Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Reminder, Joe Biden is wrong about everything


Recommended Posts

Reminder, Joe Biden is wrong about everything | STINCHFIELD
11,221 viewsAug 17, 2021

 

 

 


Swamp Fox
2 hours ago
Biden is a complete and total train wreck.
Who's missing President TRUMP NOW !!!.

 



Michael Angel
1 hour ago
5 very capable terrorists for an American creep, definitely defines Obama policies

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 3
  • Pow! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TinBadge said:

Ca.  And other states are !hosting! The refugees. So I wonder how well trained these refugees are!! 

Hope they put them in the Fema camps.  Put those camps to use.  Most are men arriving, very little women.

  • Upvote 2
  • Pow! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TinBadge said:

Ca.  And other states are !hosting! The refugees. So I wonder how well trained these refugees are!! 


A bunch of them are coming to Montgomery County North of Houston.  The only thing I wish they would do is test them for CV.  We have a lot of CV in the Houston area.  A lot of it is definitely fueled by illegals trucked into Houston from the border who  are CV positive.   

  • Upvote 4
  • Pow! 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, coorslite21 said:

When you place a career politician in the office of the President......you get the results we are all witnessing.....    CL

 

Seems we have a coward in here who likes to drop the reds without conversation...

 

So bold one.....tell me why career politicians are good for the US?

CL

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
  • Pow! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • atlantic-big-a.svg
  • atlantic-wordmark.svg
  • Subscribe

Robert Gates Thinks Joe Biden Hasn't Stopped Being Wrong for 40 Years

"I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates says of Vice President Joe Biden in his new book coming out later this month.

By Philip Bump
 
 
original.jpg JANUARY 7, 2014
 

This article is from the archive of our partner .

"I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates says of Vice President Joe Biden in his new book coming out later this month. Gates' assessment of Biden's boss is only slightly better, depicting an Obama administration with very murky lines of communication on military issues.

 

Gates, as The New York Times notes in its review of Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, served under every president since Nixon, save Bill Clinton. When President Obama took office in 2009, he (somewhat controversially) decided that Gates would stay as defense secretary, a position to which he was appointed by George W. Bush in 2006. (At that confirmation hearing, Gates reportedly thought to himself, "What the hell am I doing here? I have walked right into the middle of a category-five shitstorm.")

According to the Times review and one in The Washington Post, Gates wasn't particularly happy with either president. "In Duty," Bob Woodward writes for the Post, "Gates describes his outwardly calm demeanor as a facade. Underneath, he writes, he was frequently 'seething' and 'running out of patience on multiple fronts.'"

 

Gates apparently raises direct questions about Obama's handling of the war he inherited. The former secretary was concerned, Woodward writes, at both the Obama administration's tight grip on military policy as well as its insecurity about what it should do. The Times indicates that Gates faulted the Bush administration for its handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (before Gates arrived) and was consistently frustrated by his exchanges with Obama's advisors, especially Biden. From The Times:

Biden is accused of "poisoning the well" against the military leadership. Thomas Donilon, initially Obama’s deputy national security adviser, and then-Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, the White House coordinator for the wars, are described as regularly engaged in "aggressive, suspicious, and sometimes condescending and insulting questioning of our military leaders."

During one meeting in 2009, the micro-managing of the advisors nearly prompted Gates to quit his position, in part given their tendency to try and interrupt the chain of military command. Gates also describes overhearing Hillarious Clinton tell Obama that her opposition to the Iraq War in 2008 was primarily motivated by politics — an assessment that Gates says Obama generally agreed with. In the book, Gates says Obama has integrity, but has glowing praise for Clinton, calling her "smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny" — and it goes on.

 

The only part of government Gates actually liked, it seems, was the military. The book "offers the familiar criticism of Congress and its culture, describing it as 'truly ugly,'" Woodward writes. The Times calls his assessment of members of Congress "stinging," quoting Gates saying that "when they went into an open hearing, and the little red light went on atop a television camera, it had the effect of a full moon on a werewolf."

 

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Seems we have a coward in here who likes to drop the reds without conversation...

 

So bold one.....tell me why career politicians are good for the US?

CL

Looks like we now have 2 on site that believe career politicians are a good thing for the country....

