Jump to content

New evidence Nixon did indeed sabotage peace talks in 68


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 228
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You weren't sold anything...Canada begged off as irrelevant. 240,000 troops got the inspectors back in, but it was too little...too late.

According to Hans Blix the leading inspector in Iraq they were already in and it would only take a few more months to figure out all the details but the US needed its war. I mean I guess I could take the word of the weapons inspector on the ground at the time and who turned out to be right or I could listen to you the man trying to rewrite a history that is well documented by now.

You can pick up his book Disarming Iraq and read all about what was happening with inspectors if you cared to understand what was happening.

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Hans Blix the leading inspector in Iraq they were already in and it would only take a few more months to figure out all the details but the US needed its war. I mean I guess I could take the word of the weapons inspector on the ground at the time and who turned out to be right or I could listen to you the man trying to rewrite a history that is well documented by now.

Hans Blix and the UN were just part of the rope-a-dope run up to the invasion of Iraq, which was already a given. History is full of American incursions to exert its will on other nations, and Iraq was just another chapter. The U.S. will do it again too...think it won't ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hans Blix and the UN were just part of the rope-a-dope run up to the invasion of Iraq, which was already a given. History is full of American incursions to exert its will on other nations, and Iraq was just another chapter. The U.S. will do it again too...think it won't ??

You are acting like the inspectors weren't there in the first place. They were there, they were reporting their findings and trying to explain why these things in all countries take time while the most powerful in the world stuck their fingers in their ears and yelled "We can't hear you". Again your side isn't going to rewrite history on this one it is to well documented, the people already know the emperor had no clothes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are acting like the inspectors weren't there in the first place. They were there, they were reporting their findings and trying to explain why these things in all countries take time while the most powerful in the world stuck their fingers in their ears and yelled "We can't hear you". Again your side isn't going to rewrite history on this one it is to well documented, the people already know the emperor had no clothes.

Nobody is rewriting history here....the U.S. and U.K. wanted Saddam gone....long before 9/11. Hell, Clinton and Blair tried to kill him in 1998. It's not complicated. Arguing about how it was achieved is for the navel gazers. Ding...dong....Saddam is dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is rewriting history here....the U.S. and U.K. wanted Saddam gone....long before 9/11. Hell, Clinton and Blair tried to kill him in 1998. It's not complicated. Arguing about how it was achieved is for the navel gazers. Ding...dong....Saddam is dead.

Pretending the American and world public weren't lied for this goal and that the ends some how justify the means is a very real argument we should have even if you don't want to. I suggest if you don't want to have that argument you go elsewhere because it is an argument worth having.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretending the American and world public weren't lied for this goal and that the ends some how justify the means is a very real argument we should have even if you don't want to. I suggest if you don't want to have that argument you go elsewhere because it is an argument worth having.

Lost me here...but the trend is consistent, whether it is Nixon or Bush. The U.S. showed you (in Canada) and the 'world' just what it thought about your opinion by humping all the way into Bahgdad. Perhaps you are still in shock that "your country" could do this...again. History will give you the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Oh God here we go again.

I'm sure wikileaks has lots of footage

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure there's lots of footage of similar crimes.

WWWTT

It was obviously footage from a major network. Perhaps you're just mixing things up. The most common reference to sledgehammer and Viet-Nam would have been the use of the B-52 Stratofortress as a tactical weapon in the various Arc Light raids.

ArcLight_impacting--400x263.jpg

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah...they deserved better...like the helpless kids in Germany and Japan who got incendiaries instead.

I agree that there were plenty of unpunished war crimes (particularly among the Allies) during WWII as well. I'm just not sure how that in any way justifies you pouring napalm on kids. Do you think that's OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that there were plenty of unpunished war crimes (particularly among the Allies) during WWII as well. I'm just not sure how that in any way justifies you pouring napalm on kids. Do you think that's OK?

Yes....they were 'pouring' napalm (some made in Canada BTW) on THE ENEMY. Shame on those Allies for killing 'children' during WW2.

Why do you even make such a distinction compared to noncombatant men and women as well ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that there were plenty of unpunished war crimes (particularly among the Allies) during WWII as well. I'm just not sure how that in any way justifies you pouring napalm on kids. Do you think that's OK?

Free Fire Zones were indeed no way to fight a war of Hearts n' Minds. I think everybody can agree on that. But, that wasn't how it was fought. As well, it's easy to forget that ARVN did the bulk of the organic air support in the South. It could have easily been an Asian fellow dropping that egg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Air_Force

VNAF pilots drop napalm on VC targets in the South...1963 Photo: Life Magazine.

vietnam3.jpeg?w=900

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free Fire Zones were indeed no way to fight a war of Hearts n' Minds. I think everybody can agree on that. But, that wasn't how it was fought. As well, it's easy to forget that ARVN did the bulk of the organic air support in the South. It could have easily been an Asian fellow dropping that egg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Air_Force

VNAF pilots drop napalm on VC targets in the South...1963 Photo: Life Magazine.

vietnam3.jpeg?w=900

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes....they were 'pouring' napalm (some made in Canada BTW) on THE ENEMY. Shame on those Allies for killing 'children' during WW2.

Why do you even make such a distinction compared to noncombatant men and women as well ?

Again... you're using Allied war crimes during WWII to justify your war crimes during the Vietnam war. I'm sure that makes sense in some other universe, if not this one. It's a little like Saddam Hussein justifying his actions by saying that Genghis Khan was worse.

So, you're OK with your country committing war crimes through indiscriminate bombing of countries that haven't even attacked you? How about the secret bombing of Cambodia was that OK too? Are you going to justify that with the Martian invasion of 2135?

Edited by ReeferMadness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is rewriting history here....the U.S. and U.K. wanted Saddam gone....long before 9/11. Hell, Clinton and Blair tried to kill him in 1998. It's not complicated. Arguing about how it was achieved is for the navel gazers. Ding...dong....Saddam is dead.

Wow, you're at it again. The US does something wrong and you justify it by saying someone else did it first. You really can't accept it when your country is in the wrong, can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. So he pretended he had such weapons. Well, his bluff was called. I guess he should have been more upfront, and realized that such actions, along with breaking the cease fire agreement could have pretty grave consequences.

Well, why didn't you say so?? That makes it all OK, then, doesn't it? Bush and Blair were perfectly justified in lying to their own citizens and the world about the non-existent WMD. I think you should be part of the delegation that goes and explains this all to the relatives of dead Iraqis who were killed in the 'shock and awe'. You can tell them their kids and spouses and grandparents died because we called his bluff. It's not our fault we're better poker players is it?? It's OK that the "coalition of the willing" destroyed their country and enabled a low grade civil war. Because "his bluff was called".

Edited by ReeferMadness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again... you're using Allied war crimes during WWII to justify your war crimes during the Vietnam war. I'm sure that makes sense in some other universe, if not this one. It's a little like Saddam Hussein justifying his actions by saying that Genghis Khan was worse.

The whole concept of 'war crimes' is a bit twisted....I think you mean 'crimes against the peace' or 'crimes against humanity' to get closer to 'international law' by treaty. Check your emotions at the war zone door.

So, you're OK with your country committing war crimes through indiscriminate bombing of countries that haven't even attacked you? How about the secret bombing of Cambodia was that OK too? Are you going to justify that with the Martian invasion of 2135?

Yes....I am 'OK' with that...how do you feel about Canada bombing other nations without ever being attacked ? Do you weep at night ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you're at it again. The US does something wrong and you justify it by saying someone else did it first. You really can't accept it when your country is in the wrong, can you?

Yes... I am consistent, while you are not. If 'my country' is in the wrong, then please arrest us at once. You can use Google Maps to find the White House....President Obama is waiting for you right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole concept of 'war crimes' is a bit twisted....I think you mean 'crimes against the peace' or 'crimes against humanity' to get closer to 'international law' by treaty. Check your emotions at the war zone door.

Yes....I am 'OK' with that...how do you feel about Canada bombing other nations without ever being attacked ? Do you weep at night ?

I'm OK with North Viet-Nam invading South Viet-Nam, Laos and Cambodia...not so secretly. We both subscribe to the same axiom re: the right to defend land as opposed to the right to have land. Gosh...war is confusing....heh.

hochiminhtrailmap.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole concept of 'war crimes' is a bit twisted....I think you mean 'crimes against the peace' or 'crimes against humanity' to get closer to 'international law' by treaty. Check your emotions at the war zone door.

It's really not that twisted at all. When you attack a country that hasn't attacked you, when you get a UN resolution to invade under false pretenses, when you bomb indiscriminately, without regard for civilian lives and infrastructure, you are guilty of war crimes. The fact that Nixon, Kissinger, Bush, Reagan, Cheney, Blair, and others have never been charged with war crimes has nothing to do with right or wrong. It's just a matter of politics and military might. But what goes around comes around. The USA will not remain the preeminent world power forever. Its lack of regard for morality combined with its ability to get away with whatever actions it chooses will be instructive to people who hold power in countries of future preeminent powers.

Yes....I am 'OK' with that...how do you feel about Canada bombing other nations without ever being attacked ? Do you weep at night ?

I am greatly disturbed whenever Canada follows the USA into some ill-considered (and possibly illegal) war zone. It is fortunate that we have managed to avoid some of the most egregious examples of war criminality. However, I do acknowledge that on occasion, spineless leaders have put Canada into some military actions where our soldiers have been ordered to participate in morally repugnant actions. Actions that have resulted in needless civilian death and infrastructure destruction.

Unlike you, however, I am not OK with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...