Are Democrat-led wars OK?

[Bridge Repair Money]

Need lessons wrote:

<quoted text>
Germany declared war on the U.S.
The United Nations came to the aid of South Korea after the north invaded.
Eisenhower sent the first military "advisers" into Vietnam.
Clinton did attack Bosnia to stop the genocide going on.

President Truman and a Democratic Congress passed several foriegn assistance acts that put Military Advisors into Vietnam.

Nursing Home Diaper Hippies have been making up Urban Myths for years -- now they are going senile because You can look up things so easy in internet.

[monet]

Bridge Repair Money wrote:

President Woodrow Wilson endorsed a KKK propaganda Movie called "Birth of a Nation"
The 1924 Democratic National Convention was the largest KKK rally in US History.
Democrats helped the KKK achive 6 million Members.
Segregation was a product of the Democratic Party.

And today, the SEIU and ACORN carry the burden laid sown by the KKK after some of the democruds left. There are still enough of them there to keep the organization going, though.

[Lesson 2]

Truman sent military aid to the French Army. It was their war. Ike sent the first military advisers
to train the So. Viet army, when the French pulled out.
You sonny, are part of the "if it's on the internet it must be true" generation. God help us all.

[Bridge Repair Money]

Lesson 2 wrote:

Truman sent military aid to the French Army. It was their war. Ike sent the first military advisers
to train the So. Viet army, when the French pulled out.
You sonny, are part of the "if it's on the internet it must be true" generation. God help us all.

Harry Truman signed the 2 bills passed by Congress that sent Military Advisors and Money to Vietnam.

Harry Truman signed the bill passed by congress to create the CIA and their operations in Vietnam.

Too bad Congressional records prove Truman put the USA in Vietnam.

Eisenhower's famous words in his Farwell Address "Beware of the Military Industrial Complex"

[wjh]

update,update, went for a bike ride on Sunday and the protesters were at Summit and Snelling in full force. Maybe they were just on vacation before. Didn't see any protesters though on 98th and Lyndale on Tuesday.

[Bridge Repair Money]

wjh wrote:

update,update, went for a bike ride on Sunday and the protesters were at Summit and Snelling in full force. Maybe they were just on vacation before. Didn't see any protesters though on 98th and Lyndale on Tuesday.

Local Nursing Home Diaper Hippies?

[MN Observer]

You can't really lay Vietnam on Ike or Kennedy. It was Johnson that escalated the conflict and put the entire U.S. Military into the fight.

[K Bar]

MN Observer wrote:

You can't really lay Vietnam on Ike or Kennedy. It was Johnson that escalated the conflict and put the entire U.S. Military into the fight.

Actually, Vietnam was exactly what Kennedy was looking for. No telling how it would have been handled had he not gotten whacked.

[Wellstone Warhawk]

Need lessons wrote:

<quoted text>
Germany declared war on the U.S.
The United Nations came to the aid of South Korea after the north invaded.
Eisenhower sent the first military "advisers" into Vietnam.
Clinton did attack Bosnia to stop the genocide going on.

Bosnia was a conflict that didn't involve allegations of weapons of mass destruction. The nation we subjugated wasn't a sponsor of international terrorism.(This time, we fought FOR the terrorists.)
It wasn't remotely related to national security. And the justification for our intervention turned out to be a complete fabrication.
For 78 days in 1999, we bombed Christian Yugoslavia (our ally in two World Wars) to aid Moslem separatists who were tight with Osama bin Laden. Ever since, NATO has occupied its sovereign territory - with disastrous results.

Appearing on CNN's "Late Edition" in August,2004, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her husband's 1999 adventure, over the ancient province of Kosovo, as evidence that Democrats are better at fighting wars than Republicans.(I would have thought Korea and Vietnam proved that conclusively.)

We smashed the Serb war-machine, and "we didn't lose a single American military person," Hillary boasted of the conflict her draft-dodger hubby dragged us into. She neglected to mention that it was a war we fought from 30,000 feet.

The party of McGovern and Dean is so proud of this notable feat of arms, that it invited Hashim Thaci, chieftain of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and Clinton's erstwhile ally, to attend the Democratic National Convention.(You'd think the Party in a Perpetual Fog would be at least a little curious about how Thaci got the nickname "Snake." Hint: It's not because he's a patron of the arts.)
On his return to Kosovo, Snake Thaci - head of a terrorist gang that finances its operations through drug-running and prostitution - proclaimed, "It was confirmed once again that a Democratic administration would recognize and respect the will of the people of Kosovo for self-determination."

Self-determination is code for independence from Yugoslavia - the creation of another Republic of Jihad (Balkanistan) on the periphery of Europe.
The Clinton gang that ran the war - including Richard Holbrooke and Wesley Clark (then Supreme Commander of NATO forces)-- are slated for key posts in a Kerry administration. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs under Clinton, Holbrooke (who once called the Serbs "murderous a**holes") could be Kerry's Secretary of State.

The War Hero and his running-mate both voted for the Senate resolution authorizing the use of force in Kosovo. A war resolution died in the Republican House.
What, we went to war without congressional authorization! We also did it without the permission of the United Nations.(Whatever happened to multilateralism?) Still, the French and Germans were on board - always a bad sign.

[MN Observer]

K Bar wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, Vietnam was exactly what Kennedy was looking for. No telling how it would have been handled had he not gotten whacked.

Actually, you have no idea about which you are writing. That's the point, Kennedy didn't escalate, Johnson did. Kennedy had 'advisors' not entire divisions and fleets of navy vessels offshore.

[Bridge Repair Money]

MN Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, you have no idea about which you are writing. That's the point, Kennedy didn't escalate, Johnson did. Kennedy had 'advisors' not entire divisions and fleets of navy vessels offshore.

JFK was the first to send Troops -- he deployed 12,000 troops to Vietnam shortly after Eisenhower said "Beware of the Military Industrial Complex"

Eisenhower had his eye on South and Central America as being a bigger threat to the United States.

[Krazi]

Earlier this week we learned the mastermind of the 911 attacks will be brought to the Uinted States to face trial in a criminal court.

That right there shows us with cystal clarity that democratic presidents don't lead wars. In fact they don't even recognize what is and isn't a war. So if you don't know what war is how could you possibly lead one.

[MN Observer]

Bridge Repair Money wrote:

<quoted text>
JFK was the first to send Troops -- he deployed 12,000 troops to Vietnam shortly after Eisenhower said "Beware of the Military Industrial Complex"
Eisenhower had his eye on South and Central America as being a bigger threat to the United States.

Exactly, he sent 12,000 troups,(although I didn't fact-check your claim) not entire armies and navy groups.

[K Bar]

MN Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, you have no idea about which you are writing. That's the point, Kennedy didn't escalate, Johnson did. Kennedy had 'advisors' not entire divisions and fleets of navy vessels offshore.

Actually I do. Did you read my entire post? We all know what Johnson did. My contention is that Kennedy would have done the same thing, as Vietnam was well within his parameters of stopping communist aggression.

[MN Observer]

K Bar wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually I do. Did you read my entire post? We all know what Johnson did. My contention is that Kennedy would have done the same thing, as Vietnam was well within his parameters of stopping communist aggression.

How the heck do you know what Kennedy would have done? What does "Vietnam was exactly what Kennedy was looking for" mean anyway? The reason I said you have no idea about which you are writing is because of that statement. Can you also tell us what Lincoln would have done had he not been murdered in 1865? How about Bobby Kennedy? What would he have done?

[monet]

MN Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
How the heck do you know what Kennedy would have done? What does "Vietnam was exactly what Kennedy was looking for" mean anyway? The reason I said you have no idea about which you are writing is because of that statement. Can you also tell us what Lincoln would have done had he not been murdered in 1865? How about Bobby Kennedy? What would he have done?

Although both questions are rhetorical, since we will nevr know, the best guess is that the nation would have much closer to socialism than it was when Omugabe won his election.

[K Bar]

MN Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
How the heck do you know what Kennedy would have done? What does "Vietnam was exactly what Kennedy was looking for" mean anyway? The reason I said you have no idea about which you are writing is because of that statement. Can you also tell us what Lincoln would have done had he not been murdered in 1865? How about Bobby Kennedy? What would he have done?

When Kennedy became Pres., he developed personal interest in the problem posed by a communist stragtegy of small wars of "national liberation". Chastened by failure at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba and by a personal confrontation with Khrushchev, Kennedy reputedly told the NY Times "We have a problem in making our power pertinent and Vietnam looks like the place".
Kennedy set the tone with his administration with his inaugural address, " to bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty".
To attempt to foil the communist strategy of wars of national liberation fitted that ideal. Thus sharply increasing America's involvement.
Does that help? I could go on, but do I really need to?

[predictions_]

democrat-led wars against america's intelligence services, the military, the economy, the rule of law, are just fine.
the main threats to the survival of america aren't external, but democrat-led.
america isn't so strong it can take much more, if any, of this.
and it's the 60s leftists that hijacked the democrat party that are saying it's time to destroy america now that they have the means.

[MN Observer]

K Bar wrote:

<quoted text>
When Kennedy became Pres., he developed personal interest in the problem posed by a communist stragtegy of small wars of "national liberation". Chastened by failure at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba and by a personal confrontation with Khrushchev, Kennedy reputedly told the NY Times "We have a problem in making our power pertinent and Vietnam looks like the place".
Kennedy set the tone with his administration with his inaugural address, " to bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty".
To attempt to foil the communist strategy of wars of national liberation fitted that ideal. Thus sharply increasing America's involvement.
Does that help? I could go on, but do I really need to?

You can go on all you wish. It still in no way says what Kennedy would have or would not have done if he had not been killed in 1963.

[monet]

MN Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
You can go on all you wish. It still in no way says what Kennedy would have or would not have done if he had not been killed in 1963.

How do you know that?