We know Johnson failed. My question was whether or not there’s a credible source for your theory that Nixon would have succeeded.
Refugee:“Thanks Trump!”
CNN "journalist:“DAMN…ABORT, I REPEAT: ABORT! … sorry, we had some technical difficulties and lost connection to the poor refuge oppressed by Trump”
It’s Bush’s fault.
Or maybe it’s global warming.
Nixon campaigned for ending an unpopular war. But when he got in office, he executed the war more smartly, but his objective wasn’t total victory, which he could have achieved had he prosecuted the war from the beginning, but rather to force a better negotiation with the North Vietnamese from a position of strength, before withdrawing troops. He did succeed at that, he moved the war towards victory, though he didn’t have time to bring it to total victory, Johnson wasted that opportunity. He took the war to where the North Vietnamese were lurking, in Laos and Cambodia, (which Johnson didn’t dare go), bombing them to smithereens in a series of actions that brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiation table by 1972, signing a peace treaty more favorable and acceptable to the South.
He promised both parties we would be back if the North violated the agreement. They did, but he was beset with problems and of course Watergate weakened his ability and congressional defiance therewith so that the North eventually was able to overcome the South.
Your assignment of blame to other parties suggests you don’t care for Rowland’s view that a president should “own” his situation no later than two years after taking office.
jotham, time to come out of your Cold War bubble and join the 21st century like everybody else long ago has:
You’re talking about the Vietnam War? It was ongoing war while Nixon became President. It happened before Nixon! He didn’t start it. But he turned the tide, American casualties greatly diminished during his tenure and we began winning the war (not just the battles), and after 3 years, he accomplished what he promised the voter, which was to end it. And he would have hit the North Vietnamese again to keep them out if it weren’t for Watergate, and there would be a prosperous South Vietnam, like there is South Korea.
My point is if he had 6 to 8 years at the beginning of the war like Johnson, Vietnam would be all democratic, like Japan.
[quote=“Winston_Smith, post:166, topic:68610, full:true”]
jotham, time to come out of your Cold War bubble and join the 21st century like everybody else long ago has[/quote]
But that would involve joining a century in which people say funny sounding, made up words about gender identity.
Oh, wait.
I think I’ve made my point about Nixon (and Rowlandism) and will save you the anguish of an endless argument. 
Nixon ended the war that Johnson started; it’s that simple. In matters of economics, unemployment, 2 years are good for turning around a sour situation to allow the market to correct itself and malinvestments to be rooted out and reinvested, capital to grow, mal-employment be re-employed in more useful venues. Presidents can’t work faster than the market – 2 years is good.
Wars are different, they can last 4 years, your standard should be an improvement, a turning of the tide, before final victory. This certainly can be achieved in a year, and Nixon did it.
But Nixon was bad on economics, maybe worse than Johnson. I don’t defend Nixon on that. Perhaps thats the reason Watergate stuck to him, and the ultimate reason we finally lost Vietnam.
Seeing as my name had been invoked, I’ll go on record with a little syllogism:
- Watergate was Nixon’s fault.
- The failure of Nixon’s Vietnam strategy was Watergate’s fault.
Therefore…
- The failure of Nixon’s Vietnam strategy was (indirectly) Nixon’s fault.
The importance of the big picture. He was doing great, then he shot himself in the foot. The risks of hubris.
The 80’s called. They’re coming back, with their foreign policy imperatives.
The Cold War being over is over. We are in the early phases of Cold War II. Have been for a coupla years now, thanks to Il Douche. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Obama’s surveilling Trump is way worse than Watergate. Nixon didn’t do it, he didn’t even know his own people were doing it. But it was the cover-up that brought him down. As I said before, if he were strong on the economy, Watergate couldn’t have got him down, but he was unpopular because Americans were impoverished, he devalued the dollar by 4X. So you are right that Watergate was Nixon’s fault, which caused Vietnam to fall.
Speaking of coffee,when you Cold War deadenders reinvade Vietnam be sure and stop at my favorite coffe shop in Hanoi for a kickass cup of Vietnamese coffee.
Mmm, I love Vietnamese coffee, i think they make it better in the South 
But what I fear with Trump he will become like Nixon. Nixon was smart, he had great military strategy, he knew how to negotiate hard with people. Unfortunately Nixon thought he could negotiate prices and outmanoever the market too. And so economics was his downfall so that a little thing like Watergate could topple him.
If Trump doesn’t get economics right and becomes unpopular, he will be nailed too with some kind of Watergate. Andrew, I think your South Korean President Pak being ousted is another great example of this.
I wish interest rates were ratchet up to 5% in this year alone. We’d be in the tank for most of 2018 as the economy licks its wounds, but the spring would be set and America would rise again in glory, and no Watergate could ever topple the Donald.
I’m merciless in my economic opinions. If Trump messes up on economics because of his populism, I’d turn on him despite his great strategies. Because in the end, a great leader cooperates with the economy, which assists in all his other endeavors. If the economy is against you, all other endeavors will likely not succeed.
Clinton is a good example, he was stupid on this kind of strategy as Democrats are, yet he was popular because the economy was buzzing, kept a strong dollar.
The good news is, if you and Rowland are captured, is that the infamous Hanoi Hilton where American prisoners-of-war are kept is under new management.
I’ve seen too much in my life to put my faith in any mortal whomsoever. But The Donald is proving helpful thus far in destroying illusions and arrangements that need destroying. Remember there’s a Beyond Trumpism thread on the back burner, because the way beyond is through.
This is all just a phase we need to go through. It’s a catharsis. It’s a detox. It’s going to be painful, and yes, there is danger.
When we’re done with this guy we can send him packing. The worshipers will be bitter that he turned to be a mortal after all. The haters will try to “told you so” and we’ll just remind them that on the whole they were even more wrong. And me, I’ll say goodbye and thanks. And move on cheerfully.
[quote=“rowland, post:177, topic:68610, full:true”]
I’ve seen too much in my life to put my faith in any mortal whomsoever. But The Donald is proving helpful thus far in destroying illusions and arrangements that need destroying. Remember there’s a Beyond Trumpism thread on the back burner, because the way beyond is through.[/quote]
Yeah, I’m with you on that. But economics trumps everything, even Trump. I’d rather have a bumbling Democrat who gets it right on economics. I would have voted for Kennedy over Nixon in the 60s, like most Americans. I would only have voted for Nixon in the 70s, like most Americans, cause Johnson was an idiot on strategy and economics. But for all the good Nixon did, I still think he’s terrible. He devalued the dollar by 4! There’s no excuse for that.
They wouldn’t want to capture me, I’d be their worst hell.
In the Army, I was tasked giving lectures to soldiers at times. One of my most popular, and the one I loved the most was instructing soldiers how to behave when captured. American military law states that you always resist, and I agree wholeheartedly. If I were captured, I would do just as I always did, instructing soldiers how to resist, I would be exerting more influence than the captors. I would be the new management, unless someone else had things under control, which is very likely in the US Army. The captors would hate that and have to separate me. They couldn’t pay the US enough money to get me off their hands.
But in the end, they wouldn’t capture me, cause I’d be too busy fighting. I’d rather fight on my feet than live on my knees. I would be a much more valuable asset fighting them than letting myself get captured. POWs are sometimes looked down on because they often refuse to fight and give in. I believe Trump mocked McCain for getting caught. I can understand.
General Patton:
Assad is one of the greatest leaders we have today. A man I’d love to sit down to dinner with and talk to. A true modern day tragedy that the world can’t see through all this nonsense.
No he is not in control of all the military factions throughout Syria, duh! He’s not superman.
No he did not order chemical attacks on _______
No he is not THAT stupid
High probability the chemicals were a rebel stash or foreign imported or deliberate rebel false flag or ____________