New evidence Nixon did indeed sabotage peace talks in 68

[WWWTT]

Since you asked for facts, I assume you need/want same. This is why America gave you the Internet and Google.

Like wikileaks?

WWWTT

[DogOnPorch]

Nor was I subject to all the misrepresentations,the lies,the false beliefs,propaganda,brainwashing.

Ya I guess that's a bad thing I can't appreciate.

I do remember watching the news with my family in the early 70's where I saw American troops beating an old Vietnamese man with a sledge hammer as the old man begged for mercy,among many other war crimes the US committed!

WWWTT

Care to show the footage? It certainly must exist.

[punked]

I think he's saying you need facts because you don't have the knowledge that came with experiencing it. There is something to be said for that if you think about it - we can read the "facts" about WWII, for example, but we didn't experience it, fight in it, live through it, so we don't have the knowledge that those who did experience it have no matter how many random facts we read about it. In other words, hard "facts" are just a part of it, and we are looking at them with 20/20 vision, so we are not looking at them re: choices made at the time through the eyes of those living it at the time. We aren't experiencing what the climate/atmosphere was re: threats, fears, unknowns - and those are a type of fact too, as they are the reality at the time. It's easy to just look at the hard facts in retrospect, in hindsight, and judge - but there's more to the overall picture.

There is also something to be said about the clarity of history and not being there isn't there? There is a built in bias from those "those who were there". Sometimes it takes time to look at an event for what it is and not what we remember it being at the time. Example there are still plenty of people around here that will tell you Iraq was about WMDs and "they get to say that because they were there". In terms of history it will be looked at much differently in just 2-3 generations.

[Michael Hardner]

There is also something to be said about the clarity of history and not being there isn't there? There is a built in bias from those "those who were there". Sometimes it takes time to look at an event for what it is and not what we remember it being at the time. Example there are still plenty of people around here that will tell you Iraq was about WMDs and "they get to say that because they were there". In terms of history it will be looked at much differently in just 2-3 generations.

This is very true, and thus we arrive at the point where all controversy ends up - discussion. "Being there" does provide a perspective that history and academia can't hope to encapsulate. The political climate of the time is often the most difficult thing to understand when looking back at a period in history.

[punked]

This is very true, and thus we arrive at the point where all controversy ends up - discussion. "Being there" does provide a perspective that history and academia can't hope to encapsulate. The political climate of the time is often the most difficult thing to understand when looking back at a period in history.

Yes but that isn't a justification for bad decisions. When presidents look back and say "History will judge me" that is what we are doing right now. Why even say history will be your judge if when you are judged to be horrible by history you throw back "well you weren't there". Though the wrong choice is the wrong choice.

[eyeball]

No doubt there were lots of sycophants who worshipped their beloved state back in the day too. The more things change the more they stay the same as the old saying goes.

The political climate of the time is often the most difficult thing to understand when looking back at a period in history.

It's not that hard, given the clues that come from observing human nature in the present. In any case, whoever said that politics has anything to do with or somehow excuses murdering people? Apologists that's who.

Edited March 17, 2013 by eyeball

[Guest American Woman]

There is also something to be said about the clarity of history and not being there isn't there? There is a built in bias from those "those who were there". Sometimes it takes time to look at an event for what it is and not what we remember it being at the time. Example there are still plenty of people around here that will tell you Iraq was about WMDs and "they get to say that because they were there". In terms of history it will be looked at much differently in just 2-3 generations.

You don't think "history" has any bias? Of course it does. But the point is, how can one judge decisions completely devoid of the benefit of experience? The political climate/atmosphere at the time is part of "the event for what it is," and to eliminate that element is to eliminate a large chunk of the "event." It appears to me as if you want to make judgement based solely on hindsight vision, without any human emotional element that was present at the time, and that's not something we have the luxury of being able to base our decisions on. But again, regarding the "clarity" of history, do you really believe history is "clear??" If so, whose version of history?There are many versions of the same historical event depending on the bias, viewpoint, experience, knowledge of the person writing history.

