Chopped Liver

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
You might be interested to know that the first president to commit "advisers" to Vietnam was a Republican named Dwight Eisenhower. Look it up.

DTS. Did you ever read what Eisenhower said about actually committing troops militarily, ie going to war? He sad no way in hell, it would be a quagmire... you forgot that part.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

timm,
Your memory of history is far different from mine.
Nixon was elected on his promise to end the Vietnam war. Unfortunately, he had no plan. So he came up with something called "Vietnamiztion".
It only took four years and over 30,000 more American soldiers lives to demonstrate the fallacy. After he resigned in disgrace and Ford gave him a pardon, people were evacuated from the rooftop of the US Embassy with helicopters.
Do you remember anything?
"Those that ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them."

ps...I'll do a seach and show you a pic of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. You might be right, we had intel, but not intelligence.
I don't blame the world...the jokers that sold the war to the gullible deserve the questions, and any and all answers they can fabricate.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

DTS: It was probably a Saturday nite potluck!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

DTS. Did you ever read what Eisenhower said about actually committing troops militarily, ie going to war? He sad no way in hell, it would be a quagmire... you forgot that part.

Pgardn,
It was deGaulle that is quoted concerning "quagmire".
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch26.htm

You, like others that have posted on this thread, are entitled to express your opinions. Facts and history are not subject to manipulation (unlike opinions, they speak on their own).
DTS

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pgardn,
It was deGaulle that is quoted concerning "quagmire".
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch26.htm

You, like others that have posted on this thread, are entitled to express your opinions. Facts and history are not subject to manipulation (unlike opinions, they speak on their own).
DTS

DTS: Of course they are! That's why schoolbooks have to be re-written every 5 years, to spin the shades of history! You knew that,right?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS: Of course they are! That's why schoolbooks have to be re-written every 5 years, to spin the shades of history! You knew that,right?

Live and learn! And here all the while I thought the texts were rewritten by McGraw-Hill so that the makers of the tests (also McGraw-Hill) could get the "kiddies" smart enough to maintain their "No Child Left Behind" funding.
Timm, you know so much! Thanks!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Live and learn! And here all the while I thought the texts were rewritten by McGraw-Hill so that the makers of the tests (also McGraw-Hill) could get the "kiddies" smart enough to maintain their "No Child Left Behind" funding.
Timm, you know so much! Thanks!

Always happy to help!

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pgardn,
It was deGaulle that is quoted concerning "quagmire".
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch26.htm

You, like others that have posted on this thread, are entitled to express your opinions. Facts and history are not subject to manipulation (unlike opinions, they speak on their own).
DTS

Eisenhauer is on record as saying he opposed entering the Vietnam conflict. I have read it from 3 different sources. I put the quagmire in myself. Where have you found that Ike said he wanted to enter the conflict?, I would like to see how historians have manipulated what I have read. I have read he was opposed to the United States getting into this conflict militarily, that is all I have personal read, so I would appreciate the update. Historians do disagree.

ANd I hate to disappoint, but history is constantly manipulated. People on this very board have said we entered the Iraqi conflict to get rid of Saddam. We got into Iraq to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. I have already read the manipulation. GW even did it after we found no weapons.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Eisenhauer is on record as saying he opposed entering the Vietnam conflict. I have read it from 3 different sources. I put the quagmire in myself. Where have you found that Ike said he wanted to enter the conflict?, I would like to see how historians have manipulated what I have read. I have read he was opposed to the United States getting into this conflict militarily, that is all I have personal read, so I would appreciate the update. Historians do disagree.

ANd I hate to disappoint, but history is constantly manipulated. People on this very board have said we entered the Iraqi conflict to get rid of Saddam. We got into Iraq to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. I have already read the manipulation. GW even did it after we found no weapons.

pgardn,
You are correct that Eisenhower was reluctant to enter a land battle in South East Asia. He did provide advisers. He also realized that if the 1956 elections had been held as scheduled, Ho Chi Min would have have won.
In my view, he was correct in opposing communism. This decision, given the atmosphere in the US at the time, was sensible.
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm

Regarding the rewriting of history and manipulating events, you are also correct. The "victors" write the history books. A review of the "Indian Wars" testifies to that. The "story" on Iraq remains unwritten, though the "editing" is ongoing.
DTS