It all depends on when you believe the Viet Nam conflict started.

As a political analyst, I use the year 1954 to designate the start of the conflict.

Not really The US action in Viet Nam started in 1954 with the selection of Ngo Dinh Diem by Colonel Edward Landsdale (and $12 Million in bribe money from the CIA) under order from John Foster Dulles US Secretary of State (1953-1959).

Despite the agreement for democratic elections to be held in 1956, since the CIA estimated that Ho Chi Minh would garner "possibly 80% of the popular vote" something had to be done. John Foster Dulles stated at a State Department meeting in 1955 "I don't believe Diem wants to hold elections, and I believe we should support him in this" (Kinzer, 2006, p. 153).

This decision ensured that North and South Korea would not be united.

The Viet Nam conflict started during President Eisenhower's administration (1953-1961)

Kinzer, S. (2006) Overthrow: America's century of regime change from Hawaii to Iraq. New York: Henry Holt and Company

1954 was the year Dien Ben Phu fell. War had already started by then, besides giving money logistic support to one side (while the communists supported the other) is hardly "starting" a war.

There are different interpretations of this. This is what makes history so fun to study. :)

True dat. :up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7581611.stm

That makes the US a one-party-system, since Republicans work by exactly the same philosophy - where is the difference then? :-?

It's called sarcasm SB. The only difference between the two parties is, one will spend a billion dollars to give away life jackets to it's citizens in the desert, the other will spend the same amount on advertising to let them know it's a good idea to use them.

It's all in the approach.

Now you've really confused him... :D

Well I call it an American "boondoggle" but that's just me. Democrats and Republicans are just the same thing in somewhat different packages, it's like choosing between the Gambino and the Genovesi - crime families.

But if you're claiming that Nixon was somehow less guilty then Kennedy or Johnson, you're wrong. The bombing campaigns during Nixon's reign caused countless civilian deaths in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and prolonged the war.

You would really compare them to gansters?
Why dont you tell more how the world should be?
How have you contributed to improve the community, society and the world you live in?

Yes I compare them to gangsters.
Oh you're angry. Why does US politics make you so angry?
Well let's put it this way, if someone has the power to start a war then I expect those people to use that power with caution. Average people don't have that power but politicians and possibly big business tycoons have that power.

What makes me angry is people that "know" how the world should be but they dont do anything about it.
And i prefer that matters of war is something average people dont have a saying.
Can you tell what have you contributed to the society so far?

What makes you think I'm not doing anything about it? Do you mean like the guys who almost took a shot at Obama, that type of thing, perchance? How have you contributed to the society then? Give me an example of a good contribution to the society so I'll know what you mean.

Well I may not agree with Democrats but I do not question their motives or their patriotism. Such distinctions may not be that evident though, especially to foreigners following things through the media.

Oh I'm sure you do Mik. Just ask yourself how often does the foreign media accurately portray political situations in France and how often the domestic French media blow things out of proportion.

Do you vote? Do you belong to a party? Have you worked in a campaign? Do you keep in touch with politicians? Do you work? Do you pay taxes? Do you take part in collections and charity? Do you give blood?
Those are some things i take as my responsibilities as a citizen, it fits my evil right-wing world wiew.

Yes, but sometimes it seems for some people its the only thing they can do.

Answers: Vote: yes. Party: used to, not anymore, if by belonging to a party you mean holding a member card etc. Campaigned: yes. Keep in touch with politicians: not really, I would if there were worthwhile politicians who might respond to worthwhile issues. Work: have but right now in between jobs. Taxes: too much. Charity: yes but I'm pretty selective of the charity organisation, I try to avoid the private organisations that may have some hidden agendas. Give blood: Yes. Although only five times so far, actually been planning on a donation right now. Blood plasma is a pretty expensive product and it can be a lifesaver to someone in an accident. Here we do it for free but for example in states they pay blood donators.

And how about you answer those questions too.

"Those are some things i take as my responsibilities as a citizen."

Arbeit macht frei etc., eh? Beginning to see your motives there.