You are not talking to some young kid here and you are the one with the historical revisionism
The Gulf of Tonkin resolution gave LBJ the authority to use military force within the boarders of Vietnam to help prosecute that side of the civil war with conventional military tactics. WAR WAS NEVER DECLARED ON NORTH VIETNAM OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY ...Specifically, the resolution authorized the President to do whatever necessary in order to assist "any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty".
Laos and Cambodia were sovereign nations under separate governments and as such were not at war with the US IN ANY WAY. Nor were they members nations of The South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) Despite its name, SEATO mostly included countries located outside of the region but with an interest either in the region or the organization itself. They are: Australia, France, New Zealand, Pakistan (including East Pakistan, now Bangladesh), the Philippines, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Nixon by himself decided to carpet bomb two separate sovereign nations he had no authority to declare war on under the Tonkin Resolution or any other.
You can not defend that war and you can not defend Nixon... at least not with facts.
I don't defend the war. I don't think we should have ever been there. However, once it was started, you don't just walk away from such things. If you are looking for ethics during war... Please tell me. What is ethical about war? Once started, and the election changed parties, it is congress that hampered Nixon from ending the war with victory. Traitors like GI Jane, and the liberal media didn't help any. Soldiers coming back with the public seeing them disgraceful, when only following orders... You want to blame someone? Blame the media and democrat majority in congress.
You want to speak of a resolution? I have a different take on the constitution referring to war anyway. At the time, it was the head of state who declares, creates letters of marque, etc. In section 8 of article 1:
The Congress shall have Power To...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
I read this as allowing congress the power to do the same thing the any head of state is known to have throughout the world of the time. Please note, that nothing says it takes this power away from the president. Not everything that is common culture at the time is spelled out in the constitution. Even if you dismiss this idea, which most people do, Must I remind you again, that you cannot just walk away from such waring actions? once you start such a large scale operation, you cannot stop at borders if the enemy isn't.
I am amazed that you are so focused with the obvious hatred you have. I may or may not be right in this assumption, but I am assuming that you had some horrendous experience there you are obviously at least 5 years older than I, serving there. drafted I assume. Myself, I joined the Army, stayed 11 years. I left before 20 because when the cold war ended, my job was turned over to civilian contract. I could have stayed, but there were no options I like. I was an electronic technician working on communications equipment, and loved that job. My last posting was in the nuclear theater.
All my uncles served. My father was the only male member of my family from my mothers and father side that didn't serve, and that's because both his parents died and he became the Head of household for his younger siblings.
I have a deep respect for the military. I perceive that you do not. I think the military is over used, but that doesn't take away my respect for it.
