<p>I would like to redirect the thread at the extremely pertinent question of…</p>
<p>Were JFK, Nixon, and McCarthy all WWII heroes or Anticommunists?</p>
<p>I think both are true, so it’s a huge problem.
JFK, unfortunately, is not stated to be an avid anticommunist but supposed he was?
McCarthy lied about his service and also wasn’t decorated. Hell, I don’t think ANY of them were decorated, they all simply served.</p>
<p>Spain v. Portugal</p>
<p>1) Can someone please explain to me why there is a Euro/World question on the US History exam? Honestly?
2) Did it really not specify US? I swore it did…why is everybody saying no?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read your own quote sir, it says Eastern Asians. That’s not “Asians” at all.</p>
<p>… You do realize that “eastern” Asians almost uniquely refers to not China or India? You can hardly even justify that it includes “South” Asia which is Micronesia and whatnot.</p>
<p>red: the jfk mccarthy nixon question was definitely the anticommunist answer. They all served but NONE of them were heroes or celebrated for that matter. The first thing that comes to mind when you think of their names is not their military achievements. Collegeboard would not give a specific question like that.</p>
<p>“the first quota act of 1921 limited immmigration to 3 percent of the number of foreign-born persons from a given nation in the 1910 census. To ensure that the law would discriminate against immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, Congress passed a second quota act in 1924 that set quotas of 2 percent based on the census of 1890. Although there were quotas for all european and asian nationalities, the law chiefly restricted those groups considered ‘undesireable’ by the nativists. By 1927, the quota for all Asians and eastern and southern Europeans had be limited to 150,000, with all Japanese immigrants barred.”</p>
<p>Yes, they did. That’s why Rhode Island was started.</p>
<p>Jamesbball911 : Yes, but that doesn’t change it’s TRUE.
Furthermore, are you sure that JFK was an anticommunist, or that’s how he started his career? How come wikipedia isn’t showing that up?</p>
<p>(I did pick anticommunism though, it just seemed so intuitive…)</p>
<p>Oh, and also, Gulf of Tonkin Resolution v. UN Resolution?
Both, according to the internet, gives the President the mandate to wage war.
Vietnam - Congress gives president mandate to wage war for protection of interests in area? BUT NOT SPECIFIC TO VIETNAM, NOR A SPECIFIC “PLEASE GO DO IT NOW.”
Korea - Actual, SPECIFIC mandate about going into Korea and pushing to the 38th parallel. Congress approves, etc.</p>
<p>Neither times does the President wage war, either.</p>
<p>“Over a million foreigners entered the country between 1919 and 1921. Like the immigrants of the prewar period, the new arrivals were mainly Catholics and Jews from eastern and southern Europe. Once again, nativist prejudices of native-born Protestants were aroused.”</p>
<p>as you can see, the quota laws of the 1920’s were in RESPONSE to southern and eastern european immigrants. unless you know the exact words of the question, the answer is most likely southern and eastern europeans and NOT asians.</p>
<p>RedCatharsis, the UN resolution sent UN troops, under US leadership. Therefore, it would be logical that the UN resolution didn’t exactly mandate the PRESIDENT to declare war.</p>
<p>Rather, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution bypassed Congress and Johnson himself declared war on Vietnam without consent of Congress.</p>
<p>Red: JFK was all for containment and hated north vietnamese communists. He was the one that initated the vietnam war by sending military “advisers” to vietnam.
As for the other question, im not sure what the question was but im positive it was the gulf of tonkin resolution because that initated johnson to send troops to vietnam.</p>
<p>Doesn’t it parallel Korea then…insofar that there is no declaration of war in either times?</p>
<p>Johnson doesn’t declare war, but instead, takes action to protect US interests. I don’t see how it’s too unique from Truman using the UN’s mandate as an excuse to “act as a police force” as he told Congress in Korea?</p>
<p>Also, because Congress agrees to Resolution 84 in Korea, doesn’t that mean that it’s agreed upon?</p>
<p>And this still doesn’t answer my question–there was an actual mandate to go to war in Korea, a war to push N Korea back to the 38th parallel. Where is that mandate in Vietnam? It’s just “protect US interests”–no country is specified, etc. But, I need to remind you, how can we call it a mandate if the president has the ABILITY to do so? The UN Resolution tells constituents to go free Korea, Congress gave, however, Johnson the “ability” to protect US interests WITHOUT any REFERENCE to using it at the time it was given.</p>
<p>How do you think the scale on this test will be? Normal like the one on sparknotes or better because I thought this was significantly harder than collegeboard practice tests.</p>
<p>The Gulf of Tonkin resolution specifically refers to President Johnson to take military action against Vietnam.</p>
<p>The UN Resolution did not refer to President Truman. It placed the U.S. in charge to appoint commanders. If I remember correctly it asked “president to mandate war”</p>
<p>Again, the UN Resolution was fought under the name of the UN troops, not “American troops under Truman”.</p>
<p>If you put it that way, either of our answers could be right.</p>
<p>Sir, mandate is not even on this page. “Blank check” is though.</p>
<p>You can’t be mandated to cash in a blank check. Nothing is on it.</p>
<p>Also:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He is authorized to protect US interests, not necessarily go to war. Whereas, Korea is definitely going to war. The N Koreans were not going to float their way back up to the 38th parallel.</p>