The black community was deceived first by LBJ and then by subsequent Democrats ever since. Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln while the Democrats were the party of slavery, segregation, the KKK and Jim Crow laws. LBJ allegely boasted to his Southern white colleagues that he will have the n.gg.rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years.neverfail wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:54 amSo have I!
I know that it is the Democrat Party (America's left) that has the support of the black community.
Presumably because they have found by experience that, as a rule. they get a better deal from them while from the Republican side they usually get nothing. Stop assuming that blacks are vacuous dupes who do not know on which side their bread is buttered. I refuse to believe that!
The Democrats succeeded in conning the black community by a blend of welfarism, affirmative action, and posing as defenders of the black community against usually false charges of racism. Look at the results of cities that have been run by Democrats, often black Democrats. Has anything improved? No. Their policies don't work. Instead of changing policies, they maintained failed policies year after year.I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.
Allegedly said to two governors (whose names were not given) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. As quoted in Inside the White House (1996), by Ronald Kessler, New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 33.
These politicians don't really care for the black community. They just want their votes and know how to con them. The black community is still enslaved, this time to the Democratic Party Plantation. Instead of chains of iron, they are using chains of lies, dependency and the ideology of victimhood. Only the truth will set them free.
But the dawn may finally be breaking with the "Blexit" movement.
Which is why Democrats are nervous about President Trump’s embryonic popularity with African Americans, after he won just 8 percent of the black vote in 2016.
You can see the seeds in rising poll numbers, with one Rasmussen poll last year placing the president’s approval rating among black Americans at 36 percent. It was quickly dismissed as an outlier, but other polls since have confirmed a smaller upward trajectory.
The NAACP’s own poll in August showed Trump’s approval rating at 21 percent.
When will you see the big picture? It may not have been popular. Sacrifices never are. But enough Americans were idealistic enough for the war to be sustained for a very long period - 10 years. You must also see the context. The US took on the role as Defender of the Free world, without much opposition. It had troops in Europe and was committed to defend Western Europe against a Warsaw Pact invasion. It had troops in South Korea to defend against a North Korean invasion and had fought a long and bloody war there. It also then had troops in Taiwan to defend against a Communist Chinese invasion.In the case of Vietnam, they spread the notion that the Vietnam war was an ignoble enterprise and America was the aggressor or imperialist power.
neverfail wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:48 pmIf they did then they did it unchallenged in the midst of an ideaological vacumn. The government side represented by President LBJ failed to present a valid reason to the American public as to why so many their sons should be conscripted to die in a war in an obscure foreign country that few Americans at the time could even locate on the map and even fewer cared a shit about?.... and he also earned himself a reputation for being a liar. No one believed Johnson in the end.
"Americans" (if by that you mean their general public) were NOT. It was being done, forced upon them, in their name by those placed over them.That explains why the Americans were sacrificing the lives of their young and lots of $$$ for ten years. Very few other nations could have generated so much willingness to sacrifice for the good of others.
From where do you get the silly impression that "saving Vietnam" was ever a popular cause within American society at large?
Indeed, when are you going to finally snap outm of your private world of romantic make believe?
The US public had plenty of time to think about the possible consequences of these commitments. Despite the risks, they were generally willing to make the sacrifices. Vietnam war was the bloody consequence they paid for undertaking the role as Defender of the Free World against Socialism/Communism. Yet, they were willing to make the sacrifices for 10 long years.
As I admitted, my countrymen would not have been willing to make a similar sacrifice even though Vietnam was so close by. Granted that we were poor at that time, but the main reason was that we simply lacked the idealism that the Americans had. We only do things that will profit us. As I said, Vietnam was dirt poor with little natural resources that would have enriched the US. Nor will it provide a rich consumer market for US companies. The only reason was that the US was willing to make sacrifices to stop the spread of Socialism/Communism. This requires idealism. They believed that they were doing good for the world.
Yes, that is true. But by 1991, we were rich. We had a credible arm forces by that time, said to be the best in SE Asia. Yet we only sent 30 member medical team to Riyadh, far away from harm's way. At least you Aussies were more willing to make sacrifices for the good of others. Otherwise, Chin Peng might be ruling Malaya and Singapore.In 1965, the year that Johnson made the fatal decision to ramp up US troop numbers in South Vietnam requiring conscripted young men to make up the numbers; Singapore was struggling to get itself set up as a sovering republic having just bheen kicked out of malaysia. Your country was then in no position to pursue ambitious foreign policy goals. That non-committal positioning for the sake of commerce and trade advantages abroad may have to come to an end soon as the global geopolitical shift presently coming about bears down upon it. No one likes a passive hitchhiker-passenger for an ally.I already admitted that my own country would not and did not make such a sacrifice.
Because America is a democracy. The voters wanted out. Their generosity and idealism won thin, partly worn down by Leftists who portrayed the war as immoral. The war was won on the battlefield but lost at the home front. The home front is America's weakness, especially with some members of the left who secretly wanted their fellow Socialists/Communists in N Vietnam to win.Especially as those sacrifices were patently inequible and the USA itself was in no danger.After a while, even the generally more idealistic American public got tired and wanted to stop their sacrifices.
If the Americans has "nearly won" in Vietnam they would not have sought out, almost bgegged for, a peace treaty with Hanoi in order to permit them a dignified exit from the war (or at least the appearence of one).That's with hindsight. And I believe they nearly won.
The Paris Peace Accord allowed the Americans to replace weapons and munitions that were expended in any renewed fighting. But Congress (pressured by leftists who wanted the Commies to win) balked.Had they kept some forces there as in South Korea, the South could have survived.
Against the terms and conditions of the Paris peace accord with Hanoi - are you joking, Cass?