Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
Why would you possibly talk about the Nixon administration when talking about Vietnam? Why wouldn't you talk about the Kennedy or Johnson administrations. Nixon wasn't the one who put us in Vietnam. This proves my point about what I said before. You're just looking for an excuse to bash the republicans. You associate the republicans more with Vietnam than the Democrats. It's good that Nixon was President during part of Vietnam so that you can blame him for it.
I'll bet that if Clinton was President right now, you wouldn't be saying a word. Do you think that any of these poeple like Martin Sheen or Barbara Steisand would be complaining right now if Clinton was in office right now. If you do think so, then you are very naive. None of thse people were complaing when Clinton was bombing the hell out of Bosnia.
By the way, way befor 9/11 even happened, Kerry was on the show Face the Nation saying that we should consider going into Iraq on our own. So if you voted for Kerry, how can you complain about Iraq? He wanted to go in there even before Bush.
|
Rupert,
Not sure why I'm trying to explain this. I'll just say that I lived through it.
Nixon had a "plan" to end the conflict in Viet Nam. It was called "Vietnamization". It didn't work.
While he was playing the charade to American voters in 1968, and got himself elected because of belief that his strategy would be successful, two of my friends died there and one came back crippled for the rest of his life.
I have no love for Clinton, Streisand, or Sheen. As I've said to you before, "Don't paint me!"
So, back to the question I asked, "What strategy would you suggest to disengage US involvement?", or..."If you think we should remain, explain."
btw, since you mentioned Kerry, I'll quote him, "How will you explain to the last man to die there that he has died for a mistake?"
It comes down to this...
1) Should we stay or should we go?
2) If stay...why?
3) If go...how?
Don't paint me. Answer me.
DTS