alt.politics.economics

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung wrote in
> news:Dq-dnWlCXsAKvjLanZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@:
>
>> stuff_stuff@ wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:14:57 -0600, David Hartung
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> David Hartung wrote in
>>>>> news:PYOdnRt3noDJFTPanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@:
>>>>>
>>>>>> stuff_stuff@ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While you're at it, what do YOU think did all that killing and
>>>>>>> dying accomplished?
>>>>>> In the end, nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am an eternal optimist, I believe that had the war been prosecuted
>>>>>> properly, and had the military been given the task of winning, the
>>>>>> war would have been over well before 1968, and today, Vietnam would
>>>>>> not be a communist country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact remains that Johnson had no intention of ever winning the
>>>>>> war, and by the time Nixon was elected, the American people would
>>>>>> have refused to support he sort of all out action a victory would
>>>>>> have required.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It was Johnson's fault that Nixon campaigned on a
>>>>> plank to end the war and withdraw troop from Vietnam?
>>>> Just out of curiosity, who do think was responsible for the initial
>>>> escalation in Vietnam?
>>>
>>> Read the Pentagon Papers and figure it out.
>> Now who is avoiding the answer?
>>
>> Holman seems to hold Nixon solely responsible for the Vietnam war,
>
>
> Actually it was Ike who cancelled the local elections
> and who first send troops there. If you had been around at
> the time you would know that.
>
> Nixon IS responsible for the retreat via the "Vietnamization"
> excuse that HE created and implimented. Blaming LBJ for Nixon's
> policy of surrender shows how little you know about the topic.

Once again, you give Johnson a complete pass.

I am aware of the history of Vietnam, I am also aware that you would die
before admitting that any democrat is at fault for anything. This is why
your constant claims of superior knowledge are so humorous.