Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

The first one is how Eisenhower got the national interstate highway system funded. Ike was a smart motherfucker.

And then his farewell address:  "I'm telling you about this military-industrial complex.  I'm warning you, bro."

Like I said, Ike was a smart motherfucker.

Probably the last good Republican President. I'd have voted for him.

[thobal]

The first one is how Eisenhower got the national interstate highway system funded. Ike was a smart motherfucker.

And then his farewell address:  "I'm telling you about this military-industrial complex.  I'm warning you, bro."

Like I said, Ike was a smart motherfucker.

Probably the last good Republican President. I'd have voted for him.

Nixon wasnt that bad.

[nenjin]

Yeah. Election fraud and hardcore political espionage, to name a few. Because power refusing to legally cede authority is small potatoes compared to making the trains run on time.

[RedKing]

The first one is how Eisenhower got the national interstate highway system funded. Ike was a smart motherfucker.

And then his farewell address:  "I'm telling you about this military-industrial complex.  I'm warning you, bro."

Like I said, Ike was a smart motherfucker.

Probably the last good Republican President. I'd have voted for him.

Nixon wasnt that bad.

Well, except for being a paranoid megalomaniac. But yeah, from a strictly policy standpoint Dick was pretty good. He'd be considered a card-waving socialist by today's standards.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Everyone tells me that Regan was an awesome president (if not the best ever), but I get the impression that Regan was one of those people who can go all "OBEY AND LOVE ME." and everyone will listen, so I don't take their words at face value. He was an actor before he was a politician, after all.

[nenjin]

Reagan had the benefit of great economic times in the US. Fans like to over-attribute it to his leadership. I'd also quibble with some of Nixon's policy choices. Continuing to put resources into the Vietnam war wasn't a decision I would have supported.

[RedKing]

Reagan had the benefit of great economic times in the US. Fans like to over-attribute it to his leadership. I'd also quibble with some of Nixon's policy choices. Continuing to put resources into the Vietnam war wasn't a decision I would have supported.

That's a tough one to call. It's easy to critique with the benefit of hindsight, but given the situation at the time...

What Nixon did was to stop trying to win it on the ground and instead try to bomb North Vietnam into submission, and to get the South Vietnamese to do more of the fighting (kind of like we did in Iraq). It didn't work, but it wasn't as costly in terms of American lives. When it became clear that it wasn't going to work, he moved towards getting us out.

It's also hard to seperate some of Nixon's nastier policy decisions from Kissinger's decisions, and to know who really made the call. In some cases, Kissinger was the voice of reason (like saying, "No, we can't drop nukes on Hanoi.") and other times he was the little devil on Nixon's shoulder (like expanding the war into Cambodia).

[nenjin]

It didn't work, but it wasn't as costly in terms of American lives. When it became clear that it wasn't going to work, he moved towards getting us out.

"Peace with honor", yeah? A lot of the choices about Vietnamization had to do with saving face and preserving American military credibility as it did with concern for the outcome for South Vietnam. And we know how that turned out.

I don't know if the situation is completely on par with Iraq, since NV was an actual country and identifiable military aggressor. There were diplomatic possibilities that Nixon (and the military-industrial complex) refused to consider, partly based on ideology, appearances and unknowables like who was benefiting from the war's continuation.

No one wants to be responsible for what happens when the US pulls out of any country they've been defending, and yet it was something Kennedy wanted to do years earlier when it was even less politically feasible to do so. So I can't help but look at Nixon's Vietnam decisions as the continuation of poor policy choices that were out of step with what an increasing majority of Americans wanted.

In the end, we didn't save any face. We didn't save any money. We didn't save any lives and ultimately a US friendly Vietnam was lost too. Compared to the price we would have paid for an early withdrawal and abandoning the South Vietnamese, many of whom didn't want us there in the first place regardless of the North's aggression? I think it would have shown political courage to withdraw, despite what Kissinger, the ultimate pragmatist, would have advised. And it might have even given Nixon the popularity he needed to survive Watergate.

