Kennedy's foreign policy views were very much in tune with most Democrats back then. I watched the Kennedy/Nixon debate on the TV and saw him at Rice Stadium giving his speech about going to the Moon, sitting in the stands. He's remembered because his presidency was remarkable in countless ways. No one has "forgotten" anything. They didn't know it in the first place. I was there. He had more charisma in his left finger than the vast majority of politicians of both parties have had in their whole bodies since the death of Bobby Kennedy, and that's a fact, Jack.
In the spirit of the statement, don't act like there are not lobbying efforts taken on by the defense contractors to go to war-which Eisenhower knew all too well. This statement was applied to the clamoring of the neo-cons to overthrow a guy they used to support 20 years prior and go to war in Iraq for the sheer purpose of war profiteering on defense contracts. Millions dead and affected long term with trillions in resources wasted.
Either way, there are a **** ton of widows under the age of 30 with nobody wanting to marry them. What a disaster the war has been. Thank you, Bush's and Cheney! Thank you texx, basso, etc! It couldn't have been done without yall!
Meh. That's an exaggeration for sure. Just off the top of my head, the Gulf of Tonkin/Vietnam pretty clearly is worse, especially since we don't know the outcome in Iraq. Long list of other things as well.
I don't think (all of them) are trying to paint him as a pacifist as they are trying to show that even a General or Republican "icon" is uneasy about military expansion. It is disingenuous as hell to anyone with a decent knowledge of near history. Conversely, I think when Operation Ajax et al are brought up or criticized by (admitted very few) contemporary liberals, modern conservatives often reflexively either praise or dismiss the actions as old news; when truthfully politicians of both parties back then almost comprehensively tolerated them. That's probably why the Communist party actually had a decent amount of middle-class, white support back then.
I think Buchanan takes the cake. Not only was his inaction towards Southern secession fully negligent considering the obvious and predictable outcome, but everyone knows he did it pretty much out of electoral spite. Furthermore, very much like the Civil War, Vietnam ultimately embittered the entire country in what could have been a much more peaceful and prosperous two decades; especially if you consider the post-Saigon domestic malaise that helped destroy two Presidencies. However, if South Vietnam had somehow turned out like South Korea, it might be difficult to distinguish the two conflicts. World War I was just weird, if Europe wasn't our cultural kin and the only other industrialized group of trade partners back then, we could have probably made a case for staying neutral and just profiteering off of both sides' demand for goods. In fact I think that's pretty much the whole rationale for Switzerland's neutrality, to prioritize economic over strategic goals. But yes, giving up a decade of fiscal prosperity and allowing 4,000 soldiers to die on this side of that other conflict I mentioned in a previous post, it's pretty bad.
And Eisenhower knew so well about these bad efforts by these defense contractors...that he sponsored more of them than any president since him. It's like using McCarthy to argue that Communism is evil - yes, it's true, but that's not exactly a spokesman you want to use for that cause given all he ended up doing to help said evil. Besides, Bush's problem wasn't some stupid conspiracy for "war on defense contracts" ( Oh God, that stupid catchphrase will nearly be a century old since it originated right after the Great War). In fact, it was the exact opposite when you think about it. He didn't use them enough as he tried to wage a war on the cheap and got burned for it. What would Operation Ajax have anything to do with Communist support from ordinary Americans, since they obviously didn't know about it back then? Even ignoring the fact that Communism wasn't exactly popular among those groups ( come on, McCarthy and the Birchers had their supporters), I'd argue that would be just due to the fact that we didn't know at all the true horrors of the Soviet system until much later.
You've never posted anything I've agreed with so much. In addition to the millions of Iraqis who were killed or had their lives destroyed, over 4,000 American troops died and tens of thousands were injured. What a tragedy! Jeb Bush recently saying "history will be kind to my brother" stands as the biggest pile of political baloney in a long time. I doubt he actually believes that himself. George W Bush will never outlive his disgraceful decision to send our troop to invade and occupy Iraq.
Especially considering that the war was essentially pre-planned, was built on lies, and killed all the international goodwill and sympathy we generated after 9/11.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.html <iframe width="400" height="225" src="http://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2013/3/20/ten_years_later_us_has_left" frameborder="0"></iframe>
I was against it at the time and have never changed my opinion. That George W. Bush didn't pay a price for lying to his country and the world, and hasn't been charged with war crimes in the World Court as being responsible for this tragedy is rediculous. In my opinion. Since when is stupidity and being oblivious an excuse?
What world court? And under what laws? Fact is, if tomorrow Obama decided that he wanted to nuke every city in Europe for the lulz, that isn't illegal. If you're talking about the ICC, my viewpoint on that would be very clear. Bush could have gone onto this war purely because he hated Iraqis and wanted to murder them all, have documented evidence of that - and I would openly view him being tried by them, or ANY international court, as grounds for a impeachment of the current administration at best, and rebellion/terrorism/military coup if necessary. There absolutely no circumstances, not even an American Hitler, where I would support an American being tried by a non-American court.
According to Bush himself, being "decisive" was more important than being right. It changed a year or two after the invasion as the reality-distortion field became less effective. The reason the catastrophic disaster of a president known as George W. Bush won re-election is because the Dems nominated a pathetic candidate (John Kerry) and Bush's minions continuously assaulted his character with exaggerations and lies until he was too tattered and tarnished to recover. The American people badly wanted another president but Kerry's campaign totally dropped the ball. He was completely unprepared for the national stage. After re-election, the revulsion for Bush just continued to fester and is why Republicans were pulverized in 2006. The sentiment continued until 2008. Here's one way to look at it for Obama fans: Without Bush's 2nd term, there is no way Obama gets elected IMO. The fact he was perceived as more of a repudiation of Bush than Hillary is why he got the nomination. It also helped him against McCain in 2008 because the American public was almost inoculated against negative campaigning after the hatchet job in 2004.
It wasn't so much as Bush as it was Cheney and another group of republicans that were looking profit of the war. The rest of the republicans that support the war to this day (the same ones ducking this thread) are just blind idiots that can't formulate their own opinions and blindly follow w.e it is the GOP says.
That isn't too surprising tbh. Very sad nonetheless. But whats even worse is that the masses over here won't ever come to realize the suffering of a group of people that we induced. Not just to them but to their descendents and so on.
Since people are disagreeing with this...... how about the worst foreign policy decision since Vietnam?
