Despite not starting our involvement in the conflict, why don't

Because it doesn't fit into a neat left-right political dichotomy.

>progressive president starts war
>the main opposition to the war is from other progressives
>conservative gets elected and draws out the conflict, too slowly for the doves and too quickly for the hawks

Nobody can really use it to sell you anything.

File: stop_lbjs_war.jpg (23KB, 265x371px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 265x371px

>>2754931
They do

Lyndon Johnson sending the troops into Vietnam wasn't really any different than any Cold War action taken by any American president. From President Truman sending the troops into Korea to President Eisenhower sending the CIA into Guatemala, President Johnson sending troops into Vietnam seemed like it was business-as-usual. The only difference between the Vietnam War and all our other Cold War conflicts is that the Vietcong defeated us; they won and we lost. Now I know a huge mob is going to protest my comment by saying "America didn't lose the war, it won the war, then left, then the Vietcong won the war. So South Vietnam lost the war, not us." Seriously guys, just accept it, we lost. The winner of a war is not decided by treaties by some guy with a pen, it's decided on the battlefield be the soldiers who get the enemy to give up, and that was the Vietcong. I don't think we should blame President Johnson or anyone for Vietnam because we all did our best, but the Vietcong we're just better.

>>2755084
>they won and we lost.

But you lost at Korea too.

>>2754931
He kind of does get some of the blame but as >>2754948 said, it doesn't fit the common narrative. Take Matt Groening for example. He was part of the 60's and 70's counterculture but always bashes on Nixon as a warmonger in Futurama even though he pulled us out of Vietnam and it was a progressive democrat who actually got us involved in Vietnam.

>>2755084

Or we could have just taken the exit strategy we had available to us and not gotten ourselves further involved, like everybody but LBJ wanted

>>2755151
(You)

>>2755151
>But you lost at Korea too.
How so?
>NK invades South
>We help and push them to the Chinese boarder
>China steps in and pushes us to a stalemate
>Our ally is safe and stopped NK's aggression
>Somehow we lost
I must be missing something.

File: deak_1-032113.jpg (271KB, 950x688px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 950x688px

>>2754931
>why don't people talk about the disaster of Vietnam
If you want to find causes of this disaster of war, don't look further than them.

>>2755219
This, it's disgusting how many uneducated and/or young Democrats think Nixon actually started Vietnam.

>>2755660
Meh who knows it's almost like the world superpower getting pushed into a stalemate by a thirdworld shithole still in a civil war

>>2755084
>is that the Vietcong defeated us
The Viet Cong was defeated before LBJ even left office.

But the Vietcong were present at the Fall of Saigon. How could the Vietcong have been defeated before LBJ left office if they were in the final battle in 1975 when Lyndon left office in 1969?

>>2757805
>But the Vietcong were present at the Fall of Saigon
>implying
>implying Saigon didn't fall to a 22 division armored offensive with tanks fresh from Soviet factories

>>2757805
>>2757817

This goes into a issue in how the war is shown most of the time. The Vietcong did very little after 1967. They were found, fought, and mostly destroyed. Living on as only a shadow of what they had been. The majority of the victory's of north Vietnam were by the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN).

Oh, I guess you're right, I was wrong. The Vietcong didn't beat us, the People's Army of Vietnam did. Still, same point can still be made that no American should be blamed for our defeat in Vietnam, the Vietnamese were just more persistent

>>2758094
>us
>no American should be blamed for our defeat in Vietnam
>namefag
Gb2 plebbit

>>2755084
>seriously guys just accept it
I make it a point to reject any premise argued upom those grounds