On 8/29/2017 1:47 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:37:55 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote:

Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while
the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war
mongers.

Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of
treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc
typically predated the president in office at the time (whether
Republican or Democrat) the shooting started.

Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents
post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan),
invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado
Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian
Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush),
inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan
(GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW
Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as
some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger
umbrella conflicts mentioned above.

Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower,
not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops.
He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a
major reason for the Vietnam war.

While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats
that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid.

It's a popular lie, by low-information individuals, that Democrats start
wars, when if you actually examine the evidence, since the end of WWII,
it's Democrats that tend to end wars, and Republicans that tend to start
them.

"Technically" he was required by treaty with France to help them in French Indochina. He had no intentions of sending anything other than advisers and so stated. He was a REAL general and he knew a hell of a lot more about it that you will ever even get a hint in your life.



"Technically" he was required by treaty with France to help them in
French Indochina. He had no intentions of sending anything other than
advisers and so stated. He was a REAL general and he knew a hell of a
lot more about it that you will ever even get a hint in your life.

Wrong. That commitment ended when Bảo Đại was deposed.

It was Nixon that ended Vietnam and not a Democrat.

Wrong. Ford was president when we withdrew from Vietnam, but it was
because the Democratic congress would not appropriate any more money to
continue to support South Vietnam.

Johnson was all for expanding the war but the protesters among the
flower children put the kabosh on that. And it was those same flower
children that voted Democrat. The ONLY reason that they protested the
war was because we had the draft and they were all afraid they'd go.
That ENTIRE time and history was just recently re-written by PBS. They
hid everything that occurred and pushed the socialist agenda to the hilt.

In case you didn't know it, it was Clinton that started the Gulf
wars. Do you think that after 9/11 Bush should have done nothing?

He could have attacked the country responsible for 9-11, which might
have made more sense than attacking a country that had nothing to do
with it. I don't think there's anyone that still believes that Iraq had
anything to do with 9-11.

Or do you think that he should have stopped any possibility that WMD
would become available to terrorists?

All the experts agreed that Iraq did not have any WMDs. Saddam Hussein
wanted to give that impression to Iran, but there was no evidence that
any WMDs still existed.

You shouldn't try to rewrite history to serve the right-wing agenda.
That's straight out of 1984.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus