punked Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 I guess you haven't been following the news huh? And still blaming Romney? Yep, whatever happened to that threat anyways? Obama Says Iran A Year Away From Nuclear Weapon And then they can put on the head of one those missiles Reagan gave them for keeping Americans locked up for a year while he ran and election and shoot it at Israel. Coming full circle eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 FDR...my favorite US President...locked up the Japanese just like we did up here in Canada. I don't think he was 'working for all Americans' at that point. But, I think you're far too obsessed with party lines. Presidents can be very much alike when push comes to shove. Kennedy nearly got EVERYBODY on the planet killed. Should we say all Democrats are reckless nuclear brinksmanship honchos willing to bet the entire farm over a stupid island? Shall we ignore ol' Nikita's role in the affair as you do with Uncle Ho...ultimately the fellow responsible for starting the Viet-Nam war? You and I both know that would be silly. Nixon...in my view...while a nasty fellow and such...was actually a rather effective President. How is your (no-doubt) Chinese made computer doing this morning, anyways? Yep. Not to mention Jimmy Carter replacing the Shah with the current theocracy in Iran, as well as giving cover to North Korea to build nuclear weapons. I wouldn't bother with punked though. Trying to have a legitimate discussion about things like this devolves into a childish, cheering for the home team type of ridiculousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 And then they can put on the head of one those missiles Reagan gave them for keeping Americans locked up for a year while he ran and election and shoot it at Israel. Coming full circle eh? Oh for sure, those 50 year old missiles are probably quite reliable. I'm sure they're better than the ones Jimmy Carter helped North Korea develop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) ...Republicans shouldn't be out there trying to kill the country when the President is making those touch choices. Why not ? It was the policy of 'the country' to engage commies at all levels. Vice President and candidate Hubert Humphrey lost the '68 election partially for being a rabid Red hater in the past. John Kerry would come to dread his interference in the 'peace process' as well, decades later. What a silly thread....Democrats' wars have 'killed' far more than Republicans, but they are all still very American. This OP must be from Canada. One party that believes in democracy the other one is for sinking it. See DoP's FDR citation. Edited March 16, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Yep. Not to mention Jimmy Carter replacing the Shah with the current theocracy in Iran, as well as giving cover to North Korea to build nuclear weapons. I wouldn't bother with punked though. Trying to have a legitimate discussion about things like this devolves into a childish, cheering for the home team type of ridiculousness. An ideologue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Yep. Not to mention Jimmy Carter replacing the Shah with the current theocracy in Iran, as well as giving cover to North Korea to build nuclear weapons. I wouldn't bother with punked though. Trying to have a legitimate discussion about things like this devolves into a childish, cheering for the home team type of ridiculousness. I gathered...but I have my hopes....lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Why not ? It was the policy of 'the country' to engage commies at all levels. Vice President and candidate Hubert Humphrey lost the '68 election partially for being a rabid Red hater in the past. John Kerry would come to dread his interference in the 'peace process' as well, decades later. What a silly thread....Democrats' wars have 'killed' far more than Republicans, but they are all still very American. This OP must be from Canada. See DoP's FDR citation. I love to hear 'em yelp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 An ideologue. Exactly. I've been sucked into it many times in the past. I try to stay away from it now. I wish you well though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Yep. Not to mention Jimmy Carter replacing the Shah with the current theocracy in Iran. OMG you don't get to rewrite history to say what you want Shady. How many times do I have to tell you that? So here is what I am going to ask because I know you are going to run and hide but I want everyone to see that. Citation please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) OMG you don't get to rewrite history to say what you want Shady. How many times do I have to tell you that? So here is what I am going to ask because I know you are going to run and hide but I want everyone to see that. Citation please. No more wrong than folks that claim the US put the Shah on the throne in 1953. But, that's not you... Edited March 16, 2013 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 No more wrong than folks that claim the US put the Shah on the throne in 1953. But, that's not you... No he is wrong about the Facts. Carter did not support the over throw of the Shah. That is just a lie that fits into the narrative. Don't by into Shady's lies he thinks he has the right to change past historical events to fit his world view which he does not. As I said to your earlier you have the right to your own opinions but once you start making your own facts you lose the argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 No he is wrong about the Facts. Carter did not support the over throw of the Shah. That is just a lie that fits into the narrative. Don't by into Shady's lies he thinks he has the right to change past historical events to fit his world view which he does not. As I said to your earlier you have the right to your own opinions but once you start making your own facts you lose the argument. I lived through that period. No need for me to have Shady in order to recall Carter's role in Hostage Crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 I lived through that period. No need for me to have Shady in order to recall Carter's role in Hostage Crisis. Yep and lets all ignore Reagan's role right? Lets just ignore it and pretend it didn't exist until of course some tape or document comes out then instead of talking about that (visa via this Nixon thread) we will talk about Clinton causing 9/11 in someway. Your guys bag of tricks is old and tired. Again show me how Carter and I quote " replaced the Shah with the current theocracy in Iran". You don't get to rewrite history and you don't get to say "well I was there so I am allowed to rewrite history". Support the claim already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 I lived through that period. No need for me to have Shady in order to recall Carter's role in Hostage Crisis. Agreed.....the young ones here do not have that context, and it cannot be learned with Google. