"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

In July, on my visit to Vietnam, I changed General Abrams' orders
so that they were consistent with the objectives of our new
policies. Under the new orders, the primary mission of our troops
is to enable the South Vietnamese forces to assume the full
responsibility for the security of South Vietnam.

Of course these words sound familiar. And it would have worked if
cocksuckers like you didn't pull the rug out from under them.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
George Fillioa wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

In July, on my visit to Vietnam, I changed General Abrams' orders
so that they were consistent with the objectives of our new
policies. Under the new orders, the primary mission of our troops
is to enable the South Vietnamese forces to assume the full
responsibility for the security of South Vietnam.

Of course these words sound familiar. And it would have worked if
cocksuckers like you didn't pull the rug out from under them.



Nixon pulled the rug out from under himself.



The feelings of the USA by the time of the Tet offensive signaled a loss.
The NVA was basically toast after Tet. The real problem was LBJ. Instead
of letting the military run the battles, he let his cronies pick targets,
and most military targets were off limits.

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 05:25:50 +0000, Bill McKee wrote:


The feelings of the USA by the time of the Tet offensive signaled a loss.
The NVA was basically toast after Tet. The real problem was LBJ. Instead
of letting the military run the battles, he let his cronies pick targets,
and most military targets were off limits.

I wouldn't defend Johnson's leadership, but you completely overlook
Nixon's. He was, after all, CIC for as long as Johnson, and 1/2 of the
American deaths occurred on his watch.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 05:25:50 +0000, Bill McKee wrote:


The feelings of the USA by the time of the Tet offensive signaled a loss.
The NVA was basically toast after Tet. The real problem was LBJ.
Instead
of letting the military run the battles, he let his cronies pick
targets,
and most military targets were off limits.

I wouldn't defend Johnson's leadership, but you completely overlook
Nixon's. He was, after all, CIC for as long as Johnson, and 1/2 of the
American deaths occurred on his watch.

Who gets that blame for the accident, the guy driving the car or the tow
truck that pulls him out of the ditch?

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:04:45 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


I really had high hopes for Nixon's presidency, despite his conservatism
and red-baiting past. He had some remarkable successes in foreign policy,
and he really was a very, very bright man. But he failed to get us out of
Vietnam in a timely basis, and his character flaws really emerged during
Watergate.

It was a very different time. At that time, I was young and Nixon was
the enemy. I'll give you he was very bright, competent and in control,
and, I would agree about some of his foreign policies. I wouldn't call
Chile and Allende a high mark. However, in light of the many scandals
since, Watergate just doesn't seem like that big a deal. One of these
days, I should take a new look at the man, and see if, with maturity ;-),
my feelings have changed.

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:53:28 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


Who else but Nixon could have pulled off wage-price controls and
recognition of the PRC? The latter did more to prevent WW III than
anything since.

I do think it's time for me to take a fresh look at the man. I wonder
about the PRC, though. I've always thought of China as a stay at home
player. Anytime we have crossed swords, it was in their backyard. Now,
I'm not so sure. Nixon may have only awakened them. It did take guts,
though.

Did you read about Lieberman on China?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...5p8&refer=asia

I'd have to say, cooperation would be a first, and there is no mention of
energy alternatives.

Harry,
All I have to say is:

http://www.misternicehands.com/


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:53:28 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


Who else but Nixon could have pulled off wage-price controls and
recognition of the PRC? The latter did more to prevent WW III than
anything since.

I do think it's time for me to take a fresh look at the man. I wonder
about the PRC, though. I've always thought of China as a stay at home
player. Anytime we have crossed swords, it was in their backyard. Now,
I'm not so sure. Nixon may have only awakened them. It did take guts,
though.

Did you read about Lieberman on China?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...5p8&refer=asia

I'd have to say, cooperation would be a first, and there is no mention of
energy alternatives.


Yes, I did. The PRC might be interested at some point, when we have a more
reliable (in the Chinese sense) administration.

--
If you voted for Bush, a yellow ribbon won't make up for it.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:53:28 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


Who else but Nixon could have pulled off wage-price controls and
recognition of the PRC? The latter did more to prevent WW III than
anything since.

I do think it's time for me to take a fresh look at the man. I wonder
about the PRC, though. I've always thought of China as a stay at home
player. Anytime we have crossed swords, it was in their backyard. Now,
I'm not so sure. Nixon may have only awakened them. It did take guts,
though.

Did you read about Lieberman on China?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...5p8&refer=asia

I'd have to say, cooperation would be a first, and there is no mention of
energy alternatives.

Interesting things he's espousing. I wonder if perhaps he will have to hire
a children's book author to make it understandable to the 54% who elected
the chimp.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:53:28 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


Who else but Nixon could have pulled off wage-price controls and
recognition of the PRC? The latter did more to prevent WW III than
anything since.
I do think it's time for me to take a fresh look at the man. I wonder
about the PRC, though. I've always thought of China as a stay at home
player. Anytime we have crossed swords, it was in their backyard. Now,
I'm not so sure. Nixon may have only awakened them. It did take guts,
though.

Did you read about Lieberman on China?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...5p8&refer=asia

I'd have to say, cooperation would be a first, and there is no mention
of
energy alternatives.

Interesting things he's espousing. I wonder if perhaps he will have to
hire a children's book author to make it understandable to the 54% who
elected the chimp.

At what point, if any, do you think boobus Americanus will be convinced it
has a presidummy in the White House?

Never, and each sub-group has its own reasons. The smart ones think he's a
deity. The slightly less smart ones have tunnel vision and only see the
words "commander in chief", so they think he deserves undying respect
because of some weird military thinking. And, the stupid ones....they're
just stupid, so they respond to words which produce physical sensations, but
not words which make their brains hurt.