As for Iraq being about WMD, it partly was, as it was about some people's belief that Iraq had WMD - and that belief is based in part on Iraq's history. Was it so terribly unreasonable not to believe what Saddam said? That's something that might not be understood by people who didn't feel the threat from him that others did. That's why reading about history and 'being there' are two very different things.

[punked]

As for Iraq being about WMD, it partly was, as it was about some people's belief that Iraq had WMD - and that belief is based in part on Iraq's history. Was it so terribly unreasonable not to believe what Saddam said? That's something that might not be understood by people who didn't feel the threat from him that others did. That's why reading about history and 'being there' are two very different things.

This is my example. You were there so you believe this but we have the hindsight now. We now know that almost all the "evidence" presented to you and the rest of the public was trumped up and that this had to have very little to do with WMDs because the intel community at the time kept telling the administration their story was wrong and full of holes. This is what I am saying your vision is clouded and you are more of an unreliable narrator because you were there, your opinion means less because you were there not more. You can't spin the lies you were told and pretend because we all bought into them (because they were good lies) that they weren't lies. We can't say this had to do with WMDs when we now know the big players knew most of what they were saying was based on sketchy intel. If did have to do with WMDs then we get hammer the decision that were made even more because of how bad their intel was. The reason your opinion means less is because you were there and because of that you still justify a terrible decision as a somewhat good one.

[DogOnPorch]

This is my example. You were there so you believe this but we have the hindsight now. We now know that almost all the "evidence" presented to you and the rest of the public was trumped up and that this had to have very little to do with WMDs because the intel community at the time kept telling the administration their story was wrong and full of holes. This is what I am saying your vision is clouded and you are more of an unreliable narrator because you were there, your opinion means less because you were there not more. You can't spin the lies you were told and pretend because we all bought into them (because they were good lies) that they weren't lies. We can't say this had to do with WMDs when we now know the big players knew most of what they were saying was based on sketchy intel. If did have to do with WMDs then we get hammer the decision that were made even more because of how bad their intel was. The reason your opinion means less is because you were there and because of that you still justify a terrible decision as a somewhat good one.

There's now more evidence that Saddam did indeed move his chemical weapons stockpiles to Syria pre-invasion....as was suggested numerous times during the build-up to the Iraq War. The spy sats even spotted the trucks...but, who knew what was in them? Must have been Saddam's beret collection.

[punked]

There's now more evidence that Saddam did indeed move his chemical weapons stockpiles to Syria pre-invasion....as was suggested numerous times during the build-up to the Iraq War. The spy sats even spotted the trucks...but, who knew what was in them? Must have been Saddam's beret collection.

Yah ok the right still looking for those WMDs that never existed, when they aren't found in Syria you guys will say North Korea, Russia, or anywhere else. I'll wait for that evidence with a citation because this is old and tired, stop rewriting history.

Oh yah the "spy sats" saw them eh? I'll put that BS in the pile with the other BS we were sold then. There it all is in a pile called "the made up stuff we all believed then and a few of crazy people still believe".

Edited March 17, 2013 by punked

[Shady]

Yah ok the right still looking for those WMDs that never existed, when they aren't found in Syria you guys will say North Korea, Russia, or anywhere else. I'll wait for that evidence with a citation because this is old and tired, stop rewriting history.

Right, the WMDs never existed, even though they were used to kill Iranians, and thousands of Iraqis. But they never existed.

[DogOnPorch]

Yah ok the right still looking for those WMDs that never existed, when they aren't found in Syria you guys will say North Korea, Russia, or anywhere else. I'll wait for that evidence with a citation because this is old and tired, stop rewriting history.

Oh yah the "spy sats" saw them eh? I'll put that BS in the pile with the other BS we were sold then. There it all is in a pile called "the made up stuff we all believed then and a few of crazy people still believe".

Are you claiming that Syria does not have a chemical weapons program?

