Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
Similarly, the US became engaged in global military matters, where one can trace an idealistic line through Maxwell Taylor, William Westmoreland and Creighton Abrams. Of the last and the Vietnam War, his son stated (last sentence of Lewis Sorley's, "A Better War"): "He thought the Vietnamese were worth it." Others (including JMM) thought otherwise.
Idealism is fine if genuine. And I accept that at some levels the concern for Vietnam was genuine but that sort of intervention gets shot to hell it not clearly targeted and properly resourced. Which even with my limited knowledge of Vietnam was what happened there. When the whole thing starts to turn upside down then people start to question whether the people you are fighting for are worth the effort and the sacrifice and the cost. Kind of like looking for a justification to pull out.

I don't know what crock FDR sold the American nation but his supposed concern for Britain was nothing of the kind. Not being a Brit I am not going to slash my wrists over that but clearly it seems that the spin doctors have seen to it that the actions of the FDR Administration are seen to have been an American sacrifice to save the free world when it was nothing of the kind... only naked exploitation of a ripe situation for national gain.

Dayuhan's thesis ("easier to blame the Americans than to admit that the bloody wogs ran you out of town") may have some validity to it.
Not valid. Its just the kind of nonsense he produces when he runs out of stuff to say.

The question that must be asked of those who advocated the accelerated independence of the colonies after WW2 is who must take responsibility for what happened afterwards?

You see soldiers who screw up tend to be hauled over the coals in one form or tuther (and so it should be), but the politicians who are responsible for the really big screw ups (like the deaths of millions and the misery of millions more) seem able to slip away like thieves in the night.