Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CasearianDaoist
It was really the democrats that cut off funding for the South Vietnamese that caused that failure over there. Nixon had little to do with it. If we had kept funding up it might have never happened

Oh, Agreed! Not inconsistent with my post at all. Distracted by Watergate, Nixon was not able to strongly support the South Vietnamese leadership (who weren't very popular in the US, truth to tell), and, once he was replaced by Ford, the Democrats in the House and Senate (which they controlled at the time as you no doubt recall) cut off the money to fund the South Vietnamese.

538 posted on 04/06/2004 1:33:15 PM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo [Gallia][Germania][Arabia] Esse Delendam --- Select One or More as needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies ]


To: CatoRenasci
yes, many American confound the early years of the war under Westmoreland with the later years under Abrams. It was really going quite well. There is also a tendency to think that the "embassy" withdrawal was a withdrawal of combat units. It was not, they were long out of country. Incidentally, Those films of helicopters being rolled of the deck are exaggerated. they were not that many, and some were actually blown off. It amazes me the myth that persist about that conflict.
574 posted on 04/06/2004 1:41:19 PM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson