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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (133196)	8/18/2005 12:10:50 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793640

The reason that anti-war sentiment is blamed is that Johnson figured out early on that the Vietnam war was unwinnable, because the South Vietnamese were not really fighting the North Vietnamese, and we could not do it for them. But he persevered because he did not want to be the first President to lose a war. Until finally, he quit. Nixon was stubborn, he refused to quit, but finally everybody got fed up, and I mean everybody. So yes, antiwar sentiment prevailed. But it's silly to say it was just a few college kids demonstrating in the streets, it was widespread throughout America. We had just had enough. Iraq isn't Vietnam. North Vietnam was a proxy for the Soviets and well armed by them. The insurgents in Iraq are a proxy for Iran and Syria, but not popular with the Iraqi people except in a few places. But again we see how hard it is to win a war when the people we are fighting for won't fight for themselves.