No he is not lying? The communist started the war in Vietnam using a tunnel in cambodia and laos, then they fired there gun, so you're calling them a liar because you're brainwashed with communist propaganda? Real stupid
It’s crazy bc I just watch this man speak after watching the amazing and open minded jfk. Let me say this man is evil and off the rip is full of lies.Just off of how they would open up jfk would greeting my fellow inhabitants of this planet. That right thier let me know and really caught me off guard their. Going back to This other guy I just call him evil president guy bro literally said his own name in speech just filled with lies like wtf. Just weird.
We lost 50,000 men in Vietnam for nothing we lost 3500 in Iraq for nothing these wars did nothing for America but I will thank every vet they served in these wars if though I don’t agree with these wars because they still fought we me and my country may god bless America and are soldiers 🇺🇸
I love how he throws Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy under the bus at 1:06 in the speech. Conflating that their "commitments" were were on par with his. He sent in the first combat soldiers; 16,300 advisors in South Vietnam in 1963 under President Kennedy. Over a half-million in 1968 under LBJ.
In my short 41 years I have studied this mess, as A child I remember the closing days of the war and only started to understand any of it as I grew older. there were real threats during the cold war, they did not end with the Cuban missile crisis. I saw an interview with the former president of south Vietnam after the war, he actually accused the U.S. of running out on his country!, what more could he want?
Living in the UK l was to young to understand the Vietnam war. Later on think it's terrible USA got involved there. 5800 plus killed Americans killed mostly under 30 probably. Harold Wilson kept UK out of the Vietnam war. He knew it was too far away, a lost cause. Glad l wasn't there l wouldn't have lasted long probably a week. I would come back in a body bag.
What about the 2,000,000 vietnamese 🇻🇳 died in war not only soldiers because they are in few numbers but lakhs of civilians that died due to agent Orange that the American Air forces relese in the air.And what about the most bombard country of indochina Laos 🇱🇦 that suffered the heavy bombarding than entire bombing of WWII. They only thought for the 50,000 American Armed soldiers even with high technology that died in fighting with the locals poor and less technical developed civilians of Indochina.
You damn right, Red Moon 96! Don't get me started about how many Black American boys were shipped over there as a remedy to solve LBJ's "restless Negro problem" during the 1960's. Between my wife and I, eleven of our direct family members(cousins) were sent to Vietnam and two returned KIA. And for WHAT???
LBJ never lived to see the end of the war. War is a moneymaking scam for the elites. The Vietnam was basically fought by men drafted. If one was middle or upper class, "legally avoiding military service " was possible. Now we have a volunteer military which from the standpoint of the brass is preferable. Fraggings and significant antiwar activity activity among the troops led the PTB to go to all volunteer military.
And besides,having confidence and patriarchy isn't enough to block out natural fear when knowing that your going to enter a new and dangerous environment that results in alot of death and casualties,I'm sure that the vets you've talked to were brave,confident and courageous during their service,but fear is NATURAL instinct we all feel,I'm sure they were also scared going in on their first tour or even the simple task's of going on patrols
Eisenhower squashed the Suez "war" by threatening to undermine the British pound Sterling. The Cold War was a conflict of ideology, economics, resources and other factors. Ike may have stopped that war from escalating (until '67), but he had no problem paying the French to do our bidding in Indochina. Truman was the one who missed the opportunity for peace. The Korean War ('50-'53) fundamentally changed foreign policy in Indochina toward the "domino theory" mindset.
This is a good speech but one which his detractors vehemently disagreed with. They would say we are the ones waging a war of aggressive expansionism, not the North Vietnamese; that we say we are for self-determination, yet we support colonial powers, such as France and Britain; that this is a global struggle, yet Ho Chi Minh never espoused invading California; that we are for eradication of poverty, yet our cities are segregated and on fire. And so, the debate continues.
Also, as a "Western European", why would you be pulling for the Soviets in Vietnam, if you admit that there was a threat the Soviets would invade Western Europe?
My line just says my uncle served in Vietnam and then returned without the ability to have an erection because he stepped on a landmine. Due to my military background I was explained that he compromised his position which makes me look where I "step". With this I would like to say to know me is an impossible feat where we all just wish to love/like one another? That is the question that will never have an answer but an understanding.
The Vietnam civil war was not a threat to the U.S. or the peace of the world. That’s a ridiculous assertion. And South Vietnam was not a signee to the SEATO treaty.
The argument then was that the south was a friend and in need of help.. ultimately so that communism would spread even more across south east Asia. It was about fighting for freedom
Agree. It was a “protocol state,” but that didn’t bind the U.S. to send ground forces into what was a civil war. John Foster Dulles was primarily to blame. He created another NATO in what was not a strategically significant part of the world. And helped block the Vietnam election scheduled for 1956 under the Geneva Treaty.
@@danielboymuk1344 The freedom of the south Vietnamese... and the future freedom of neighbouring countries and stability of the region. But none of that is my opinion... I'm just stating the situation as it was viewed back then.
Isn't it funny how prior to the war, Vietnam had a huge drug supply and alot of money coming in the country quite frequently that when the American government found out about it they were extremely angry and were willing to do whatever they had to to get it from Vietnam back to America.......
continued...... some claim to have all the answers, if this is true I say, it is a shame that God or Fate did not put you in their place during the situation.you cant look at what should have been only what was. I am just a plain simple person, but perhaps in the future I may understand more, as so many say they do. all I can say is..."Hindsight is 20/20"
At first I was sceptical that the North Vietnamese would launch torpedoes at a US navy warship in the Gulf of Tonkin but then I heard Joe Rogan mention it on his podcast and I was convinced.
We Germans might have had supported the US in the Vietnam war with the Bundeswehr, at least 150.000 thousand troups,which would have been very effective. But our political leaders did not have the guts to.
wow....compare to Kennedy in 1963 ...multiple press conferences.....speeches.... look at how he reads ..... Risk, accountability, payment, profit......Congress has failed to act with " due diligence" to protect " we the people" from errant kings and their court..... keep your eye on the news folks cheers
Was Johnson the last president to not be able to speak good English, by constantly saying U nited States instead of United States, with the accent on the i?
@RichardElden Yes, Tet Offensive did break the will of the American people to fight on. For the Communists, it was a military defeat. But psychologically it told the American people that the opposition could still mount a large attack. Just curious; are you upset that the US won in Iraq though? The insurgency has largely been crushed, the new Iraqi government is slowly succeeding, Saddam's regime is gone, etc. I opposed the Iraq War from the start, but I am glad Al Qaeda did not succeed.
Johnson could not extricate himself from the "cold war" He just couldn't intellectualize the idea of leaving Vietnam to the communists and fearing that all of Asia might go Communist. JFK would have been less help because he was a product of the Cold War mentality as well, BUT, he was still younger than Lyndon Johnson. And having already been stung by the military fiasco with Bay of Pigs, JFK, if he hadn't been assassinated, and lived until 1967, seeing all of the protests, I believe, would have ultimately decided to leave Vietnam. My goodness. How different history might have been....
Look what happened when the US left indochina. Cambodia ; 2 million dead in 4 years. Vietnam won the Cold War. The line was held for ten years , which exhausted the other side.
Indirectly. He benefited from it though. Part of the assassination of JFK was because Kennedy had no intention of widening the conflict in Vietnam beyond send the 24,000 advisors.
I was 7 years old in 67.We had a Color TV and everything was in color.Why do you and other people try to make this look like its from 1950 when we had color.We were almost putting men on the moon by then,we had technology!Jeese!
@@RB01.10 You can thank the republican congress at the time for that, not Johnson. He just signed it which means nothing. He was also one of the most racist, hateful & divisive presidents as well.
I agree. He wanted war. I read he saw himself as a Rosevelt. He was not. Kennedy wanted us out of vietnam. While it was wrong for us to get involved. I do believe we should have not made it into a political war but we should have finished it and come home. Instead we retreated with our tails tucked and my understanding was we were actually winning on the battlefield.
Peter Beauchemin He wanted war, the draft took lots of men out of the work force, Company made lots of money on guns,aircraft,etc.But,the big mistake was putting Westmoreland in charge.
The North Vietnamese forces would never have stopped fighting... it was a pointless conflict, The US just staved of an inevitable North Vietnamese victory
@@MultiLililililili "Would never have stopped fighting." Did you see Kim's North Korea? It's still determined to reunify Korea by force up to this day. Did you see the Arabs? They are still determined to destroy Israel off the map until now. Saying it pointless would mean all U.S. efforts in South Korea and Israel worthless as well (remember, South Korea, like South Vietnam, also started out with a corrupt unpopular government under Syngman Rhee but look at South Korea now). While I don't agree with U.S. boots on the ground. The war is certainly winnable (with the objective of keeping the South existing) if they rely more on naval blockade and air support. It's not just the will to fight that made the Vietcong outlast the Americans, it's also their supplies that keep flowing in the Ho Chi Minh Trail that kept them alive. That's why in 1972, U.S. shut down the North's ports by dropping mines around them. And when Nixon got tired of the North playing tricks during the negotiations, he launched Operation Linebacker II where he sent a lot of B-52s and bombed the hell out of Hanoi and Haiphong back to the stone age and so it was, North's infrastructure (dams, power plants, bridges, and railroads) was destroyed and they used up most of their SAMs, the Trail became useless as no supplies were coming in and all of the sudden, the Vietcong are now lacking ammunition, fuel, and trucks. That's why the North came back to the Paris Peace Table. What happened in 1975 was the North's test of American response. When Ford asked Congress to honor Nixon's pledge of military aid to the South, they walked out so the North went all the way to Saigon. What the U.S. should have do in 1975 was to rush back not by sending troops but by bombing the North Vietnamese economy to cut the supply line and starve the insurgency. Also sending military aid to the South was worth it. South Vietnamese Army units were able to hold off the North's advance in some battles and offensives. They began to lose not because of morale but because they began lacking American spare parts and tanks, South's army is no Afghan army. (I mean it's okay to send tons of weaponry to Israel back in 1973 but not to the South?) That's also the same reason why the Ukraine war is still winnable for Russia. Yes, Putin knows Ukrainians have will to fight but without Western weapons, they're nothing, what he just needs to do is to wait until U.S. stop sending aid to them. The common myth in wars is insurgents win just because of will to fight ALONE! It is false, there's someone backing them, giving them funds, arms, and logistics. Even the U.S. won it's independence by European training and French naval support.
