UK preferences for US President (Political!)

[john-the-author]

No, Kennedy increased what Eisenhower started. The number of advisors during the Eisenhower years was minimal. They increased dramatically under Kennedy. This is to completely ignore the Kennedy-driven assassination of Ky. Then, under Johnson . . . well, let's just not go there. The memories are too poignant. 50,000 of my brothers and sisters died so that LBJ wouldn't look "soft on Communism".

Somehow, I seem to recall Nixon had a lot of those 50,000, so I think there's plenty of blame to go around, regardless of party. LBJ fucked up and so did Nixon.

I never did figure out what we were over there for. Tin and tantalum deposits seemed the biggies.

I'm sure the French were marvelling at us all the while. They pulled out in '52 and '53 realizing things weren't winnable and then we stepped in and made the same mistakes. Oy veh!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I agree.

I'm torn sometimes when Nam gets brought up in the current climate. I mean, the parallels are obviously there... but the whole world view was so different then.

The thing is, the NV regulars never were our match, anymore than the Republican Guard were... I mean, yeah, they did better than Hussein's forces, but that is kinda faint praise. If we had headed for Hanoi the way we headed for Baghdad? With the dedicated effort we used on Baghdad?

But the VC? They struck and disappeared. We never could get a handle on that and forty years later we still can't.

Intervening in a civil war, even one that is somewhat on hold due to a dictator being in the way, is not wise. Just like you never interrupt a fight between brothers. They will both turn on you, forgetting their own differences until you are taken out.

The VC died in Tet. After that, it was all NVA and they were good soldiers. As to intervening in a civil war, especially one that's been going on for 1500 years? Bang on, that man!

 

[freshface]

As a genuine question, why is his war record relevant? Was he a conscript or a volunteer? If a conscript, why is that to his credit? If a volunteer, was that because of unthinking 'patriotism', or blood-lust to kill 'commies'? Is there a laudable justification for fighting?

His war record if relevant because it speaks to his character. McCain was neither a conscript or a volunteer for Vietnam. He graduated from the Naval Academy in the 1958 and became a Naval Aviator. When he was captured, his father was a senior admiral. A year later, his father was named commander of US Forces in Vietnam. As the son of a famous father, McCain was severely tortured to accept early release and to provide propaganda. His fellow POWs agree that he behaved honorably in captivity. That doesn't make me agree with him or his politics, but it does earn a measure of respect.

I think it's a little insulting to Vietnam Vets to suggest that they joined because of "unthinking patriotism or blood-lust to kill commies." World War II always comes to mind as laudable justification for fighting. I think the first Gulf War was also justified. I do agree that both Vietnam and our current conflict are not justified,

 

[oggbashan]

I still think that McCain scored low in the UK poll just because of lack of column inches.

Og

 

[scheherazade_79]

I don't think any of them are suitable for the job of President.

John McCain gives the impression of being well past his prime. Hilary is manipulative and quite prepared to sacrifice decency in her quest to win. And Obama... comes across as being a little wet behind the years and not the strong leader that the country needs. Also I don't believe that all parts of the US are ready for a black President, and it would be no time before he got assassinated.

I'd offer to lend the US David Cameron for four years, but I have a feeling we'll be needing him here soon. Tony Blair has apparently returned in an advisory role to Gordon Brown, and is in the process of telling him how Labour can win the next election. The new Labour Party mantra is expected to be: 'Resignation, resignation, resignation.'

I don't like the Tories, but their leadership is far more dynamic than that of the other parties. The option is always there. I don't think it exists in the US right now, though.

 

[colddiesel]

I don't think any of them are suitable for the job of President.

John McCain gives the impression of being well past his prime.

I thought Reagan was senile when he was elected but he was probably the most effective president of the last 50 years. Sometimes an old man in a hurry is more effective than his younger opponents.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I don't think any of them are suitable for the job of President.

John McCain gives the impression of being well past his prime. Hilary is manipulative and quite prepared to sacrifice decency in her quest to win. And Obama... comes across as being a little wet behind the years and not the strong leader that the country needs. Also I don't believe that all parts of the US are ready for a black President, and it would be no time before he got assassinated.

I'd offer to lend the US David Cameron for four years, but I have a feeling we'll be needing him here soon. Tony Blair has apparently returned in an advisory role to Gordon Brown, and is in the process of telling him how Labour can win the next election. The new Labour Party mantra is expected to be: 'Resignation, resignation, resignation.'

I don't like the Tories, but their leadership is far more dynamic than that of the other parties. The option is always there. I don't think it exists in the US right now, though.

McCain is 71. Churchill was 64 when he became PM in 1940. The new "old" is considered to be 75 today, however.

Obama had been a U.S. Senator for 143 days when he announced he was running for prez. Before that he was a two-term state senator in Illinois. Yeah, I'd say a bit wet back there.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I would imagine that Brits prefer a prez who will send ships, guns and men in the event Jerry gets on again, what?

Now, lets all have a hearty round of "Bless 'em all."

 

[Liar]

And if the Democratic Party had anything to say about it they would let everyone in the world vote for the US President.

You know, glibness aside...

True democracy, according to some scholars, is when individuals have the power to affect issues that affect them.

Many issues in American politics affects me. And globalization is making words like "domestic" and "foreign" less and less relevant.

Not that it's practically possible, but as a thought experiment, maybe the world community should have a small say in how other nations are run.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

But . . . but . . . that's what got us into Iraq in the first place.

