$1:
FRIST Have you ever been to the USA. by comparing LBJ to Lincoln it seems like you have not. One was a doer Lincoln and one was a sayer LBJ. The majority of Blacks are worse off today than in the 1950's. Democrats policy of welfare and public housing has made them like native indians minus the Reservations. In the 2004 election the majority of "working class" voted republican. And G W bush has the most diverse cabinit in US history. Clinton had the whitest in 100 years.
I have been to the USA, whats that got to do with it? I was comparing the persona with their true sentiments, I wasn't arguing about their actions, but rather their similar adittudes, while Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation he denounced integration and while LBJ signed the Civil Rights bill he called Afro-Americans "Niggers". It comes from the same kind of view as Lincoln:
$1:
I have urged the colonization of the negroes, and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan. There is no room for two distinct races of white men in America, much less for two distinct races of whites and blacks.
I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the negro into our social and political life as our equal....
Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the negro and give him our language, literature, religion, and system of government under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can never do here. We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed of, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable.
&
$1:
I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes.
I wasn't supporting the Democratic Party, and I think Clinton was an arsehole. I was making an observation of why a majority of African-Americans vote Democrat, I am not a liberal, so why would I endorse Liberalism?
Perhaps you should read what I wrote again!!!
$1:
And the African-Americans I believe supposedly vote Democrat because they feel it is more "Working class" or best represents their perceived social status, however flawed that might be.
I actually studied the Domino Theory in School, there is no evidence to suggest that the spread of Communism would have been halted by the theory of Containment, which Vietnam shows was a failure. The US held the belief that the USSR was behind all the Communist governments of the world, despite the fact that Communist China was almost as big an enemy to the USSR as was the USA. And Ho Chi Mingh was pro-American following WW2 after having received training from the CIA/OSS yet he was still a Communist. The War in Vietnam was as much against what the Vietnamese perceived as colonial invaders, as they were against Capitalism.
The USA during the 50's was bankrolling the French efforts to get back Vietnam, and the Vietnamese had been fighting against the French for years before to overthrow the Colonial power, even before Communism. So the Americans where seen as the same as the French, which is why Ho Chi Mingh became anti-American. When the French decided they'd had enough, the divided the country in two, North Vietnam and South Vietnam, in the south a pro-American government came to power and refused to hold a democratic election because Ho Chi Mingh would probably have won.
When the USA got involved they knew nothing about Vietnam nor did they learn from the French. They didn't understand that the Vietnamese would never give up as they hadn't with the French. Instead they turned a pro-American Communist, into an Anti-American Communist. Ho Chi Migh even said he wanted a "fertile field for US investment." All things are influenced by local culture, including the Communists in Indochina. If you don't understand the local culture you can't defeat it.
It was the USA's first defeat leaving 58,000 American dead. It had cost 140 billion dollars. And you would have stayed for longer? The domino theory was disproved, communist governments in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and China do not act as one.
But you say "we could have won"? "won what?" The US might have bombed Vietnam "back to the stone age," what sort of victory would that be?
$1:
Should the US have waged a more intensive war, and slaughtered millions to suppress a nationalist revolution for independence? Then the US would have ruled tyrannically over a country most of whose residents hated it and everything it stood for. What sort of victory would have been possible?
The Vietnam war was misguided from the start. It demonstrates very clearly the arrogance of power. Most of the major architects of the containment policy that lead to Vietnam--George Kennan, McGeorge Bundy, Robert MacNamara--have unequivocally admitted they were wrong about the Vietnam war. "Containment" was a flawed policy, flawed by its indifference to the history of Southeast Asia. Its leaders' obsession with "communism" led the US deeper and deeper into a tragedy. They believed in America's mission, and in the automatic superiority of everything America did. They were wrong, and so was the war.
"Its alright because at least we got more gooks!" No lives where worth it! Not even 2000 American lives where worth it. But 58,000???!!! Your position is seriously flawed!!! 
?
CKA Elite 
Site Admin 
