That's the wold card here. We don't know what he knows.
TRUMP MULLS ENDING ALL ONGOING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
That's the wold card here. We don't know what he knows.
That is dumb. America did not start those wars. It was not Dems , but we declared war twice. That was a vote in the House and Senate. Your post is bad. Korea was started by France and picked up by America. The Vietnam War was started by LBJ but continued by Dem and Repub presidents.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Woodrow wanted war. He went to Congress and requested they declare war.
Eisenhower got us into Viet Nam. Jphnson's escalation destroyed the Viet Cong as a major force in three years.
I did not say that I did, Walter.
Cease with the dumb strawmen, Walter.
You aren’t very good at it.
And for good reason. Germany didn't Play Well With Others. He did, however screw up by getting caught trying to secretly cut unilateral deals with the Kaiser, and kept getting caught by the French and English, which in turn led to a premature Armistice, which of course was a major screw up.
176 Republicans voted for the war, 32 against.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Interesting. He ran quite a psyops operation to get ordinary citizens and pols on his side.
A lot of Americans at the time disagreed with Woodrow. But Woodrow did not tolerate dissent. He used the war as an excuse to do a lot of bad shit to Americans.
Last edited:
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Technically, it was Truman who first got us involved by providing money for military aid. While Ike was the first to secretly send SF trainers.
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
Into the Night
Verified User
It was leftists. The same thing. Word games won't work, Sybil.
Leftists caused WW1.
Lelftists caused WW2.
Leftists caused the Vietnam war.
Leftists caused the Korean war.
Leftist DEMOCRATS caused the War of Secession.
Started by a Democrat.
Into the Night
Verified User
Eisenhower did not start the Vietnam war. LBJ did.
The Viet Cong are leftists.
Into the Night
Verified User
WW2 was started by leftists.
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
Eisenhower didn’t directly "get us into Vietnam" in the sense of starting the Vietnam War, but his administration laid the groundwork for U.S.
involvement. When Eisenhower took office in 1953, Vietnam was still a French colony embroiled in the First Indochina War against the communist Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh.
The U.S., under Eisenhower, began providing financial and military aid to France to counter the spread of communism, consistent with the Cold War "domino theory." By 1954, the U.S. was funding up to 80% of France’s war effort—hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
After the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the Geneva Accords split Vietnam into North (communist) and South (anti-communist). Eisenhower rejected the accords’ call for nationwide elections in 1956, fearing a Ho Chi Minh victory, and instead backed Ngo Dinh Diem’s regime in South Vietnam.
He sent military advisors—starting with a few hundred by the end of his term in 1961—to train South Vietnams' army (ARVN). This was a limited commitment: no combat troops, just support. The escalation into full-scale war came later, under Kennedy and Johnson. So, Eisenhower didn’t "get us in" militarily, but his policies—aid, advisors, and propping up Diem—set the stage.
@Grok
LBJ’s escalation began in earnest in 1965 after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (August 1964), which gave him broad authority to ramp up U.S. involvement. Operation Rolling Thunder, a massive bombing campaign, started in March 1965, and U.S. troop levels jumped from about 23,000 advisors in 1964 to 184,000 combat troops by the end of 1965, peaking at over 536,000 by 1968. The goal was to crush the Viet Cong (VC), the communist insurgents in South Vietnam, and prop up the Saigon government.
Did it work in three years? Not really. From 1965 to 1968, the Viet Cong took heavy losses—tens of thousands killed, especially during the 1968 Tet Offensive, where they lost an estimated 30,000-40,000 fighters. U.S. and ARVN forces claimed to have weakened the VC’s infrastructure, with General Westmoreland asserting in 1967 that enemy strength was declining.
But the Tet Offensive in January 1968 proved the VC wasn’t destroyed. They launched a coordinated attack across South Vietnam, hitting over 100 targets, including Saigon. Though it was a military loss for the VC (they didn’t hold ground), it shattered the narrative of U.S. progress, turning American public opinion sharply against the war.
By 1968, the VC wasn’t the same force—its ranks were depleted, and North Vietnamese regulars (NVA) increasingly took over. VC numbers dropped from maybe 80,000 in 1965 to a fraction by 1969, with estimates as low as 30,000-40,000 fighters. But "destroyed as a major force" overstates it.
They adapted, shifted to guerrilla tactics, and relied on NVA support. The war dragged on until 1975, with the VC still active in the final push that took Saigon. LBJ’s escalation hurt them badly but didn’t knock them out in three years—resilience and North Vietnam’s backing kept them in the fight.
So, Eisenhower planted seeds; LBJ escalated but didn’t finish the VC in that timeframe. Historical consensus backs this: initial commitment versus all-out war, and heavy damage versus total defeat.
@Grok
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
There’s no solid historical evidence to support the claim that Woodrow Wilson was caught secretly negotiating unilateral deals with Kaiser Wilhelm II, leading to a premature Armistice.
Let’s break this down based on what’s known.
Wilson, as U.S. President during World War I, entered the conflict in 1917 with a focus on his Fourteen Points, a vision for peace that emphasized self-determination, open diplomacy, and a league of nations.
His approach was idealistic and often at odds with the more pragmatic and punitive aims of the Allies, particularly France and Britain.
By late 1918, as Germany faced military collapse, Wilson did engage in diplomatic exchanges with the German government, notably through his emissary, Colonel Edward House. These talks were part of the broader Armistice negotiations, not secret unilateral deals.
The timeline is key. Germany, under pressure from both the Western Front and internal unrest, appealed to Wilson in October 1918, hoping his Fourteen Points would yield lenient terms.
Wilson responded with notes demanding Germany democratize and accept Allied military superiority as preconditions for peace.
These exchanges weren’t hidden from the Allies; in fact, French and British leaders were aware and involved in shaping the final terms.
The French, led by Clemenceau, and the British, under Lloyd George, were more focused on ensuring Germany’s defeat and reparations than on Wilson’s idealism, but they weren’t blindsided by his actions.
The Armistice was signed on November 11, 1918, after Germany’s military position became untenable—its army was retreating, and the home front was in revolt. The Allies, including France and Britain, dictated harsh terms in the railway carriage at Compiègne, reflecting their influence, not a rushed or premature end forced by Wilson’s supposed secret dealings.
Historians like Margaret MacMillan (in Paris 1919) argue the Armistice came when it did because Germany was broken, not because of diplomatic subterfuge.
Could there be a kernel of truth twisted into this claim? Wilson’s solo diplomatic style did irk the Allies at times—he was seen as naive or overreaching, especially later at Versailles. Some might speculate about back-channel talks, but no credible records show him being “caught” by France and Britain in a way that forced the Armistice early.
@Grok
Yes, there is. David Stevenson reports it in his excellent book Cataclysm.
Cataclysm
David Stevenson's widely acclaimed history of World War I changes forever our understanding of that pivotal conflict. Countering the commonplace assumption t...
www.hachettebookgroup.com
I'm very familiar with the history, so I don't need the rest of the stuff. This book covers all the politics very thoroughly, from all sides., including the British and French reactions to his dumb attempts. Doesn't exempt Wilhelm II from all the idiocy and death he caused, in any case.
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
I'm very familiar with the history. And yes, it was Johnson's escalation that shut down the VC, and with Ho's death the North had to resort to violating the demilitarized zones and send North Vietnamese soldiers into the South. The UN didn't do anything about this violation of international agreements, while Johnson's hands were tied by both the radicals in his own Party and the Republicans just waiting for an excuse to impeach him if he violated the agreements same as the North did. How the Press spun it and still do is of no interest to me, it's a load of bullshit and partisan hackery, due in no small part to Generals lying to the Press and lying to their CoC as well for years left him blindsided when they launched Tet. He shut it down. Without the escalation the South would had fallen then. Without Russian and Red China Ho would have fell in 1958. LBJ's policies bankrupted the Soviet Union by 1973.
Last edited:
You wouldn't like it no matter what, it doesn't fit Republican propaganda narratives. You know where to get the book, as does anybody who really has an interest in the facts and the timelines. 'All the DEms wuz Evul Warmongers N Stuff While The GOP wuz all peace loving victims n stuff' is just silly bullshit, always was and still is.
170+ Republicans voted for war, 32 opposed, 5 abstained. Just a fact.
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
Try holding your breath until you turn blue. See if that makes me scared n stuff. Your spin was never true, and you can't make it true by parroting it over and over and over and more than Democrats parroting their rubbish can. You have a link to the best and most recent source. You're just going to ignore it and keep parroting the Party spin, is all.