Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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

To: Alighieri who wrote (177193)	10/28/2003 10:30:45 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576152

American involvement in Vietnam began with Eishenower. You'd love to rewrite history in that way. We had no presence in Vietnam before Kennedy, and an insubstantial one until Johnson. war MUST be a last resort Nobody disagrees with this statement. War was necessary in Iraq to stem the tide of anti-Americanism. Liberals need to shut up and let it happen.

To: Alighieri who wrote (177193)	10/28/2003 4:59:04 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576152

The war was NOT bipartisan. It was lost by poor leadership long before Nixon took office. Nixon never had a chance to win the war, his only option was to withdraw. The war was far too complex to dismiss it as you do in a couple of sentences. It was a blemish in American history and lousy judgment on the part of several administrations, not the least of which Johnson's. But you have to be more cogent in your arguments. American involvement in Vietnam began with Eishenower. To dismiss it simply as a Johnson failure is lazy. He has to fall back on partisanship. To say otherwise is to admit that we are fallible. That's why if conditions worsen in Iraq, he will blame it on the liberals. Its an incredible denial mechanism that keeps the truth at a distance. Its why the same mistakes are repeated over and over. ted