VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Sunday, March 09, 10:20:44pm
Author: Alex Alexiades
Subject: Re: LBJ
In reply to: Mr. Davis 's message, "LBJ" on Sunday, March 02, 05:27:35pm

President Johnson's policy in Vietnam was unsuccessful for a couple of reasons. Slowly increasing the amount of American troops sent to Vietnam wouldn't automatically have a positive effect on the situation. It is a great risk to send any amount of troops into this war especially given such extreme and dangerous conditions. This is a controversial policy because not everyone agrees that the US should be sending more troops into a country where we are already failing to get our job done and help defeat the enemy. It puts many more lives at risk to send more troops in and there were so many people dying and that had died already that it would only make it worse if more lives were lost. It also costs money to fight war, and the more people you have fighting on your side, the more you have to pay, not only in money but it lives and well being of the people in our home country as well.

It also isn't fair for President Johnson to say that this will create a minimum loss of life on obth sides of the war. He cannot guarantee such a thing because obviously people are going to die because of the jungle and the nepalm used and agent orange that was used, which was killing people, and the fighting was killing people. So many people had already died, so by sending more troops in, even though the intention might be that it will help fight the war and defeat the enemy, it is basically an automatic death sentence because we clearly failed in this battle. The more people you put in the war, the more that there are to die. So, Johnson's policy with Vietnam was unsuccessful because it was not logical and could not work given the situation in Vietnam and what had already happened in the war so far.

The war in Vietnam effected the US in the current dealings with Iraq because it seems that our country is following the same policy as Johnson set for Vietnam. We are sending in more and more troops in hopes that it will eventually help defeat the enemy. But that is so unclear in the war against terrorism in Iraq because there isnt exactly one side against the other in my opinion, but i could be wrong. There clearly is a failure going on in Iraq tho because we are sending more troops in and they are getting killed or severely injured and there is a very little success rate. It is tallying up this huge bill for the US and costing so much money to be in the Middle East fighting the war against terrorism which is even worse because it has created a huge debt for our country. That is how the war in Vietnam is in connection with the situation in Iraq.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.