 

Problem is, neither one wants to explain why?

 

Not surprising...     CL

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
 
 
 
August 16, 2021 (Monday)
According to an article by Susannah George in the Washington Post, the lightning speed takeover of Afghanistan by Taliban forces—which captured all 17 of the regional capitals and the national capital of Kabul in about nine days with astonishing ease—was a result of “cease fire” deals, which amounted to bribes, negotiated after former president Trump’s administration came to an agreement with the Taliban in February 2020. When U.S. officials excluded the Afghan government from the deal, soldiers believed that it was only a question of time until they were on their own and cut deals to switch sides. When Biden announced that he would honor Trump’s deal, the process sped up.
This seems to me to beg the question of how the Biden administration continued to have faith that the Afghan army would at the very least delay the Taliban victory, if not prevent it. Did military and intelligence leaders have no inkling of such a development? In a speech today in which he stood by his decision to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan, President Joe Biden explained that the U.S. did not begin evacuating Afghan civilians sooner because some, still hoping they could hold off the Taliban, did not yet want to leave.
At the same time, Biden said, “the Afghan government and its supporters discouraged us from organizing a mass exodus to avoid triggering, as they said, ‘a crisis of confidence.’” He explained that he had urged Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Chairman Abdullah Abdullah of the High Council for National Reconciliation to clean up government corruption, unite politically, and seek a political settlement with the Taliban. They “flatly refused” to do so, but “insisted the Afghan forces would fight.”
Instead, government officials themselves fled the country before the Taliban arrived in Kabul, throwing the capital into chaos.
Biden argued today that the disintegration of the Afghan military proved that pulling out the few remaining U.S. troops was the right decision. He inherited from former president Donald Trump the deal with the Taliban agreeing that if the Taliban stopped killing U.S. soldiers and refused to protect terrorists, the U.S. would withdraw its forces by May 1, 2021. The Taliban stopped killing soldiers after it negotiated the deal, and Trump dropped the number of soldiers in Afghanistan from about 15,500 to about 2,500.
Biden had either to reject the deal, pour in more troops, and absorb more U.S. casualties, or honor the plan that was already underway. “I stand squarely behind my decision,” Biden said today. “American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves. We spent over a trillion dollars. We trained and equipped an Afghan military force of some 300,000 strong—incredibly well equipped—a force larger in size than the militaries of many of our NATO allies…. We gave them every tool they could need. We paid their salaries, provided…close air support. We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future.”
“It is wrong to order American troops to step up when Afghanistan’s own armed forces would not. If the political leaders of Afghanistan were unable to come together for the good of their people, unable to negotiate for the future of their country when the chips were down, they would never have done so while U.S. troops remained in Afghanistan bearing the brunt of the fighting for them.”
Biden added, “I’m left again to ask of those who argue that we should stay: How many more generations of America’s daughters and sons would you have me send to fight…Afghanistan’s civil war when Afghan troops will not?”
The president recalled that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan almost 20 years ago to prevent another al Qaeda attack on America by making sure the Taliban government could not continue to protect al Qaeda and by removing Osama bin Laden. After accomplishing those goals, though, the U.S. expanded its mission to turn the country into a unified, centralized democracy, a mission that was not, Biden said, a vital national interest.
Biden, who is better versed in foreign affairs than any president since President George H. W. Bush, said today that the U.S. should focus not on counterinsurgency or on nation building, but narrowly on counterterrorism, which now reaches far beyond Afghanistan. Terrorism missions do not require a permanent military presence. The U.S. already conducts such missions, and will conduct them in Afghanistan in the future, if necessary, he said.
Biden claims that human rights are central to his foreign policy, but he wants to accomplish them through diplomacy, economic tools, and rallying others to join us, rather than with “endless military deployments.” He explained that U.S. diplomats are secure at the Kabul airport, and he has authorized 6,000 U.S. troops to go to Afghanistan to help with evacuation.
Biden accepted responsibility for his decision to leave Afghanistan, and he maintained that it is the right decision for America.
While a lot of U.S. observers have quite strong opinions about what the future looks like for Afghanistan, it seems to me far too soon to guess how the situation there will play out. There is a lot of power sloshing around in central Asia right now, and I don’t think either that Taliban leaders are the major players or that Afghanistan is the primary stage. Russia has just concluded military exercises with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, both of which border Afghanistan, out of concern about the military takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. At the same time, the area is about to have to deal with large numbers of Afghan refugees, who are already fleeing the country.
But the attacks on Biden for the withdrawal from Afghanistan do raise the important question of when it is in America’s interest to fight a ground war. Should we limit foreign intervention to questions of the safety of Americans? Should we protect our economic interests? Should we fight to spread democracy? Should we fight to defend human rights? Should we fight to shorten other wars, or prevent genocide?
These are not easy questions, and reasonable people can, and maybe should, disagree about the answers.
But none of them is about partisan politics, either; they are about defining our national interest.
It strikes me that some of the same people currently expressing concern over the fate of Afghanistan’s women and girls work quite happily with Saudi Arabia, which has its own repressive government, and have voted against reauthorizing our own Violence Against Women Act. Some of the same people worrying about the slowness of our evacuation of our Afghan allies voted just last month against providing more visas for them, and others seemed to worry very little about our utter abandonment of our Kurdish allies when we withdrew from northern Syria in 2019. And those worrying about democracy in Afghanistan seem to be largely unconcerned about protecting voting rights here at home.
Most notably to me, some of the same people who are now focusing on keeping troops in Afghanistan to protect Americans seem uninterested in stopping the spread of a disease that has already killed more than 620,000 of us and that is, once again, raging.
 
 
 
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We’ve been waiting months for the few Biden supporters on here to tell us something good he and his administration has done for this country and all we hear is crickets. We could write a book on the bad things there doing, such an embarrassment for our great country 

34F26D76-7528-494E-90A2-716D10BD0082.jpeg

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Pow! 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, "Fred" said:

We’ve been waiting months for the few Biden supporters on here to tell us something good he and his administration has done for this country and all we hear is crickets. We could write a book on the bad things there doing, such an embarrassment for our great country 

34F26D76-7528-494E-90A2-716D10BD0082.jpeg

 

I do not support Biden, but Trump is not worthy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvndXb-7XtU

https://www.reddit.com/r/cringe/comments/l2eutz/donald_trump_the_100_most_humiliating_moments_of/

 

  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, miraj said:
 
 
 
 
 
 
August 16, 2021 (Monday)
According to an article by Susannah George in the Washington Post, the lightning speed takeover of Afghanistan by Taliban forces—which captured all 17 of the regional capitals and the national capital of Kabul in about nine days with astonishing ease—was a result of “cease fire” deals, which amounted to bribes, negotiated after former president Trump’s administration came to an agreement with the Taliban in February 2020. When U.S. officials excluded the Afghan government from the deal, soldiers believed that it was only a question of time until they were on their own and cut deals to switch sides. When Biden announced that he would honor Trump’s deal, the process sped up.
This seems to me to beg the question of how the Biden administration continued to have faith that the Afghan army would at the very least delay the Taliban victory, if not prevent it. Did military and intelligence leaders have no inkling of such a development? In a speech today in which he stood by his decision to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan, President Joe Biden explained that the U.S. did not begin evacuating Afghan civilians sooner because some, still hoping they could hold off the Taliban, did not yet want to leave.
At the same time, Biden said, “the Afghan government and its supporters discouraged us from organizing a mass exodus to avoid triggering, as they said, ‘a crisis of confidence.’” He explained that he had urged Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Chairman Abdullah Abdullah of the High Council for National Reconciliation to clean up government corruption, unite politically, and seek a political settlement with the Taliban. They “flatly refused” to do so, but “insisted the Afghan forces would fight.”
Instead, government officials themselves fled the country before the Taliban arrived in Kabul, throwing the capital into chaos.
Biden argued today that the disintegration of the Afghan military proved that pulling out the few remaining U.S. troops was the right decision. He inherited from former president Donald Trump the deal with the Taliban agreeing that if the Taliban stopped killing U.S. soldiers and refused to protect terrorists, the U.S. would withdraw its forces by May 1, 2021. The Taliban stopped killing soldiers after it negotiated the deal, and Trump dropped the number of soldiers in Afghanistan from about 15,500 to about 2,500.
Biden had either to reject the deal, pour in more troops, and absorb more U.S. casualties, or honor the plan that was already underway. “I stand squarely behind my decision,” Biden said today. “American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves. We spent over a trillion dollars. We trained and equipped an Afghan military force of some 300,000 strong—incredibly well equipped—a force larger in size than the militaries of many of our NATO allies…. We gave them every tool they could need. We paid their salaries, provided…close air support system" rel="">support. We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future.”
“It is wrong to order American troops to step up when Afghanistan’s own armed forces would not. If the political leaders of Afghanistan were unable to come together for the good of their people, unable to negotiate for the future of their country when the chips were down, they would never have done so while U.S. troops remained in Afghanistan bearing the brunt of the fighting for them.”
Biden added, “I’m left again to ask of those who argue that we should stay: How many more generations of America’s daughters and sons would you have me send to fight…Afghanistan’s civil war when Afghan troops will not?”
The president recalled that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan almost 20 years ago to prevent another al Qaeda attack on America by making sure the Taliban government could not continue to protect al Qaeda and by removing Osama bin Laden. After accomplishing those goals, though, the U.S. expanded its mission to turn the country into a unified, centralized democracy, a mission that was not, Biden said, a vital national interest.
Biden, who is better versed in foreign affairs than any president since President George H. W. Bush, said today that the U.S. should focus not on counterinsurgency or on nation building, but narrowly on counterterrorism, which now reaches far beyond Afghanistan. Terrorism missions do not require a permanent military presence. The U.S. already conducts such missions, and will conduct them in Afghanistan in the future, if necessary, he said.
Biden claims that human rights are central to his foreign policy, but he wants to accomplish them through diplomacy, economic tools, and rallying others to join us, rather than with “endless military deployments.” He explained that U.S. diplomats are secure at the Kabul airport, and he has authorized 6,000 U.S. troops to go to Afghanistan to help with evacuation.
Biden accepted responsibility for his decision to leave Afghanistan, and he maintained that it is the right decision for America.
While a lot of U.S. observers have quite strong opinions about what the future looks like for Afghanistan, it seems to me far too soon to guess how the situation there will play out. There is a lot of power sloshing around in central Asia right now, and I don’t think either that Taliban leaders are the major players or that Afghanistan is the primary stage. Russia has just concluded military exercises with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, both of which border Afghanistan, out of concern about the military takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. At the same time, the area is about to have to deal with large numbers of Afghan refugees, who are already fleeing the country.
But the attacks on Biden for the withdrawal from Afghanistan do raise the important question of when it is in America’s interest to fight a ground war. Should we limit foreign intervention to questions of the safety of Americans? Should we protect our economic interests? Should we fight to spread democracy? Should we fight to defend human rights? Should we fight to shorten other wars, or prevent genocide?
These are not easy questions, and reasonable people can, and maybe should, disagree about the answers.
But none of them is about partisan politics, either; they are about defining our national interest.
It strikes me that some of the same people currently expressing concern over the fate of Afghanistan’s women and girls work quite happily with Saudi Arabia, which has its own repressive government, and have voted against reauthorizing our own Violence Against Women Act. Some of the same people worrying about the slowness of our evacuation of our Afghan allies voted just last month against providing more visas for them, and others seemed to worry very little about our utter abandonment of our Kurdish allies when we withdrew from northern Syria in 2019. And those worrying about democracy in Afghanistan seem to be largely unconcerned about protecting voting rights here at home.
Most notably to me, some of the same people who are now focusing on keeping troops in Afghanistan to protect Americans seem uninterested in stopping the spread of a disease that has already killed more than 620,000 of us and that is, once again, raging.
 
 
 

 

This article is total garbage....Trump did have a deal to leave in May....it was a deal based on strength from the US perspective....

 

Biden broke the deal so he could have a photo op moment pulling out on the 20th anniversary of 9-11...

 

When Biden announced that....the Taliban announced that was a deal breaker....just the facts...

 

How many Christian's are being murdered over there right now.....how many women and children beaten and raped.....how many of those who worked with the US are being tortured and killed.....

Here's one I know of... an interpreter.....he was beaten.....his official plastic ID placard was set on fire and burned into his chest....he was dismembered and killed in front of his children.....

