4 ms·
Nothing that Obama or Clinton did even came close to comparing to the wars started by Bush II. In order to find a comparable mishap on the part of Democratic g
by moosey 8y ago
Nothing that Obama or Clinton did even came close to comparing to the wars started by Bush II. In order to find a comparable mishap on the part of Democratic governance and war you have to go back to Truman, and you won't find me defending the Vietnam War, nor Obama's use of drones.
> Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities.
There is plenty of information that shows this to be untrue, especially in this case of warfare that you talk about, example:
> 37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan. That is well within the margin of error.
> In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post–ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians.
> A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-attack-on-syria-they-hated-under-obama.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-...
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoHave to go back to Truman? You seem to have forgotten Vietnam...
- moosey 8y agoFor most intents and purposes, that's who started it. anti-communistic fervor was, and is, a massive boondoggle.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoTruman started Vietnam because of anti-communist fervor? Seriously? That was his fault and not Johnson's (who was actually president at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin)? That's... a pretty strange interpretation of history.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Truman started Vietnam because of anti-communist fervor? Seriously? That was his fault and not Johnson's (who was actually president at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin)? The US was fighting in Vietnam, against VC, before the Gulf of Tonkin. The French fight against the VC from 1950 was paid for by the US and supported by US military advisers and equipment, and the US took over the French military role in 1955 (which is why 1955 is the usual cited start date of the Vietnam War, though even that is arguably late); there was a major escalation in direct US troop involvement in the Vietnam War under President Kennedy. Johnson didn't start the US involvement in the war in Vietnam, unless you think he was running US foreign policy (including directing the military) out of his Senate office, independent of the White House.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoI didn't know we had advisors there starting in 1950 (under Eisenhower). I was dating from Tonkin. Still, those were (mostly?) advisors rather than front-line troops. Per Wikipedia, ground combat troops first came after Tonkin, which means under Johnson. Still, in no case is it reasonable to say that Truman started it.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Still, those were (mostly?) advisors rather than front-line troops. Initially, but that stopped being true well before Tonkin. > Per Wikipedia, ground combat troops first came after Tonkin Not sure which Wikipedia page you got that from but see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Assistance_Command,_Vietnam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Assistance_Command,... Which discusses, among other things, the 1964 MACV/MAAG-Vietnam reorg due to the scale of combat deployments straining the advisory-oriented command structure, and a similar issue prompting a naval command structure reorg in 1966. (Those reports were under Johnson, but thet largely addressed strains produced by the ramp up under Kennedy.) > Still, in no case is it reasonable to say that Truman started it. Sure, Eisenhower or Kennedy are more reasonable.
- 8y ago