Author Topic: Afghan and Vietnam Wars both Suffer Most Casualties under Liberal Anti-War Presidents  (Read 456 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest


Afghan and Vietnam Wars both Suffer Most Casualties under Liberal Anti-War Presidents


Posted 1 hour ago by Dave Jolly Filed under History, Liberalism, Military, National Security, Politics, War



In the 1960s, Vietnam was a war that nearly ripped America in two. I vividly remember the 1964 presidential election between President Lyndon B. Johnson and Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona.

Johnson was a card carrying socialist who campaigned on ending the war in Vietnam and bringing all of our boys home safe and sound. Goldwater was also against the war, but said that if we were forced to fight that we would do whatever it took to win even if it meant dropping an atomic bomb. Johnson was labeled a peace-loving dove and Goldwater was labeled a hawk that wanted to wage war. Consequently, Johnson won re-election by with one of the largest landslide victories in history.
 



In the mid 1970s, I had the privilege to sit on a committee with Sen. Goldwater and talked with him about the 1964 election. He told me that he preached the only way to peace was to WIN the war and get out. Johnson had no intention of winning the war rather he sacrificed thousands of American lives to help him play into the socialist agenda of the United Nations. He told me one day that he accused Johnson of lying and being a war criminal to his face and Johnson told him that if he ever repeated that claim publicly that Goldwater would NOT live to regret it. True or not, that’s what Goldwater told me and he was one of the most honest politicians I ever knew, which is why he rankled so many feathers of those he spoke about.

After winning re-election, Johnson escalated the war effort in Vietnam instead of peacefully withdrawing as he promised. He followed all of the UN leadership instructions to the letter, which was devastating since communists sat on the UN committee that approved all of our military action and we were fighting communists in Vietnam. The people that succeeded in the war did so without UN approval so the communists didn’t know what we were doing and Johnson promptly fired them. As a result of Johnson’s leadership, nearly 50,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam under his watch and countless more were wounded. I always believed that Johnson should have been charged and convicted of war crimes against the US.

Fifty years later, we have another socialist Democrat who ran for president claiming he was against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that he would do everything possible to bring our boys home safe and sound. Like Johnson, Obama lied. Yeah I know we supposedly ended our war efforts in Iraq, even though we still have troops there, but that withdrawal plan had been initially started by former President George W. Bush, even though Obama takes full credit for it.

As for the war in Afghanistan, Obama actually escalated the war by increasing the number of troops. In less than a month of assuming the presidency, Obama began increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. Like Johnson, fifty years earlier, Obama declared the increases were necessary for security purposes.
 



And like Johnson, more Americans died and were wounded in Afghanistan under Obama’s leadership than that of President George W. Bush before him.

The United States entered the Afghan War on October 7, 2001. During the nearly 13 years of US involvement, 19,793 American military personnel have been wounded. From October 2001 through January 2009, only 2,698 were wounded under Bush’s watch. From February 2009 through May 2014, 17,095 were wounded under Obama’s watch. The difference is huge – 13.6% wounded under Bush and 86.4% wounded under Obama.

The same pretty much holds true for the number of US military personnel killed in the Afghan War. The total number of troops killed so far is 2,198. From October 2001 through January 2009, only 569 (25.9%) died under Bush’s watch. From February 2009 to May 2014, 1,629 (74.1%) have died under Obama’s watch.

In 2012, Obama negotiated to extend keeping troops in Afghanistan through 2024. At the time, we had only been involved for 11 years, but Obama extended it another 12 years. In November 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the US has finally negotiated with Afghan President Hamid Karzai for the extension to 2024.

For what reason? For security purposes. I think the only reason Karzai agreed to the extension is that Obama promised him billions of dollars in aid. Obama is willing sacrifice more American troops in the longest war in our history just so he can continue to drain our taxpayer dollars into a country that hates us and would love to destroy us. Basically, Obama cares more for his Muslim buddies in Afghanistan than he does for the lives of our military personnel that he is so willing to slaughter and maim.

And like Johnson, I believe that Obama should be charged, tried and convicted of war crimes against the American people.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15812/afghan-vietnam-wars-suffer-casualties-liberal-anti-war-presidents/#gaKw5u0zVSBzDEZZ.99

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Who is surprised?

When it comes down to it, Republicans tend to have a pragmatic streak to them. Democrats are more micro managers, and it shows.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Who is surprised?

When it comes down to it, Republicans tend to have a pragmatic streak to them. Democrats are more micro managers, and it shows.

Not only micromanagers, as anti-war people, they don't want the other side to be hurt, either.  Remember Lurch and his "kinder and gentler wars?"  They are so against it they won't give permission for the troops to get in there and do there jobs.  Churchill warned about such things saying, and I paraphrase very loosely, it is better to get into a situation when the costs are relatively cheap than to wait until things get out of control and things get extremely expensive.