Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LindyBill who wrote (25514)	1/21/2004 11:03:49 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) of 793729

Coming in as the anti-war president with a mandate to end that war, Kennedy would have ended the war much sooner than nixon/kissinger imo. It seems logical, no? And the NV would have cooperated to some extent. It would have saved them much in manpower and treasure and they would have gained their objectives much sooner. In the end they would have ended up running the country in any case. We can argue the one country/two country thing forever but vietnam is one country and as nasty as the NV were, they were the only force available to govern the entire country. Should we have stayed the course forever in the vain hope that we could produce an alternative outcome? mike PS I will read your resonse but probably not comment. I dont like to argue vietnam because when i do, i become far less confident on how iraq will turn out. I hope we support a viable entity there and dont fall in love with puppets or folks who tell us what we want to hear. PPS Sistani and the Kurds are folks we have to take seriously. How do we get a popular Sunni piece into the mix?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next