[Lagslayer]

It didn't work, but it wasn't as costly in terms of American lives. When it became clear that it wasn't going to work, he moved towards getting us out.

"Peace with honor", yeah? A lot of the choices about Vietnamization had to do with saving face and preserving American military credibility as it did with concern for the outcome for South Vietnam. And we know how that turned out.

I don't know if the situation is completely on par with Iraq, since NV was an actual country and identifiable military aggressor. There were diplomatic possibilities that Nixon (and the military-industrial complex) refused to consider, partly based on ideology, appearances and unknowables like who was benefiting from the war's continuation.

No one wants to be responsible for what happens when the US pulls out of any country they've been defending, and yet it was something Kennedy wanted to do years earlier when it was even less politically feasible to do so. So I can't help but look at Nixon's Vietnam decisions as the continuation of poor policy choices that were out of step with what an increasing majority of Americans wanted.

In the end, we didn't save any face. We didn't save any money. We didn't save any lives and ultimately a US friendly Vietnam was lost too. Compared to the price we would have paid for an early withdrawal and abandoning the South Vietnamese, many of whom didn't want us there in the first place regardless of the North's aggression? I think it would have shown political courage to withdraw, despite what Kissinger, the ultimate pragmatist, would have advised. And it might have even given Nixon the popularity he needed to survive Watergate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rmUZQrvF5o

[Montague]

The Veitnam war had implications beyond just stopping Communism in Veitnam. It made a point to the Communist leaders that the spread of their ideology would be violently resisted every step of the way and hopefully convey that their efforts were pointless. The USA and it's allies fought for 10 years and put plenty of money and effort to the conflict to show that it was serious about combating communist influence.

Not many countries had successful communist revolutions after Veitnam and Communism today is defunct and a passe ideology. Even though the democracies 'lost' the Veitnam War, the conflict might have indeed contributed to the decline of Communism.

That said, it was a pretty stupid war and it was ineptly conducted. Not really convinced it was ever worth it. An alternative like liberating North Korea or Cuba would probably have been more productive.

Also, I think Reagan just sort of lucked out because he was president during good times for the USA. It's hard to think of anything really brilliant he did besides just let the markets do their thing.

[Il Palazzo]

An alternative like liberating North Korea or Cuba would probably have been more productive.

I love how the Soviets were always invading and the USA was always liberating. From what I remember from the Soviet propaganda, it was the other way around on our end.

[Sheb]

Well, the US were mostly on their own, except for Australia, Korea, N-Z, Thailand and the Cambodian. All the other Western states refused to step in, including the French that lost their own Indochina war earlier.

After the war, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Grenada and Mozambique had communists revolutions. In Laos, Cambodia, Angola, Benin and Mozambique, it happend in 1975, so the message sent was presumable "The US can't stop a communist revolution even if they want it. And they probably don't want it anymore".

Also, among the country fighting the Vietnam wars on your side, South Vietnam, Korea, Thailand, and Cambodia were all dictatorships. Saying the "democracies" lost it is either ironic or wrong. The capitalist/us-supporters did.

So yeah, Vietnam may have prevented a "Domino effect" that would have engulfed the whole world. But the evidence is pretty thin, if anything, Vietnam gave communism a fresh breath and encouraged people across Africa to try it, while signalling to the USSR that it had a free rein outside Europe.

[Dutchling]

Weren't there Dutchbatters In Vietnam? And thus UN troops?

[SalmonGod]

An alternative like liberating North Korea or Cuba would probably have been more productive.

I love how the Soviets were always invading and the USA was always liberating. From what I remember from the Soviet propaganda, it was the other way around on our end.

Not to mention all the horrendous shit the U.S. did in South America to combat the "threat of a good example".

[Sheb]

Weren't there Dutchbatters In Vietnam? And thus UN troops?

Vietnam wasn't a UN operation. The Soviets didn't repeat their Korean mistake and would have vetoed the shit out of anything.