17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 43:
Line 43: +
Reds aimed to hurt USA
::::::::: I'm trying to determine if Moyar is a non-conservative. This http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/opinion/21moyar.html?_r=1 op-ed] by him in the NY Times, with his reference to "Darwinian struggle" and his support of the U.S. leaving Iraq so that it can somehow restore order on its own (without Moyar once mentioning Islam), suggests that Moyar views the world like most who went to Harvard and Cambridge. That's not conservative and it is susceptible to limitations and bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::: I'm trying to determine if Moyar is a non-conservative. This http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/opinion/21moyar.html?_r=1 op-ed] by him in the NY Times, with his reference to "Darwinian struggle" and his support of the U.S. leaving Iraq so that it can somehow restore order on its own (without Moyar once mentioning Islam), suggests that Moyar views the world like most who went to Harvard and Cambridge. That's not conservative and it is susceptible to limitations and bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::::::On Vietnam Moyar is as conservative as they come. In any case I've read many of the original documents myself, as well as LBJ's phone conversations and the newspaper accounts. Johnson was indeed pressured--Ambassador Taylor in Saigon was demanding immediate action, for example, and Democrats were afraid that the public would swing behind Goldwater's hawkish positions leaving LBJ looking too weak to respond to military attacks on the US Navy. It's not true that LBJ exaggerated the threat (and he got Goldwater's explicit support for LBJ's major TV address.) As the coming months proved, Hanoi was dead serious about damaging the US as much as possible. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)