Going back to 1956 for remarks JFK made in regarding southeast Asia, you can see some similarities and differences from then to both GWB and BHO today.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-135-015.aspx A couple of examples of his Vietnam verbal rhetoric http://youtu.be/MfC5RheiV7U http://youtu.be/vSjTNpyJMUo It was of course a different time, one of the cold war, yet similar to today regarding fears, national security and perils. JFK’s “Secret Societies” speech to The Press gives some insight into the parallels: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/American-Newspaper-Publishers-Association_19610427.aspU.S. President Barack Obama plans to deploy a small number of special operations forces to Syria to advise rebels Washington deems moderate, U.S. sources said on Friday (complete article linked below)
----------------------
Here's the brief history lesson:
In February 1954, President Eisenhower refused to commit American troops to the Franco-Vietnamese War. In a press conference he stated, "I cannot conceive of a greater tragedy for America than to get heavily involved now in an all-out war in any of those regions." By April, however, his administration revisited the question of direct intervention in the war. Though he sent no U.S. troops to the region, he authorized military aid to the French. After France surrendered to the Viet Minh, Eisenhower's administration aided anti-communist leader Ngo Dinh Diem in consolidating power in Saigon. Throughout his second term as president, Eisenhower remained committed to Diem's often-tyrannical regime.
source: http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/dwight-d-eisenhower.html
John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) was the 35th president of the United States.
During his years as president, Kennedy tripled the amount of American economic and military aid to the South Vietnamese and increased the number of U.S. military advisors in Indochina. He refused to withdraw from the escalating conflict in Vietnam because, he said, "to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there."
source: http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/john-f-kennedy.html
----------------------
Has an eerily familiar "Deja Vu all over again" sense about it don't you think?
How, arrogant thinking these advisers are somehow going to turn everything around, the sky will open up, the angels will sing and there will be peace everywhere, all Thanks to America ( God).
Probably got advice from the gay guy leading the army, who by the never ever would think of serving in the military.
Have you ever noticed that all presidents have basically deified the country, saying stuff like "Only America (like GOD) can lead", "The world looks to America(like God) to make things right", blah, blah and blah.... it's very religious attitude.
That is what I mean by Amer-religion.
Short of bringing back Adolf Hitler, Mao TseTung or Joseph Stalin, we cannot and have not won a war in over 60 years.
----------------------
Here's the brief history lesson:
In February 1954, President Eisenhower refused to commit American troops to the Franco-Vietnamese War. In a press conference he stated, "I cannot conceive of a greater tragedy for America than to get heavily involved now in an all-out war in any of those regions." By April, however, his administration revisited the question of direct intervention in the war. Though he sent no U.S. troops to the region, he authorized military aid to the French. After France surrendered to the Viet Minh, Eisenhower's administration aided anti-communist leader Ngo Dinh Diem in consolidating power in Saigon. Throughout his second term as president, Eisenhower remained committed to Diem's often-tyrannical regime.
source: http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/dwight-d-eisenhower.html
John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) was the 35th president of the United States.
During his years as president, Kennedy tripled the amount of American economic and military aid to the South Vietnamese and increased the number of U.S. military advisors in Indochina. He refused to withdraw from the escalating conflict in Vietnam because, he said, "to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there."
source: http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/john-f-kennedy.html
----------------------
Has an eerily familiar "Deja Vu all over again" sense about it don't you think?
........once and for all or we pull out of the campaign against ISIS completely.There is no middle ground! Please no more half assed Middle East policies, we the people are fed up! Everyone in this administration wants Syrian President Assad gone but who will replace him? ISIS or other Islamists rebels?
----------------------
Here's the brief history lesson:
In February 1954, President Eisenhower refused to commit American troops to the Franco-Vietnamese War. In a press conference he stated, "I cannot conceive of a greater tragedy for America than to get heavily involved now in an all-out war in any of those regions." By April, however, his administration revisited the question of direct intervention in the war. Though he sent no U.S. troops to the region, he authorized military aid to the French. After France surrendered to the Viet Minh, Eisenhower's administration aided anti-communist leader Ngo Dinh Diem in consolidating power in Saigon. Throughout his second term as president, Eisenhower remained committed to Diem's often-tyrannical regime.
source: http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/dwight-d-eisenhower.html
John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) was the 35th president of the United States.
During his years as president, Kennedy tripled the amount of American economic and military aid to the South Vietnamese and increased the number of U.S. military advisors in Indochina. He refused to withdraw from the escalating conflict in Vietnam because, he said, "to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there."
source: http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/john-f-kennedy.html
----------------------
Has an eerily familiar "Deja Vu all over again" sense about it don't you think?
This is the second time today I've agreed with you.
So why do you think Obama is taking this route? Does he actually believe it has a chance? Is he simply stalling? Something else?
These days when some countries go to war or launch operations they want to be seen as saints. Killing people is not a business for saints. The thing I hate about Bush is that if he was not honest and fully commited to war with the operations that he launched. The operatations he launched should of not cost the United States any money and the USA should of came out of the operations with a nice profit, like operation Desert Storm. Obama has the same problem as Bush in that he is unwilling to make the tough call to go all in and not have the usa or himself viewed as saints. The thing with ISIS is that if you drive them out of anywhere you going to need a force to stay their permanently to keep them from coming back. The USA Armed Forces are not built for long term occupation, I am talking about generations so that you can building up a local force from the population that you can trust that will stay and fight, not wanting to leave for the usa when times get tough.
I think Bush, Obama, and any future usa president needs to look at Israel at president day country that could really care less how the world view their actions. They admit that their main focus is to keep Israel alive as a country and they will do it by any means necessary.
I am not for war or fighting, but if you are going to fight you better be all in. Be half hearted in fighting either in one on one situation or in groups rarely solves anything.
----------------------
Here's the brief history lesson:
In February 1954, President Eisenhower refused to commit American troops to the Franco-Vietnamese War. In a press conference he stated, "I cannot conceive of a greater tragedy for America than to get heavily involved now in an all-out war in any of those regions." By April, however, his administration revisited the question of direct intervention in the war. Though he sent no U.S. troops to the region, he authorized military aid to the French. After France surrendered to the Viet Minh, Eisenhower's administration aided anti-communist leader Ngo Dinh Diem in consolidating power in Saigon. Throughout his second term as president, Eisenhower remained committed to Diem's often-tyrannical regime.
source: http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/dwight-d-eisenhower.html
John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) was the 35th president of the United States.
During his years as president, Kennedy tripled the amount of American economic and military aid to the South Vietnamese and increased the number of U.S. military advisors in Indochina. He refused to withdraw from the escalating conflict in Vietnam because, he said, "to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there."
source: http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/john-f-kennedy.html
----------------------
Has an eerily familiar "Deja Vu all over again" sense about it don't you think?
Going back to 1956 for remarks JFK made in regarding southeast Asia, you can see some similarities and differences from then to both GWB and BHO today.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-135-015.aspx
A couple of examples of his Vietnam verbal rhetoric
It was of course a different time, one of the cold war, yet similar to today regarding fears, national security and perils. JFK’s “Secret Societies” speech to The Press gives some insight into the parallels: