New evidence Nixon did indeed sabotage peace talks in 68

[ReeferMadness]

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.

So, you are saying that the USA is the moral equivalent of North Vietnam. As long as we all understand the yardstick.

[ReeferMadness]

Great wargame subject, too.

http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1481147/vietnam-1965-1975

Since been ported to VASSAL

http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Vietnam_1965-1975

Took about as long as the real war to finish...lol.

Hardy har har. I'm sure the orphaned kids in Southeast Asia would really appreciate your sense of humour.

[Topaz]

The "military" channel has this on their channel today and everyone knows about Nixon but there were other people involved and the one that Nixon talk to the most was Henry Kissenger, both should have gone to jail but that's one thing that other presidents won't so do to other presidents. The CIA was also part of everything that Nixon did and the more one watched the documentary the more one can see connection to present day activites of the US government.

[bush_cheney2004]

Great wargame subject, too.

http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1481147/vietnam-1965-1975

Since been ported to VASSAL

http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Vietnam_1965-1975

Took about as long as the real war to finish...lol.

Wow....this puts the Vietnam War in the Hall of Fame (or shame). Lot's better than my 1966 "12 O'Clock High" board game wherein your fate was determined by dice with bombs on them.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Dude...what the hell do you think Canada was doing to Serbia in 1999 ? Are you calling for PM Chretien to be arrested and tried for 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.

Splendid...I can't wait for all those revenge attacks from Cuba, Granada, Honduras, Japan, Chile, Germany, Iraq, Serbia, etc., etc.

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.

Yes you are...go start a thread condemning Canada for all those 'war crimes'. Want a list ? Sheesh.......

[bush_cheney2004]

The "military" channel has this on their channel today and everyone knows about Nixon but there were other people involved and the one that Nixon talk to the most was Henry Kissenger, both should have gone to jail but that's one thing that other presidents won't so do to other presidents. The CIA was also part of everything that Nixon did and the more one watched the documentary the more one can see connection to present day activites of the US government.

That's right.....bad to the bone....and Canada's #1 trading partner. How do you like dem apples ?

[Topaz]

That's right.....bad to the bone....and Canada's #1 trading partner. How do you like dem apples ?

So what are you saying? Being trading partners and how governments govern are TWO different things The US has had some pretty digusting presidents .

[ReeferMadness]

This whole discussion seems to be happening in a moral vacuum. War crimes are being justified by what the Allies did in WWII or what the North Vietnamese did. AW seems to think it's OK for the USA to do damned near anything because "it did what it thought had to be done". I'm sure the people now in from of the ICC would love to have any of these defences. Noam Chomsky has said a number of times that if the rules of Nuremburg were applied, every post-WWII president would have been hanged. People here may not like his politics but his books are meticulously researched.

[bush_cheney2004]

So what are you saying? Being trading partners and how governments govern are TWO different things The US has had some pretty digusting presidents .

No, I'm saying that Canada has not sanctioned the U.S. for such bad manners, and never will, because we know who your daddy is.

[bush_cheney2004]

This whole discussion seems to be happening in a moral vacuum.

Let me guess...you support free abortions on demand, right ?

[ReeferMadness]

Dude...what the hell do you think Canada was doing to Serbia in 1999 ? Are you calling for PM Chretien to be arrested and tried for war crimes ?

Splendid...I can't wait for all those revenge attacks from Cuba, Granada, Honduras, Japan, Chile, Germany, Iraq, Serbia, etc., etc.

Yes you are...go start a thread condemning Canada for all those 'war crimes'. Want a list ? Sheesh.......

Sure, why don't you prepare a list? Then we can compare.

[ReeferMadness]

Let me guess...you support free abortions on demand, right ?

Another irrelevant comparison. This whole war criminal stuff is really starting to bug you isn't it?

[bush_cheney2004]

Another irrelevant comparison. This whole war criminal stuff is really starting to bug you isn't it?

No, I'm just trying to find out when you do approve of indiscriminate killing of 'children' ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure, why don't you prepare a list? Then we can compare.

But you just said that such comparisons are used to justify war crimes.

[DogOnPorch]

So, you are saying that the USA is the moral equivalent of North Vietnam. As long as we all understand the yardstick.

The Communists...particularly the NVA...could give as good as they took. No need to hold their hands. They started it, after all...and finished it. Not too shabby. Giap was on the same level as any of the other famous competent generals. The areas where US 'secretly bombed' and invaded in Cambodia and Laos were areas used for R&R and troop staging into South Viet-Nam...big stretches of jungle wilderness...swamp...Karst terrain. Two infamous ones come to mind...the Fish Hook and the Parrot's Beak. ARVN (the South), unfortunately, had to be one of the most corrupt armies in the world...even before the Americans arrived in force. There were glimmers of effectiveness in some elite units like the Rangers...but most just sat there. Each ARVN division essentially the private army of a warlord general...who might be keen on knocking off the SVN prime minister or president...or the general next to him...or etc. The Phoenix Program was their operation...with generous CIA, Special Forces and Australian help....look that one up in detail if you want some ammo...lol. When the US and Allies started pulling out and ARVN was on their own...that's when the what not hit the what not. Only heavy airstrikes by US and VNF forces saved the day during the 1972 Year of the Rat/Easter invasion of South Viet-Nam by the North.

Soviet made NVA T-54/55 knocked out by the

ARVN 8th Regiment during the Battle of An Loc in 1972.

Edited March 18, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

Wow....this puts the Vietnam War in the Hall of Fame (or shame). Lot's better than my 1966 "12 O'Clock High" board game wherein your fate was determined by dice with bombs on them.

It had it all, too. Elections...assassinations...coups...bombing the North...hippies at home...da works. Very complex at first. Best with 3 opponents...one for the North...one South...one US.

[GostHacked]

Yah how about you link to a citation about his "removal of the Shah" Shady. Love to read that article.

The only thing I can easily find is that Carter helped out the Shah but asked for reformed which seemed to have helped the demise of the Shah.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703833204576114510470768534.html

The most obvious example of this failure was President Jimmy Carter's catastrophic mishandling of the events in Iran in 1978-79. The Shah had flouted Iranians' basic freedoms for decades, yet this hadn't prevented the U.S. from striking oil and arms deals with him.

On New Year's Eve 1977, President Carter called the Shah "an island of stability" in the region. Yet as Iranians protested the Shah's reign beginning in the fall of 1978, Mr. Carter began to insist on democratic reform and human rights—to the exclusion of practically everything else. To the extent that this criticism contributed to the Shah's downfall, it was spectacularly counterproductive.

[GostHacked]

No, I'm just trying to find out when you do approve of indiscriminate killing of 'children' ?

Do you recall an interview with Madeline Albright where the reporter asked if the Iraq war (first one) was worth it because of the high number of children killed because of the conflict, .... and she said it was indeed worth it.

But we can toss out a few more drone strikes to show that there is no indiscriminate killing of any kind.

[DogOnPorch]

The only thing I can easily find is that Carter helped out the Shah but asked for reformed which seemed to have helped the demise of the Shah.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703833204576114510470768534.html

Yes...I recall some of those Carter moments. But it was the Shah who pulled the plug on his own reign which had started in 1941 after the removal of his pro-Nazi father by Stalin and Churchill. He didn't want to escalate the crisis, apparently, after his last crack-down failed to stop the growing protests.

[punked]

The only thing I can easily find is that Carter helped out the Shah but asked for reformed which seemed to have helped the demise of the Shah.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703833204576114510470768534.html

You can only help someone to a point. Once the Shah was pro OPEC oil embargo and he went against American interests his goose was cooked. If you are puppet you do what you are told. Carter helped him as much as he could politically but he didn't have the push that he could have had if the Shah did what he was told to do.

Edited March 18, 2013 by punked

[punked]

By making UN inspectors leave the country ???

Started reading Blixs book and this right here is what is wrong. Know who made the UN inspectors leave? BUSH DID not Saddam this is just more historical revisionism from the right. Good thing they can't do this crap any more because history is well recorded now. The propaganda doesn't work in a globalized world.

[bush_cheney2004]

Started reading Blixs book and this right here is what is wrong. Know who made the UN inspectors leave? BUSH DID not Saddam this is just more historical revisionism from the right. Good thing they can't do this crap any more because history is well recorded now. The propaganda doesn't work in a globalized world.

Huh? Bush wasn't president until 2001.....so maybe you mean Clinton / Blair ? Saddam claimed that the UN inspectors were spying for the US/UK.

Either way it doesn't matter....The US and UK wanted to topple Saddam and the post 9/11 environment made it possible. Iraq was routinely under attack and strangled by sanctions before that, including actions by Canada.

[Guest American Woman]

This whole discussion seems to be happening in a moral vacuum. War crimes are being justified by what the Allies did in WWII or what the North Vietnamese did.

What war crimes are being justified?

AW seems to think it's OK for the USA to do damned near anything because "it did what it thought had to be done".

You are exhibiting either complete dishonesty or a complete inability to comprehend what I said. You have taken what I said completely out of context as the issue I was commenting on was not about whether the action was "OK," but whether or not the U.S. 'was forced to do what it did by the Soviet Union.' My response was that the U.S. wasn't forced to do anything - it did what it felt it had to do. In other words, I was owning our actions, not blaming the Soviet Union for them.

Here's a repeat, just for you:

eyeball: eyeball, on 07 Mar 2013 - 00:22, said:

What about the argument that the Soviet Union forced your government to prop up dictators?

Me: Whose claim is that? The U.S. did what it felt it had to do.

Then you said:

ReeferMadness, on 10 Mar 2013 - 17:31, said:

And every time that happens, people, mostly poor, mostly dark-skinned die in huge numbers. But that's OK, because it's the US doing "what it felt it had to do"???

And I clarified that I was simply responding to the claim that America blamed the Soviet Union:

Me: My comment was in response to the idea that Americans claim that the Soviet Union "forced" the U.S. to do it - the way so many Canadians claim Canada only does what it does because "the U.S. forced it to." I'm saying the U.S. wasn't "forced" to do anything but did what it thought it had to do - just as Canada does what it feels it has to do in its best interest.

Where, for the love of God, do you get that I'm saying it's OK for the USA to do damned near anything because "it did what it thought had to be done?"

Good grief. I wasn't making any judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the action - just explaining the why of the action. That you would interpret it as you did - and then claim that I'm ok with anything the U.S. does - is off the wall.

I'm sure the people now in from of the ICC would love to have any of these defences. Noam Chomsky has said a number of times that if the rules of Nuremburg were applied, every post-WWII president would have been hanged. People here may not like his politics but his books are meticulously researched.

Lots of books are meticulously researched - and many are at odds with each other. Just because Chomsky says so doesn't make it true; it simply makes it his opinion - ie: his conclusion based on his interpretation of his research.

Edited March 18, 2013 by American Woman

[punked]

Huh? Bush wasn't president until 2001.....so maybe you mean Clinton / Blair ? Saddam claimed that the UN inspectors were spying for the US/UK.

Either way it doesn't matter....The US and UK wanted to topple Saddam and the post 9/11 environment made it possible. Iraq was routinely under attack and strangled by sanctions before that, including actions by Canada.

And lie to the world about WMDs don't forget that one.

[bush_cheney2004]

And lie to the world about WMDs don't forget that one.

Whatever...it worked. Congress voted for regime change in 2002 based on the long history with Iraq, and Iraq was invaded in 2003. Or as Chris Rock once said, "If you make us come over there, we're bringing an ass kicking with us".