Is this an accurate short history of the Vietnam War?

[gws35]

Eisenhower - was a general in WW2, knew all too well the horrors of war. He did not want to get the USA involved in another war. So when he wanted to help South Vietnam fight against a Communist takeover, he sent only advisors to help the South Vietnamese learn to fight for themselves.

JFK - hated all forms of Marxism, so even though he was the captain of a Navy vessel during WW2, he escalated our involvement by sending more troops.

LBJ - continued JFK's escalation. He increased U.S. presence to full-scale involvement. We learned what "napalm" was on LBJ's watch.

Nixon - was forced to bring a logical conclusion to the unwinnable war he inherited. Nixon finally brought peace and ended the Vietnam war. Even though this peace cost a terrible price, that price was only the least costly way to exit from the out-of-control war he inherited.

Is this a fair and accurate assessment of the roles of these presidents?

 

[SugarBear]

Well, you could make a case for that scenario, I guess, but don't forget to blame the French. They could have started the whole thing.

 

[Liberal AssKicker]

No, it's not.

Eisenhower was helping the French keep a colony, not helping the Vietnamese gain freedom.

 

[SammyCal]

I think JFK's part is over played.

Vietnam was basicaly LBJ's baby.

 

[Calderon]

Nixon also killed 1.5million people in Cambodia and tried to sweep it under the carpet.

Apart from that I'd say that was a decent assessment of the war and its stages.

The French and the Aussies were in there first but quickly realised how difficult it would be and cut their loses early on.