It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

History does repeat it's self

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Everyone knows there have been cases of history repeating itself. One huge notice I took is how President Obama is playing the withdraw card a lot. I don't know how old the other members on ATS are most likely non of us grew up during the Johnson and Nixon terms and the Vietnam war.

I have drawen some huge coincidences with these two eras in American history.

Even though the Vietnam war started in 1955 when President Eisenhower was in office. President Johnson was the first President to be protested for the war. Like President Bush after him they marched with signs, had catchy slogans and so on.
President Johnson canceled his reelection bid for Democrat nominee. Also President Nixon campaign with a promise to end the war. Even though a cease fire was sign; President Nixon then continued the bombing which resulted in the war continuing.

Now look at Nixon and how he promised peace, change and an end to the war.
Which resulted in him being elected President finally but then he continued the war Johnson left him.

Years later President Bush is our leader, we're in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting similar wars in Vietnam. Even though the American public was patriotic in support the heavy lost of life quickly fueled protest. The Same with Johnson. Bush was ridiculed for the wars. Even though President Bush was reelected 2004. President Obama played a different card then Senator Kerry. What Kerry wanted to do was finish the wars then just keep fighting. President Obama promised a withdraw.
What sounds better? Finish the wars or withdraw?

What are your thoughts on this? I'm currently looking for sources and videos I can post.




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


It has been said "the past is the mirror of the future"



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by gem_man
 


I like that quote. Who said that? Do you remember who said that quote?
Second line.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
"Itself" is one word, just sayin'

second line



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by dashen
 


Gurrr! Thanks for the correction.
Second line.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
I don't know how old the other members on ATS are most likely non of us grew up during the Johnson and Nixon terms and the Vietnam war.
Well, thanks for making me feel old!

I wasn't old enough to vote by a long stretch, but I remember Johnson's Administration.

I hesitate to draw any comparisons this early in Obama's term in office, but after it is over, I am sure there will be some similarities to find.

We sure did have some economic doldrums to weather during Nixon, Ford and Carter!



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Was it as worse as this? I know people waited in long lines for gas during the Carter years, What about President Ford's years.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 
I think it was worse back then.

Maybe just because of the oil embargo, I am not sure.

But I grew up in the sticks, and my dad was out of work more than he was working. I was raised eating deer meat, home canned vegetables and more than a little government cheese.

My parents kept things in perspective for me, though. They grew up during the Great Depression.

Edit to add: Ford/Carter just seemed like one long and bad presidency to me, but I was in my teens.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Everyone knows there have been cases of history repeating itself. One huge notice I took is how President Obama is playing the withdraw card a lot. I don't know how old the other members on ATS are most likely non of us grew up during the Johnson and Nixon terms and the Vietnam war.

I have drawen some huge coincidences with these two eras in American history.

Even though the Vietnam war started in 1955 when President Eisenhower was in office. President Johnson was the first President to be protested for the war. Like President Bush after him they marched with signs, had catchy slogans and so on.
President Johnson canceled his reelection bid for Democrat nominee. Also President Nixon campaign with a promise to end the war. Even though a cease fire was sign; President Nixon then continued the bombing which resulted in the war continuing.

Now look at Nixon and how he promised peace, change and an end to the war.
Which resulted in him being elected President finally but then he continued the war Johnson left him.

What are your thoughts on this? I'm currently looking for sources and videos I can post.


Let me stop you right there. I am one of the people you are talking about that was there during the viet nam war.

Unfortunately, your recollection of events is almost totally incorrect.

First, Johnson took the majority of the heat on that war because it was was his decision - based on the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident - to put 500,000 U.S. troops in a politically managed war they couldn't politically win - even though U.S. forces never lost a battle in viet nam.

After Nixon was elected, the north vietnamese attempted to play the same cat and mouse game with negotiations that every tin pot dictatorship such as north korea and iran has played before or since. Remember how the korean war went on for months while north korea wanted to debate over the shape of the negotiating table. And so it was Nixon's Operation Linebacker that used heavy bombing of the north that forced the north back to the peace talks and forced them to negotiate in what passed for "good faith" to them.

That's how the vietnam war was ended ...



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 
That most certainly an accurate take on the events of the time.

Kennedy only had advisers in S. Vietnam, somehow I think that his reluctance to widen the scope of our involvement in the war may have had something to do with his assassination.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join