 

[sr71plt]

I think it's a little insulting to Vietnam Vets to suggest that they joined because of "unthinking patriotism or blood-lust to kill commies." World War II always comes to mind as laudable justification for fighting. I think the first Gulf War was also justified. I do agree that both Vietnam and our current conflict are not justified,

As I remember it (having been both in the U.S. "recruitment" atmosphere and in Vietnam in this period), most didn't "join" during the Vietnam War at all--they were drafted, and not all that enthusiastic about the idea.

 

[sr71plt]

I thought Reagan was senile when he was elected but he was probably the most effective president of the last 50 years. Sometimes an old man in a hurry is more effective than his younger opponents.

I think the more significant point is that a largely symbolic, low-key president often is the best in certain periods of history. I think one reason why we sailed pretty smoothly during the Clinton presidency was that he didn't do all that much while there--really.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

As I remember it (having been both in the U.S. "recruitment" atmosphere and in Vietnam in this period), most didn't "join" during the Vietnam War at all--they were drafted, and not all that enthusiastic about the idea.

Many of those of us who volunteered weren't all that enthusiastic, either, just trying to have some small control over our fates.

 

[sr71plt]

Many of those of us who volunteered weren't all that enthusiastic, either, just trying to have some small control over our fates.

My best friend was afraid he would be drafted, so he volunteered--for the Army infantry. I'm still scratching my head over the reasoning behind that.

But then he didn't wind up in Vietnam--and I did; and I wasn't in the service at all.

 

[Carnevil9]

I still think that McCain scored low in the UK poll just because of lack of column inches.

Og

Most men will score poorly if they are short in the "inches" department.

 

[freshface]

As I remember it (having been both in the U.S. "recruitment" atmosphere and in Vietnam in this period), most didn't "join" during the Vietnam War at all--they were drafted, and not all that enthusiastic about the idea.

True, although I was thinking about McCain when I wrote that. And, of course, many of those draftees were tarred with the "blood lust to kill commies" brush when they returned.

 

[sr71plt]

True, although I was thinking about McCain when I wrote that. And, of course, many of those draftees were tarred with the "blood lust to kill commies" brush when they returned.

Yes, that's a real irony. Drafted to go to war in Vietnam and vilified/ignored when they returned in contrast to today, where they volunteer to serve (although many volunteered to serve in the National Guard at home--not as combatants overseas) and are celebrated while they are there and when they return.

One thing remains constant, though. We think of ourselves--gas for our Cadillac Escalades and High-def widescreen TVs for our dens--at home first. E.g., the presidential campaign that has let the domestic economy completely overshadow the Iraq quagmire (even though the latter largely determines the former).

 

[manyeyedhydra]

I would imagine that Brits prefer a prez who will send ships, guns and men in the event Jerry gets on again, what?

Now, lets all have a hearty round of "Bless 'em all."

As a Brit I think I'd prefer a US prez that didn't send our ships, guns and men to a conflict that didn't concern us

McCain doesn't seem a bad sort. Wrong party, wrong time. Maybe 8 years ago...

Clinton. Sorry, pure evil.

Obama. Inexperienced and despite all the hype will probably turn out to be naive and hopeless.

It says a lot about the current political system that people would rather cling to effectively a complete unknown because the 'known' choices are all so bad.

Same problem for the UK. My impression is it's run by a bunch of incompetents with another bunch of incompetents waiting in the wings to take over from them.

How far removed does the political class have to get from the electorate before something drastic happens?

 

[rgraham666]

Ask the Romanovs and the Bourbons.

 

[freshface]

Yes, that's a real irony. Drafted to go to war in Vietnam and vilified/ignored when they returned in contrast to today, where they volunteer to serve (although many volunteered to serve in the National Guard at home--not as combatants overseas) and are celebrated while they are there and when they return.

I think one thing that just about everyone agreed on after Vietnam was that you don't blame the guys with the rifles for the war.

 

[CharleyH]

In a poll published in The Times today a representative group of UK citizens were asked who they would choose to be the next US President.

They were asked who they would choose as the Democrat nominee:

Obama 48%
Clinton 35%

They were then asked who they would choose to be President between Clinton and McCain:

Clinton 56%
McCain 20%

Or between Obama and McCain:

Obama 54%
McCain 19%

I think this poll says more about the UK than about the US Presidential Contest.

Og

I like Obama. He's an idealist. As a non-American and putting my idealistic fantasies aside? Only Hilary can get the US out of their rut.

 

[oggbashan]

I think one thing that just about everyone agreed on after Vietnam was that you don't blame the guys with the rifles for the war.

That is true of almost all wars in the 20th Century.

Og

 

[CharleyH]

I think one thing that just about everyone agreed on after Vietnam was that you don't blame the guys with the rifles for the war.

You missed his point.

 

[freshface]

That is true of almost all wars in the 20th Century.

Og

But the difference with Vietnam is that a segment of the population did blame the troops during, and immediately after, the war. They didn't spit on soldiers in train stations during World War II, and Korean Vets did not come home to be called baby killers as ketchup was poured over their uniforms. At least in the US, troops coming home from WW I, WW II, and Korea returned as heros to parades and public acclaim.

 

[freshface]

You missed his point.

What point? He was contrasting the treatment of Vietnam Vets and OIF/OEF Vets. I think that the treatment now is, at least in part, compensation for how the Vietnam Vets were treated. This time around, the public seems determined to not mistreat the troops regardless of how they feel about the war.