 

You really think Trump would have stood for that?...You really think if Trump was President these aholes would have thought there wouldn't be consequences?

 

This is all on Biden and the clowns he has running things.... no one in their right mind pulls the military out of a hostile area prior to removing the citizens and friendlys....no one leaves $billions in deadly equipment for the enemy to use against them in the future......only an idiot, or totally incompetent government would be that stupid.....

 

Tell me how I'm wrong...

CL 

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 4
  • Pow! 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, miraj said:

 

Then tell us what you support....or do you stand for nothing other than divisiveness?

CL

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Pow! 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Then tell us what you support system" rel="">support....or do you stand for nothing other than divisiveness?

CL

The term divisiveness is well suited for this particular subject. We are all doing a great job in that department. We should never have gone there in the first place. We should never have gone into Iraq, Syria (do you so quickly forget the fiasco in leaving Syria when the Kurds were overwhelmed and they were "cleansed?). Republican Presidents leading us into Vietnam, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, ...etc...so at least there is bipartisan support for entering. The only people that have benefited from these miserable conflicts are the weapons manufacturers and the politicians tied to them..lest we always forget the leadership in all of these countries we "support" with arms and cash. Trump released the HEAD of the Taliban last year in MAY. That only makes him as incompetent as the rest.

What I stand for is the freedom we all think we have (and we do not, since the Patriot act put in motion by a Republican President who again was totally incompetent), and the ability to have an equal shot at a future for my children, grandchildren and all of their friends and families. Please do not tell me we have to send another American citizen to another miserable country to fight a conflict that we seem unable to win (whatever it is we are trying to win). We seem to have an incompetent government..on both sides...and even in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vietnam War, Blood on both sides of the aisle, I lost several friends there and back home from their drug habits stemming from that war. None that returned came back in the same condition as left; young innocent men came back unable to cope. God bless them.

 

https://thevietnamwar.info/us-presidents-during-the-vietnam-war/

Presidents involvement in the Vietnam War. They were:

1. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)

Following the French defeat in the First Indochina War and subsequently the Geneva Accords leading to a partition of Vietnam, President Eisenhower decided to support anti-communist leader Ngo Dinh Diem in consolidating power in the South.

In September 1954, he created the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) in an attempt to block communist spread to Southeast Asia. SEATO essentially put Vietnam under its protection, which later became one of the major justifications for the U.S. intervention in Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

In February 1955, President Eisenhower sent the first American military advisors to Vietnam to help build up Diem’s army. When Diem announced the formation of Republic of Vietnam (later known as South Vietnam) in October 1955, Eisenhower immediately recognized and offered military and economic assistance to the new nation. In fact, the MAAG Vietnam was reorganized from MAAG Indochina in November 1955 to train South Vietnamese Army.

In July 1956, Diem under the U.S. support refused to participate in the unifying elections. The Eisenhower administration believed that the communists could have won the elections thanks to the popularity of their leader Ho Chi Minh, which was an unacceptable outcome for the U.S.

Eisenhower pledged his continued support for Diem during Diem’s 10-day visit to the U.S. in May 1957 and remained committed to Diem’s government throughout his second term as president. As a matter of fact, he increased the number of U.S. military advisors in South Vietnam to around 900 men by 1960 owing to North Vietnam’s growing support of “uprisings” in the south.

2. John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)

John F. Kennedy was an ardent believer in containing communism and “Domino Theory”. In his first speech as President in January 1961, Kennedy made it clear that he would continue the policy of the former President, Dwight Eisenhower, and support the government of Diem in South Vietnam.

Kennedy also pledged more aid and military advisors to help train South Vietnamese Army. As a matter of fact, the U.S. provided $65 million in military equipment and $136 million in economic aid to Diem’s government by 1961.

During Kennedy’s presidency, the Strategic Hamlet Program introduced by Diem and supported by the U.S. failed terribly, and as a result, drove a large number of South Vietnamese peasants into supporting the Viet Cong. In fact, the number of Viet Cong increased tremendously by 300% to 17,000 in just two years when the “Strategic Hamlet” was in operation. In response, Kennedy significantly increased U.S. military advisors in South Vietnam to 16,000 by 1963 compared to just 3,200 in 1961.

Kennedy’s presidency also saw Diem’s repression of Buddhists after their public protests throughout South Vietnam owing to his religious favoritism and discrimination.

As corruption, Buddhist crisis, and mounting successes by the Viet Cong weakened Diem’s regime and threatened the stability of South Vietnam, Kennedy became convinced that Diem could never unite South Vietnam to fight against the Viet Cong. On November 1, 1963, Kennedy tacitly approved a coup to overthrow Diem just three weeks before his assassination.

3. Lyndon B. Johnson (1963 – 1969)

After assuming the presidency, Johnson was keen to continue supporting South Vietnam to fight against the Viet Cong. In the beginning, Johnson hesitated to commit U.S. troops to Vietnam as he was aware that U.S. military intervention might have an adverse impact on his chance of winning the 1964 election. In fact, during his campaign for President in 1964, he pledged not to send “American boys” to Vietnam and that South Vietnamese Army had to fight to protect its country.

But then came the the Gulf of Tonkin incident. In response, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on August 7, 1964 authorizing President Johnson to take any necessary measures against North Vietnam.

Soon after Johnson won the 1964 presidential election by a landslide, he ordered a sustained bombing of North Vietnam called “Operation Rolling Thunder”, which lasted for more than 3 years (March 2, 1965 – November 1, 1968). He then sent the first combat troops to South Vietnam in March 1965 in response to a Viet Cong’s attack on U.S. air base in Pleiku.

During his presidency, Johnson constantly increased the number of U.S. troops deployed to Vietnam, which peaked at more than 500,000 in 1968. Despite mounting U.S. casualties as well as massive nationwide protests against the draft and conflict in Vietnam, Johnson refused to bring the troops home stating that he did not want to become “the first American President to lose a war.”

By the end of his second term as president, his approval rates plunged to an all-time low as the end of the Vietnam War was nowhere in sight after the Viet Cong’s Tet Offensive. On March 31, 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, Johnson announced he would not seek reelection.

In May 1968, Johnson announced formal peace talks would soon begin in Paris. The talks stalled during the last eight months of Johnson’s presidency, and the deadlock continued during the early years of Nixon’s administration.

4. Richard Nixon (1969 -1974)

Richard Nixon took office in 1969 with the promise of bringing “peace with honor” to the unpopular conflict in Vietnam. His “secret plan” to end the Vietnam War included gradual withdrawals of the U.S. troops from Vietnam as part of the so-called “Vietnamization” program from June 1969. He also replaced the military draft with a lottery in December of that year.

However, Nixon, at the same time, secretly escalated the war into Cambodia and Laos in 1970 and 1971 respectively in an attempt to destroy North Vietnamese supply through the Ho Chi Minh Trail to South Vietnam. Fallout from these incursions caused massive protests, which even escalated to violence at Kent State University on May 4, 1970.

At the end of his first term as president, Nixon made a historic visit to China in February followed by a strategic Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviets in May 1972. These diplomatic breakthroughs with China and Soviet Union put pressure on North Vietnam to negotiate seriously and secured Nixon’s landslide victory in his re-election.

Nixon ordered the “Christmas Bombing” later that year to keep North Vietnam at the negotiating table as well as to convince South Vietnam to sign a peace treaty, which had been negotiated for a few years. The Paris Peace Accords were eventually signed in January 1973 ending the American direct involvement in Vietnam. On March 29, 1973, the last U.S. combat troops left Vietnam although some military advisors and Marines remained in Saigon until its fall in April 1975. Nixon also ended military draft in his final year in office.

Nixon became the first U.S. President ever to resign after the Watergate scandal in 1974.

5. Gerald R. Ford (1974 – 1977)

Congress cut military aid to South Vietnam significantly during Ford’s presidency. In fact, it placed a $1 billion ceiling on military aid for fiscal year 1974 on August 4, which was trimmed further to $700 million by August 11, 1974. This was a huge cut in military aid as South Vietnam still received $2.8 billion in fiscal year 1973. In 1975, it would be dropped substantially to just $300 million.

Although it had been promised by the Nixon administration, Congress also forbade further U.S. involvement in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia even when North Vietnamese forces blatantly violated the settlement in early 1975.

