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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (141587)	7/27/2004 8:00:31 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nixon ran in '68 against Humphrey, and the election was extremely close. Humphrey looked like the comparative hawk, due to the burden of having served in the Johnson Administration. And, at that time, Nixon's strategy was characterized as a "secret plan". If the money were not spent in war, it would be spent elsewhere. Defense related industries are not the only one's who lobby in Washington, and it is silly to exaggerate their influence. Even assuming the officer corps is as venal as you say, which I do not believe, it has little to do with either getting us into the war, or keeping us there. Johnson escalated because he did not want to be the one to lose Vietnam, and the South Vietnamese army was not very good. Nixon began gradual withdrawal because the electorate was looking for a way out that was honorable. I do not know whether Vietnam was winnable, or even worth pursuing. What I do know is that we did a poor job waging it. This whole discussion arose in a context of disputing the idea that corporate "fascism" was the motor driving US foreign interventions in the post- War period. I made the terms more explicit, but it was the topic, in essence.