Truman radio address explaining what is necessary to win in Korea (1950) [Sounds like Bush re Iraq]

Radio and Television Address on the Situation in Korea ^ | July 19, 1950 | Harry S. Truman

[syriacus]

We know that the cost of freedom is high. But we are determined to preserve our freedom--no matter what the cost.

I know that our people are willing to do their part to support our soldiers and sailors and airmen who are fighting in Korea. I know that our fighting men can count on each and every one of you.

Our country stands before the world as an example of how free men, under God, can build a community of neighbors, working together for the good of all.

That is the goal we seek not only for ourselves, but for all people. We believe that freedom and peace are essential if men are to live as our Creator intended us to live. It is this faith that has guided us in the past, and it is this faith that will fortify us in the stern days ahead

[syriacus]

We lost 30,000 American lives in Korea, under Democratic President Harry Truman, in 3 years.

We've lost 3,000 American lives in Iraq, under Bush, in approximately the same period of time.

[Seruzawa]

It took Eisenhower to end that conflict... sort of.

[Youngman442002]

It is the same speech..and it still holds true....its just that we have changed...and for the worse....sad...very sad..

[DB]

And millions of South Koreans are still free.

[uncbob]

It was Truman and his incompetent State department that caused the war to begin with

[syriacus]

Another source good for Iraq-Korea comparisons

NSC 68: United States Objectives and Programs for National Security, April 14, 1950

A Report to the President Pursuant to the President’s Directive of January 31, 1950 [Top secret]

our determination to fight if necessary to defend our way of life, for which as in the Declaration of Independence, "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." [snip]

The assault on free institutions is world-wide now, and in the context of the present polarization of power a defeat of free institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere.[snip]

we must with our allies and the former subject peoples seek to create a world society based on the principle of consent.

[jwparkerjr]

re: millions of South Koreans are still free

There's probably no where on Earth that the comparison between a free society and one that chose the other route. The difference between the two Korean way of life should convince even the most skeptical that the other way does not work, has not worked and won't work, regardless of who runs it or how hard the try.

[syriacus]

And millions of South Koreans are still free.

Yes. We lost 33,686 men in the Korean "police action" and saved millions of South Koreans.

[syriacus]

It was Truman and his incompetent State department that caused the war to begin with

What happened? I'm trying to learn more about the Korean non-War.

[syriacus]

The Truman Doctrine, March 12, 1947

At the present moment in world history nearly every nation must choose between alternative ways of life.

The choice is too often not a free one.

One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression.

The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio, fixed elections, and the suppression of personal freedoms.

I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.

I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way. I believe that our help should be primarily through economic stability and orderly political process."

[syriacus]

Truman said: "I know that our fighting men can count on each and every one of you. "

This is no longer true.

[syriacus]

Excerpt from Truman's Farewell Address to the American People

It was not easy to make the decision to send American boys again into battle. I was a soldier in the First World War, and I know what a soldier goes through. I know well the anguish that mothers and fathers and families go through. So I knew what was ahead if we acted in Korea.

But after all this was said, we realized that the issue was whether there would be fighting in a limited area now or on a much larger scale later on—whether there would be some casualties now or many more casualties later.

So a decision was reached—the decision I believe was the most important in my time as President of the United States.

In the days that followed, the most heartening fact was that the American people clearly agreed with the decision.

And in Korea, our men are fighting as valiantly as Americans have ever fought—because they know they are fighting in the same cause of freedom in which Americans have stood ever since the beginning of the Republic.

Where free men had failed the test before, this time we met the test.

[fortheDeclaration]

What the American people did not agree with was getting bogged down in Korea.

We lost more men while negotiating with the Red Chinese, then when we were actually fighting them and the NK's.

Ofcourse, the liberals had no problem with Korea because it was a U.N. operation, while Vietnam was not.

[Fiji Hill]

In 1951, our troops had turned back the Communists and were marching northward. However, Truman agreed to peace talks and halted the advance. Over the next two years, we lost far more men during those peace talks than we did during the previous year of fighting.

Had Truman told General Ridgway to continue advancing northward against the Communists, who had already suffered heavy losses, we might have united the country or gained a far more favorable peace. Then the GOP would not have been able to use Korea as a campaign issue in 1952--and there would be no North Korean nuclear threat today.

[SoCal Pubbie]

They may have failed to prevent it, but it was Kim Il-sung who caused it.

[Polybius]

We lost 30,000 American lives in Korea, under Democratic President Harry Truman, in 3 years. We've lost 3,000 American lives in Iraq, under Bush, in approximately the same period of time.

And, 56 years later, the Democrats have yet to offer an "exit strategy" to withdraw U.S. troops from Korea.

[Richard Kimball]

In some ways we've changed, in others, we haven't. Truman did not run for a second term because he would not have won. He wouldn't have won because of the Korean War. MacArthur wanted to win the war, and issued an ultumatum to the Chinese to pull out or he would expand the war and attack them. Truman removed him from power for that. MacArthur, as he stepped down, gave a speech to Congress, and was interrupted by thirty standing ovations. Truman wasn't replaced by an anti-war zealot, he was replaced by a guy the citizenry thought would bring the war to a successful conclusion.

I don't think it's the fact we're at war, I think it's the fact that there hasn't been much progress (at least visible progress) in the last three years. Americans can deal with war, but they cannot deal with a war of attrition, holding patterns and occupancy.

In WWII, for example, if we had stopped in France after the Normandy invasion, and sat for three years while negotiating with Germany and trying to set up a provisional government in France, taking a few losses every day, I think the citizens would have said, "screw this, bring them home."

One lesson American presidents should learn is that if you want to keep the citizenry behind you in a war, you have to keep showing progress.

[Griddlee]

In Nov. of 1950, MacArthur told reporters, "the troops will be home for Christmas" a short time later the troops were slaughtered by the thousands: the US 8th Army panicked and ran in full retreat: not the 1st Marines of course, they attacked in a different direction and 7,245 GIs were taken on death marches to prison camps.

I was lucky I missed that disaster. I arrived in Korea as a poorly trained replacement in the 5th RCT in the winter of 1952.

[syriacus]

And, 56 years later, the Democrats have yet to offer an "exit strategy" to withdraw U.S. troops from Korea.

Maybe someone should remind Pelosi of the "situation" in South Korea

[syriacus]

Then the GOP would not have been able to use Korea as a campaign issue in 1952--and there would be no North Korean nuclear threat today.

Interesting. I need to learn more about our presence in Korea. I only remember a friend's older brother and his friends talking about their chances of going to Korea.