You're making the claims here, not me;
What are these?
Eisenhower got us into Viet Nam. Jphnson's escalation destroyed the Viet Cong as a major force in three years.
Did I post this?
And for good reason. Germany didn't Play Well With Others. He did, however screw up by getting caught trying to secretly cut unilateral deals with the Kaiser, and kept getting caught by the French and English, which in turn led to a premature Armistice, which of course was a major screw up.
Did Y O U post this?
Yes, there is. David Stevenson reports it in his excellent book Cataclysm. I'm very familiar with the history, so I don't need the rest of the stuff. This book covers all the politics very thoroughly, from all sides., including the British and French reactions to his dumb attempts.
This you?
I'm very familiar with the history. And yes, it was Johnson's escalation that shut down the VC, and with Ho's death the North had to resort to violating the demilitarized zones and send North Vietnamese soldiers into the South. The UN didn't do anything about this violation of international agreements, while Johnson's hands were tied by both the radicals in his own Party and the Republicans just waiting for an excuse to impeach him if he violated the agreements same as the North did. How the Press spun it and still do is of no interest to me, it's a load of bullshit and partisan hackery, due in no small part to Generals lying to the Press and lying to their CoC as well for years left him blindsided when they launched Tet. He shut it down. Without the escalation the South would had fallen then. Without Russian and Red China Ho would have fell in 1958. LBJ's policies bankrupted the Soviet Union by 1973.
Those sure look like claims, don't they? Unsubstantiated ones. Opinions, in fact.
I'm just citing legitimate historians, while you're just parroting some ideological rubbish spin.
You don't appear to know what a "citation" is, and you aren't the arbiter of legitimacy, either.
What is a "citation", and what elements must it include to be valid?
A "citation" can have different meanings depending on the context, but I’ll assume you’re asking about it in the sense of a reference to a source, such as in academic writing, research, or legal documentation. If you meant something else (like a traffic citation), feel free to clarify!
In the context of referencing a source, a citation is a formal acknowledgment of information, ideas, or quotes borrowed from another work. It allows readers to locate the original source and verifies the credibility of the information presented. To be valid, a citation typically must include specific elements, though the exact requirements depend on the citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).
Here’s a breakdown of the core elements generally required:
- Author(s): The name(s) of the person(s) or entity responsible for creating the work. For example, “Smith, John” or “xAI Team.”
- Title: The name of the work being cited, such as a book title, article title, or webpage name. E.g., “Understanding Artificial Intelligence.”
- Publication Date: The year (and sometimes month/day) when the work was published or made available. E.g., “2025.”
- Source Location: Information on where the work can be found. This could be a publisher (for books), a journal name (for articles), a website URL, or a DOI (Digital Object Identifier). E.g., “xAI Press” or “https://example.com.”
- Specific Access Point (if applicable): For longer works, like books or journals, you might need a page number, chapter, or section to pinpoint the exact location of the information. E.g., “p. 42.”
For example:
- A book citation in APA style might look like: Smith, J. (2025). Understanding Artificial Intelligence. xAI Press.
- A website citation might be: xAI Team. (2025, March 3). “AI Explained.” Retrieved from https://xai.com/ai-explained.
To be valid, a citation must:
- Accurately reflect the source material.
- Contain enough detail for someone else to find it.
- Follow the rules of the chosen citation style consistently (if applicable).
- Not be fabricated or mislead about the origin of the information.
@Grok