In April 1975, as South Vietnam was about to fall, President Ford made a last-ditch appeal to Congress asking for $722 million in military aid to essentially save the crumbling regime. However, in a face-to-face discussion between President Ford and Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 14, 1975, the President’s request for aid was rejected. “I will give you large sums for evacuation, but not one nickel for military aid to Thieu.” – New York Senator Jacob Javits told President Ford during the meeting.

On April 23, 1975, Ford declared the Vietnam War ended “as far as America is concerned”. Seven days later, Saigon was captured and South Vietnam fell to the communists.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, miraj said:

The term divisiveness is well suited for this particular subject. We are all doing a great job in that department. We should never have gone there in the first place. We should never have gone into Iraq, Syria (do you so quickly forget the fiasco in leaving Syria when the Kurds were overwhelmed and they were "cleansed?). Republican Presidents leading us into Vietnam, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, ...etc...so at least there is bipartisan support system" rel="">support for entering. The only people that have benefited from these miserable conflicts are the weapons manufacturers and the politicians tied to them..lest we always forget the leadership in all of these countries we "support system" rel="">support" with arms and cash. Trump released the HEAD of the Taliban last year in MAY. That only makes him as incompetent as the rest.

What I stand for is the freedom we all think we have (and we do not, since the Patriot act put in motion by a Republican President who again was totally incompetent), and the ability to have an equal shot at a future for my children, grandchildren and all of their friends and families. Please do not tell me we have to send another American citizen to another miserable country to fight a conflict that we seem unable to win (whatever it is we are trying to win). We seem to have an incompetent government..on both sides...and even in the middle.

 

The problems the US has run deep....

 

You are correct in that both party's are to blame.... 

 

You might expand your reading beyond Heather Cox Richardson.....she is smooth and credentialed.....however she is part of the problem being a liberal College professor at Boston College....

 

She has written often about how bad Trump was....and how good Biden would be....I have challenged her in her comments section....even offered to debate her on line......

 

Crickets.......she is more than likely just another of many paid operatives working for the left... 

JMO's.....CL

 

  • Like 1
  • Pow! 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, coorslite21 said:

 

This article is total garbage....Trump did have a deal to leave in May....it was a deal based on strength from the US perspective....

 

Biden broke the deal so he could have a photo op moment pulling out on the 20th anniversary of 9-11...

 

When Biden announced that....the Taliban announced that was a deal breaker....just the facts...

 

How many Christian's are being murdered over there right now.....how many women and children beaten and raped.....how many of those who worked with the US are being tortured and killed.....

Here's one I know of... an interpreter.....he was beaten.....his official plastic ID placard was set on fire and burned into his chest....he was dismembered and killed in front of his children.....

 

You really think Trump would have stood for that?...You really think if Trump was President these aholes would have thought there wouldn't be consequences?

 

This is all on Biden and the clowns he has running things.... no one in their right mind pulls the military out of a hostile area prior to removing the citizens and friendlys....no one leaves $billions in deadly equipment for the enemy to use against them in the future......only an idiot, or totally incompetent government would be that stupid.....

 

Tell me how I'm wrong...

CL 

 

There will be thousands of American citizens who just disappear..  or will be held hostage...  

The MSM will suppress this fact.... 

The US is already paying big dollars to these aholes in the hope of saving face...

 

Give them all those weapons.....and now throw some cash at the problem..  

Sounds like Obama 2.0

CL

  • Confused 1
  • Pow! 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

There will be thousands of American citizens who just disappear..  or will be held hostage...  

The MSM will suppress this fact.... 

The US is already paying big dollars to these aholes in the hope of saving face...

 

Give them all those weapons.....and now throw some cash at the problem..  

Sounds like Obama 2.0

CL

Fascinating. I appreciate your perspective. I appreciate your respect of my perspective. These are the types of conversations that need to be taking place. You or others may slap me but..even after Vietnam..I do no pledge allegiance .. simply because there is no JUSTICE for all, nor a NATION under GOD. There seems to be..weapons for foreign governments, bring the exiles here, set up a region somewhere that becomes them and their culture, but not ours..in the interim, let us focus on a bunch of Latin Americans whose governments we have screwed up so badly..but wait..the damn Middle East...You and I would have an interesting conversation. Again..thank you for your tolerance ..it is worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.