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Yep and lets all ignore Reagan's role right? Lets just ignore it and pretend it didn't exist until of course some tape or document comes out then instead of talking about that (visa via this Nixon thread) we will talk about Clinton causing 9/11 in someway. Your guys bag of tricks is old and tired. Again show me how Carter and I quote " replaced the Shah with the current theocracy in Iran". You don't get to rewrite history and you don't get to say "well I was there so I am allowed to rewrite history". Support the claim already. Dude...I'm a Canadian...not American. Guess what, too...no vote-ee for Harper. Where does that fit on your scale of political ideologue-ness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Agreed.....the young ones here do not have that context, and it cannot be learned with Google. Support your claim. That isn't a lot to ask for. In 50 years I am not allowed to say "and then Harper claimed Martial law and deported all the French people to Israel............I know I was there" That isn't true and just because I lived at the time doesn't change its history. Support your claim already. Seems today we learned of Nixon killing peace talks. Lots of people were there at the time and they didn't know it happened. So that argument it horrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Dude...I'm a Canadian...not American. Guess what, too...no vote-ee for Harper. Where does that fit on your scale of political ideologue-ness? I would rather an informed ideologue who supports their arguments with facts and citations then a misinformed anyone. I could care less who you vote for as long as that vote is based on true facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Agreed.....the young ones here do not have that context, and it cannot be learned with Google. No such thing as 'middle ground' these days, either. All black and white and extreme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Support your claim. I've made no claim....I just lived through it like many other Americans (and Canadians). Your game is too little...too late. Seems today we learned of Nixon killing peace talks. Lots of people were there at the time and they didn't know it happened. So that argument it horrible. Killing peace talks was not only expected, it was broadly supported by a large minority of Americans who wanted to prevail against the commies in theatre. Some in Canada wanted the war to continue for obvious economic reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 I've made no claim....I just lived through it like many other Americans (and Canadians). Your game is too little...too late. Killing peace talks was not only expected, it was broadly supported by a large minority of Americans who wanted to prevail against the commies in theatre. Some in Canada wanted the war to continue for obvious economic reasons. Great if you want to kill the Peace talks because Americans don't want them, then don't do in a back-room promising to bring Peace just a few months later. Make your argument in public and let the American people vote on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) South Viet-Nam was certainly worth fighting for, It was more HOW the silly thing was fought that is more the issue. US commanders...with some notable exceptions...weren't really sure how to deal with such a complex enemy as the VC and NVA. Only Nixon, frankly, had the balls to try and do what was needed in that mess of a war. When he did...the 'peace movement' went nutso. OMFG...Nixon has INVADED 'peaceful' Laos & Cambodia. Should have struck north at the same time.... But, Nixon left politics and the war ground to an end...then 'peace' broke out and over 3 million died as a result. Good times for the ideologue left. The war was over...at least for them...as they patted themselves on the back while taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees. Edited March 16, 2013 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 South Viet-Nam was certainly worth fighting for, It was more HOW the silly thing was fought that is more the issue. US commanders...with some notable exceptions...weren't really sure how to deal with such a complex enemy as the VC and NVA. Only Nixon, frankly, had the balls to try and do what was needed in that mess of a war. When he did...the 'peace movement' went nutso. OMFG...Nixon has INVADED 'peaceful' Laos & Cambodia. Should have struck north at the same time.... But, Nixon left politics and the war ground to an end...then 'peace' broke out and over 3 million died as a result. Good times for the ideologue left. The war was over...at least for them...as they patted themselves on the back while taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees. None of that justifies what Nixon did as a candidate for President or Proves Shady's untrue claims about Carter. I want a debate based on facts thats all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Great if you want to kill the Peace talks because Americans don't want them, then don't do in a back-room promising to bring Peace just a few months later. Make your argument in public and let the American people vote on it. Why ? The NIxon campaign was trying to win an election and post Johnson Administration landscape. Shopping a better deal to South Vietnam was just smart politics. "Peace With Honor" meant lots more war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 None of that justifies what Nixon did as a candidate for President or Proves Shady's untrue claims about Carter. I want a debate based on facts thats all. Debate what ? The record is clear and Nixon is dead. Claiming this means that Republicans purposely kill American military is still not proven...'facts' are lacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 None of that justifies what Nixon did as a candidate for President or Proves Shady's untrue claims about Carter. I want a debate based on facts thats all. What untrue claim? The fact that Carter provided cover for the North Korean nuclear program? Or his removal of the Shah? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.