[waldo]

Yes but that isn't a justification for bad decisions. When presidents look back and say "History will judge me" that is what we are doing right now.

which, of course, reflects upon attempts to establish historical legacies that play 'fast and loose' with history... revisionism at its best! Equally, that judgement assumes pertinent information hasn't been withheld (for whatever reasons). In this particular case, can one say "Karma bit"... that, ultimately, Watergate reflected upon Nixon's fervent desire to flush out anything that might negatively influence his chance of a 72 re-election... that, it's believed, one of the concrete items Nixon had his bungling burglars after, was a supposed Democrat file on Nixon that was believed to include details of Nixon's sabotage of the 68 peace talks. Karma's a biatch!

[punked]

Are you claiming that Syria does not have a chemical weapons program?

I am claiming and have been proven true their were no WMDs in Iraq and terrible Intel was used to trump up a war.

[punked]

Right, the WMDs never existed, even though they were used to kill Iranians, and thousands of Iraqis. But they never existed.

No they existed and then were gotten rid of just like all the good Intel at the time said Shady. Just because South Africa at one time had a nuke doesn't mean the Us should invade them today. That is just the type of Conservative logic which cost American lives and why "well I was there so I know" attitude I am pointing out is abused.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I do remember watching the news with my family in the early 70's where I saw American troops beating an old Vietnamese man with a sledge hammer as the old man begged for mercy,among many other war crimes the US committed!

Yes, please show us the photos...you know...like the photos from Canada's Somalia Affair ("war crime") nearly 20 years later.

[bush_cheney2004]

No they existed and then were gotten rid of just like all the good Intel at the time said Shady. Just because South Africa at one time had a nuke doesn't mean the Us should invade them today. That is just the type of Conservative logic which cost American lives and why "well I was there so I know" attitude I am pointing out is abused.

The US and UK were already engaged in Iraq stemming from violated surrender instruments of Gulf War I. The United States can invade and destroy other nations just as it has in the past, often led by Democrats. There is nothing you can do about this from Canada, not even with a "vote".

Not only does "might make right", but it also makes for an excellent export market based on the Canadian economy.

Edited March 17, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Yes, please show us the photos...you know...like the photos from Canada's Somalia Affair ("war crime") nearly 20 years later.

It's BS...a childhood memory that's been altered at best. There's plenty of horrific footage from Viet-Nam, mind you. Unfortunately, the North's barbarity was not so nearly well documented by the press.

[DogOnPorch]

No they existed and then were gotten rid of just like all the good Intel at the time said Shady. Just because South Africa at one time had a nuke doesn't mean the Us should invade them today. That is just the type of Conservative logic which cost American lives and why "well I was there so I know" attitude I am pointing out is abused.

Oh really? How do you 'get rid of' VX nerve agent, anyways?

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh really? How do you 'get rid of' VX nerve agent, anyways?

By making UN inspectors leave the country ???

[DogOnPorch]

I am claiming and have been proven true their were no WMDs in Iraq and terrible Intel was used to trump up a war.

Like yourself, I don't think for a second that WMDs were the reason for Iraq getting the drubbing it did. But they certainly existed...and probably still do exist. They are not so easy to 'get rid of' as you seem to think.

[punked]

Like yourself, I don't think for a second that WMDs were the reason for Iraq getting the drubbing it did. But they certainly existed...and probably still do exist. They are not so easy to 'get rid of' as you seem to think.

Yes Saddam moved all his weapons out of Iraq right before a war that makes perfect sense..... No wait that makes no sense.

[DogOnPorch]

By making UN inspectors leave the country ???

If I recall, there was a special depot on Johnston atoll that was tasked with the dirty job of 'getting rid of' the US stockpiles of VX. It's difficult...and dangerous.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes Saddam moved all his weapons out of Iraq right before a war that makes perfect sense..... No wait that makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense.

[punked]

Oh really? How do you 'get rid of' VX nerve agent, anyways?

Hard to get rid of something that doesn't exist isn't it? However in 2003 Iraq sent the UN a 25 report on how in 1991 they went about getting rid of that never agent I suggest if you care about this question you read it.