English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I can just see him hunched in an armchair in No10 asking his advisor's why he's so hated just for giving the public (in him own mind) what they want.

2007-02-01 04:06:12 · 5 answers · asked by A True Gentleman 5 in Politics & Government Politics

5 answers

I thought he already had one!!!!

2007-02-02 03:54:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The public wanted an end to the Vietnam War in such a way that you could with a straight face argue that we didn't lose it. LBJ couldn't think of a way to do that, and gave up. LBJ's giving up - to wit, ceasing all bombing operations for eight months - made it much more difficult for the next President to achieve "peace with honor."

Yet Nixon did just that.

He was accused of "escalating the war when we were trying to get out of it" - - by "escalating" this simply meant bombing parts of Cambodia and Laos. Why would he do this? Because that's where Ho's supply lines were - this was a supply road through jungle - he wasn't bombing Laotian cities, even though most of the college student protestors at the time understood only that "Nixon is bombing Laos."

And it WORKED. Bombing the supply lines and bombing the crap out of Hanoi brought the North Vietnamese back to the negotiating table and ultimately we got out with the best deal possible under the circumstances.

In Vietnam, Nixon got us out of a hole that LBJ had dug, and out of a war that JFK had gotten us actively involved with in the first place, yet all the self-styled pacifists who to this day profess their love for JFK hated Nixon.

And then once we stopped fighting the advance of communism, a communist dictator took over in the next country over and killed 2 million of his people, showing that JFK and the "domino theory" crowd had been right all along.

Now on domestic issues I have real problems with Nixon. He tried to use price ceilings, which any Macro 101 textbook will explain just cause shortages and do nothing to stop inflation. And that's what happened. He professed to be a Keynesian! History is pretty clear that the economic policy shift away from Keynes and toward Schumpeter and Friedman in 1981 has worked wonders. Maybe it's Monday-morning QB-ing but all we did was revert to classical economics.

Now, was Nixon paranoid? Sure. He thought there was a "vast conspiracy" of enemies from what he perceived to be the opposite political wing. Hey wait a minute, that sounds familiar.

2007-02-01 04:22:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Gordon Brown would be the worst element which will ever ensue to this usa. Unfortunatley, he's (would be, possibly!) entering workplace on the back of a incredibly chrisamatic PM who the prevalent public has lost finished faith in and on the information that he's fairly answerable for the pension disaster. He has no mojo! No quantity of media education, attractive spouse and a pair of youngsters will chage that. The Scots locate him smug and has has not something yet contmept for them. i come across him domineering, obsessive and ever so slightly frightening. if he gets the interest, I supply him 18mths and im being sort!

2016-10-16 10:05:16 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

That's Trickie Tony's job!

I fail to see how robbing us blind can be called giving us what we want. That's taking that is.

2007-02-01 06:20:39 · answer #4 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 0 0

no be the greedy americn to be the cristan like the senor bush you love the mexican

2007-02-01 04:09:58 · answer #5 · answered by DURR 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers