Okla-homey
1/12/2007, 07:18 AM
Jan. 12, 1966: President Lyndon Johnson says U.S. should stay in Vietnam
http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/8463/2002468573067583022_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002468573067583022)
LBJ. A former west Texas schoolteacher who was eventually elected to Congress. He was JFK's running mate in 1960, added to the ticket in part to soften JFK's northeastern elite personna. Of course, when JFK was murdered in Dallas while on a campaign trip in the autumn of 1963, LBJ was catapulted to the presidency. He was subsequently elected in his own right in 1964, but was not re-elected in 1968.
41 years ago, on this day in 1966, a president from Texas, Lyndon Johnson, in his State of the Union address, commits the United States to staying in Vietnam “as long as aggression commands us to battle.” Johnson justified his position on the basis of national security and the principles of democracy and national sovereignty.
http://aycu37.webshots.com/image/8516/2002400787404777880_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002400787404777880)
LBJ, Gen. William Westmoreland (the senior US commander in VN) and the South Vietnamese civilian leadership in 1966.
Citing communist China’s intention to dominate all of Asia, Johnson pledged renewed commitment to helping the South Vietnamese defeat North Vietnam in a war that had become increasingly controversial among Americans.
By 1965, the number of U.S. “military advisors” in Vietnam had increased to approximately 200,000 troops. In December, the draft quota doubled. Growing numbers of Americans protested the escalation of the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam.
In his speech, Johnson attempted to restore “confidence in America's word and in America's protection…[while] the American Nation is asked to sacrifice the blood of its children and the fruits of its labor for the love of freedom.”
http://aycu31.webshots.com/image/8230/2002459358307886286_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002459358307886286)
LBJ pinning a Purple heart on a wounded Marine while on a visit to Vietnam in 1966.
Seeking to appease domestic opponents of the war, Johnson vowed to “limit the conflict.” He assured the international community that the United States sought “neither territory nor bases, economic domination nor military alliance in Vietnam.”
At the same time, he pledged to “give our fighting men what they must have: every gun, and every dollar, and every decision--whatever the cost or whatever the challenge.” Johnson’s speech was a wasted attempt to sway increasingly polarized public opinion in favor of the Vietnam War.
http://aycu08.webshots.com/image/8407/2002411290564628338_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002411290564628338)
By the end of 1966, American forces in Vietnam numbered 385,000 troops, plus an additional 60,000 sailors stationed offshore. More than 6,000 Americans were killed in 1966, and 30,000 were wounded. In comparison, an estimated 61,000 Vietcong were killed. However, their troops now numbered over 280,000.
http://aycu09.webshots.com/image/9808/2002400896745557987_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002400896745557987)
LBJ and his cabinet advisors
Approximately seven years later, by March 1973, the last American combat soldiers left South Vietnam, though military advisors and Marines, who were protecting U.S. installations, remained. For the United States, the war was officially over. Of the more than 3 million Americans who served in the war from 1961 until 1973, almost 58,000 were lost, and over 1,000 were missing in action. Some 150,000 Americans were seriously wounded.
In the end, Vietnam, and its neighbor states of Cambodia and Laos did fall under the sway of communism, notwithstanding the approximately thirteen year direct US involvment in the region.
http://aycu12.webshots.com/image/7771/2003251023704855429_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2003251023704855429)
By way of contrast, since 2001 and the beginning of the Global War on Terror, we've lost around 3000 in five years of war. Approximately three times that number have suffered serious injuries, many crippling in nature.
Is our current "Global War on Terror" the same sort of thing, or different? Many of the opponents of the continued US occupation and involvement in the troubled states in Southwest Asia think it is almost precisely the same thing. They liken it, among other things, to the Vietnamese "quagmire."
Others, statistically about half of us, believe our current conflict is profoundly different, in that we are defending ourselves from future direct attacks on Americans in America against an intractible enemy bent on destroying us and our way of life.
Perhaps interestingly, the widescale anti-war protests of the 1960's and early 70's by American youth has not manifested in our time. Are modern kids just "slackers," generally too uninformed to care, or do they simply feel unaffected because there is no draft and thus no threat they will have to go fight against their will? What do you think about our contemporary struggle in Southwest Asia? Useless and futile "quagmire" or essential to our longterm national security? You should decide for yourself. It's important.
http://aycu39.webshots.com/image/9878/2002495590923898788_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002495590923898788)
http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/8463/2002468573067583022_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002468573067583022)
LBJ. A former west Texas schoolteacher who was eventually elected to Congress. He was JFK's running mate in 1960, added to the ticket in part to soften JFK's northeastern elite personna. Of course, when JFK was murdered in Dallas while on a campaign trip in the autumn of 1963, LBJ was catapulted to the presidency. He was subsequently elected in his own right in 1964, but was not re-elected in 1968.
41 years ago, on this day in 1966, a president from Texas, Lyndon Johnson, in his State of the Union address, commits the United States to staying in Vietnam “as long as aggression commands us to battle.” Johnson justified his position on the basis of national security and the principles of democracy and national sovereignty.
http://aycu37.webshots.com/image/8516/2002400787404777880_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002400787404777880)
LBJ, Gen. William Westmoreland (the senior US commander in VN) and the South Vietnamese civilian leadership in 1966.
Citing communist China’s intention to dominate all of Asia, Johnson pledged renewed commitment to helping the South Vietnamese defeat North Vietnam in a war that had become increasingly controversial among Americans.
By 1965, the number of U.S. “military advisors” in Vietnam had increased to approximately 200,000 troops. In December, the draft quota doubled. Growing numbers of Americans protested the escalation of the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam.
In his speech, Johnson attempted to restore “confidence in America's word and in America's protection…[while] the American Nation is asked to sacrifice the blood of its children and the fruits of its labor for the love of freedom.”
http://aycu31.webshots.com/image/8230/2002459358307886286_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002459358307886286)
LBJ pinning a Purple heart on a wounded Marine while on a visit to Vietnam in 1966.
Seeking to appease domestic opponents of the war, Johnson vowed to “limit the conflict.” He assured the international community that the United States sought “neither territory nor bases, economic domination nor military alliance in Vietnam.”
At the same time, he pledged to “give our fighting men what they must have: every gun, and every dollar, and every decision--whatever the cost or whatever the challenge.” Johnson’s speech was a wasted attempt to sway increasingly polarized public opinion in favor of the Vietnam War.
http://aycu08.webshots.com/image/8407/2002411290564628338_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002411290564628338)
By the end of 1966, American forces in Vietnam numbered 385,000 troops, plus an additional 60,000 sailors stationed offshore. More than 6,000 Americans were killed in 1966, and 30,000 were wounded. In comparison, an estimated 61,000 Vietcong were killed. However, their troops now numbered over 280,000.
http://aycu09.webshots.com/image/9808/2002400896745557987_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002400896745557987)
LBJ and his cabinet advisors
Approximately seven years later, by March 1973, the last American combat soldiers left South Vietnam, though military advisors and Marines, who were protecting U.S. installations, remained. For the United States, the war was officially over. Of the more than 3 million Americans who served in the war from 1961 until 1973, almost 58,000 were lost, and over 1,000 were missing in action. Some 150,000 Americans were seriously wounded.
In the end, Vietnam, and its neighbor states of Cambodia and Laos did fall under the sway of communism, notwithstanding the approximately thirteen year direct US involvment in the region.
http://aycu12.webshots.com/image/7771/2003251023704855429_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2003251023704855429)
By way of contrast, since 2001 and the beginning of the Global War on Terror, we've lost around 3000 in five years of war. Approximately three times that number have suffered serious injuries, many crippling in nature.
Is our current "Global War on Terror" the same sort of thing, or different? Many of the opponents of the continued US occupation and involvement in the troubled states in Southwest Asia think it is almost precisely the same thing. They liken it, among other things, to the Vietnamese "quagmire."
Others, statistically about half of us, believe our current conflict is profoundly different, in that we are defending ourselves from future direct attacks on Americans in America against an intractible enemy bent on destroying us and our way of life.
Perhaps interestingly, the widescale anti-war protests of the 1960's and early 70's by American youth has not manifested in our time. Are modern kids just "slackers," generally too uninformed to care, or do they simply feel unaffected because there is no draft and thus no threat they will have to go fight against their will? What do you think about our contemporary struggle in Southwest Asia? Useless and futile "quagmire" or essential to our longterm national security? You should decide for yourself. It's important.
http://aycu39.webshots.com/image/9878/2002495590923898788_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002495590923898788)