SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SilentZ who wrote (161305)2/17/2003 11:45:49 AM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574326
 
And it went on through Nixon's term...

Agreed -- Nixon didn't handle it as it should have been. But he inherited a bad situation (of course, he TRIED HARD to inherit it).

The real criminal activity with respect to Vietnam happened in the LBJ administration, during a time in which he was so torn -- not wanting to see Americans die -- but too weak do what was necessary. The point being that you cannot run a war sitting on the fence. We saw this same behavior with Carter and the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and with Clinton in Kosovo (where the air war luckily worked).

It is not a criticism of liberals to say that they simply are not the right people to be running foreign policy; good foreign policy is simply inconsistent with the liberal philosophy as it stands today. Even Tony Blair has had to become conservative in his approach to foreign policy in order to do what has to be done -- effectively alienating his liberal base in the process.

Foreign policy and specifically war involves being strong, having the ability to stomach the risking of both military and civilian lives, and being able to do it with laser focus. LBJ, Carter, and Clinton have all lacked the wherewithall to handle the task -- this leads me to conclude that today's liberal cannot be good at foreign policy. Tony Blair's actions give me hope that there CAN BE tough liberals post-JFK...