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: Sam who wrote (222388)	3/4/2007 12:29:56 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Complete utter nonsense. It was Democrats who led the opposition to Vietnam against a Democratic president, not Republicans. True, they were late--Wayne Morse's prediction that everyone would deeply regret their Gulf of Tonkin vote was proven largely correct, as Byrd said a few years ago. But at least a number of them were there by '66-67. It was still few in 66 - 67. It didn't really rise until 68. It was very few in 64 - 65, which was when the troops went in in force. So aside from the fact that the entire war was a completely different situation, the protests were a completely different situtation too. Practically nobody was screaming "quagmire, we're doomed, we're doomed" in 64 and 65, like they were here right from day one in 2003. We also heard from day one how illegal this war was, because Kofi Annan said so. We never heard this about bombing Belgrade, which Clinton did with no UN okay at all. Please don't try to tell me that the Dem party wouldn't have had a different attitude if a Dem had been president, or that there isn't a very large contingient that regards George Bush as the true enemy, and have been rooting for any outcome that hurts him, regardless of what might happen to America.