Which foreign policy blunder was worse?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:52:51 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Which foreign policy blunder was worse?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Which foreign policy blunder was worse?
#1
Vietnam
 
#2
Iraq
 
#3
Tie
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 82

Author Topic: Which foreign policy blunder was worse?  (Read 5032 times)
Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]
tsionebreicruoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,385
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 01, 2016, 03:22:00 AM »


Lol, not sure it's the best way to use it, unless it's taken a far more fatalistic turn in English, but here it's used for far less tragic things than 'some totally inept wars that killed milions, ah well, so it goes, do you prefer tea or coffee by the way?'.

Though, ultimately relevant, yeah, thats life...

Amusing, right now there is something about a boat called the Aquarius on radio, a boat that deals with refugees from
Lybia, which brings me to, you know, the Aquarius, gosh, I liked that movie.

So, if the age of Aquarius was coming, then we would now, notably with stuffs like Iraq and all its brilliant consequences, and all, be in it.

Aquarius is February, right?

What the f**k could you expect from that bloody Winter month? Spring!

But unfortunately now it still seems to be 'Winter is coming...' (f**k GoT, no wonder something like that is so trendy nowadays)...

Let the sunshine in! (f**k, I don't know if this is the movie, the song, both, or something, but watching the end always turns me emotional, don't click that one if you haven't seen the movie, spoiler).

They are relevant/forth in a thread for both Vietnam and Iraq...

Listening to the new told lies

...though.

The 1st, and maybe, last big shots of American imperialism, at least under its XXth century form.

Everybody goes to the party have a real good time...

(now it doesn't turn me emotional but just nervous...)

But XXth century/the party is over, Winter/the Age of Aquarius is coming, bordel, c'est la vie...
Logged
Californiadreaming
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 26, 2016, 06:17:02 PM »

Vietnam. Indeed, unlike with Saddam post-1991, we might have actually been able to work with Ho Chi Minh. After all, as far as I know, Ho Chi Minh was either as much or almost as much of a nationalist as he was a Communist.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 26, 2016, 06:27:17 PM »

Vietnam. Indeed, unlike with Saddam post-1991, we might have actually been able to work with Ho Chi Minh. After all, as far as I know, Ho Chi Minh was either as much or almost as much of a nationalist as he was a Communist.

Apparently, Ho Chi Minh sent some sort of letter of good will or a request/offer for/of aid to DC during the Truman regime that was (needless to say) ignored.
Logged
Californiadreaming
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 26, 2016, 08:28:53 PM »

Vietnam. Indeed, unlike with Saddam post-1991, we might have actually been able to work with Ho Chi Minh. After all, as far as I know, Ho Chi Minh was either as much or almost as much of a nationalist as he was a Communist.

Apparently, Ho Chi Minh sent some sort of letter of good will or a request/offer for/of aid to DC during the Truman regime that was (needless to say) ignored.
Very interesting! Plus, didn't the U.S. previously work with Ho during World War II in the fight against Japan?
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2016, 09:54:32 AM »

Vietnam. Indeed, unlike with Saddam post-1991, we might have actually been able to work with Ho Chi Minh. After all, as far as I know, Ho Chi Minh was either as much or almost as much of a nationalist as he was a Communist.

Apparently, Ho Chi Minh sent some sort of letter of good will or a request/offer for/of aid to DC during the Truman regime that was (needless to say) ignored.
Very interesting! Plus, didn't the U.S. previously work with Ho during World War II in the fight against Japan?

Sounds familiar.
Logged
Californiadreaming
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2016, 12:44:36 PM »

Vietnam. Indeed, unlike with Saddam post-1991, we might have actually been able to work with Ho Chi Minh. After all, as far as I know, Ho Chi Minh was either as much or almost as much of a nationalist as he was a Communist.

Apparently, Ho Chi Minh sent some sort of letter of good will or a request/offer for/of aid to DC during the Truman regime that was (needless to say) ignored.
Very interesting! Plus, didn't the U.S. previously work with Ho during World War II in the fight against Japan?

Sounds familiar.

At least Ho doesn't (really) appear to have turned on the U.S. afterwards like Saddam did after the end of the Iran-Iraq War, though.
Logged
Californiadreaming
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2016, 12:55:51 PM »

What would victory in Iraq have even been?
Well, look at the actual situation in Iraq in 2011, and you'll certainly have your answer. Smiley
Logged
Californiadreaming
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2016, 12:57:47 PM »
« Edited: July 27, 2016, 12:59:59 PM by Californiadreaming »

The blunder in Iraq made the geopolitical region much worse afterwards.
That's ... debatable.

Indeed, while I'm not necessarily saying that invading Iraq in 2003 (and wasting a lot of money on Iraq afterwards) was a good move, I am unsure that the current situation in the Middle East is worse than it would have been if Saddam Hussein wouldn't have been overthrown by the U.S. in 2003.
Logged
Californiadreaming
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2016, 12:59:25 PM »

Obviously the two biggest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history, but I lean towards Iraq. Vietnam was ultimately a perverted extension of existing Cold War policy, whereas Iraq was peddled on a blatant lie and continues to have longstanding ramifications.
To be fair, though, while the official reasons given for invading Iraq were flawed, there were legitimate reasons to invade Iraq in 2003 (even if one doesn't actually agree with these reasons).
Logged
Californiadreaming
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2016, 01:02:45 PM »

Vietnam. It killed more people, and many of ours were drafted--sent to die in a stupid war involuntarily. Iraq was horrible, but at least the Americans whose lives were cut short had some say in it, even if it was founded on lies.

Very good point!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be fair, though, at least the U.S. actually brought democracy to Iraq.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,576
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2016, 12:24:02 PM »

Vietnam. Indeed, unlike with Saddam post-1991, we might have actually been able to work with Ho Chi Minh. After all, as far as I know, Ho Chi Minh was either as much or almost as much of a nationalist as he was a Communist.

Apparently, Ho Chi Minh sent some sort of letter of good will or a request/offer for/of aid to DC during the Truman regime that was (needless to say) ignored.

Well, LBJ also sent two letters of good will in 1967, offering a total suspension of the air strikes if the North Vietnamese stop operating in the South. It was rebuked like many other diplomatic initiatives (like from the pope). They only agreed to negotiate in 1968 after they lost tens of thousands of men during the Tet offensive and after Johnson declined to seek reelection. It took them another two months to agree on a negotiating place, after the LBJ Administration made several proposals; mostly on neutral territory.

True, it was a mistake that both Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman rejected Ho's requests (or didn't even talk with him), but don't forget that the North Vietnamese were very stubborn during the Vietnam War. But it may very well be, that Ho's influence declined during the mid/late 1960s and that others made these decisions which prolonged the war and cost thousands of people their lives.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 13 queries.