiers) likes wars because they provide opportunities for career advancement, corrupt earnings via military contracts, and glory-hunting. But the US military is organised on the Prussian model, which is all about the offensive spirit, mobility and the doctrine of the decisive battle. The Prussian model does not adapt well to wars of attrition; that is its' greatest weakness. The Vietnam War was a war of attrition, in which the US Army won all the battles and found in the end that it had lost the war. George Washington would have understood the Viet Cong; their Fabian strategy exactly mirrored his own successful strategy in the American War of Independence.

The deployment of over 500,000 men suggests to me that the Pentagon never correctly analysed how the enemy were fighting and thought that sheer force was the answer, when guile was what was needed. The British fought a similar war in Malaya and won; our technique was quite contemptible divide-and-rule stuff, using community tensions to get the Malay community onside and use their help to defeat Chinese insurgents, and sometimes vice-versa. We had no morals at all, but we minimised our own casualties by getting our enemies to fight each other. Not nice, not cricket; but it worked.