punked Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 What untrue claim? The fact that Carter provided cover for the North Korean nuclear program? Or his removal of the Shah? Yah how about you link to a citation about his "removal of the Shah" Shady. Love to read that article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 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. Presidential Candidates should not being making backroom deals with other governments period. Know what that leads to? It leads to some republicans making a promise to some dictator that if they take Americans hostage for a year they will give them some missiles. That isn't good for America and thinking Republicans not only justify that but support it isn't going to win them any votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) 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. Nor does it factor the South Vietnamese leaders had their own wants and desires. Thieu despised LBJ and felt his push for a 'Great Society' in SVN merely left him open for a coup by rivals; not to mention get in the way of his unfettered corruption. 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 Nor does it factor the South Vietnamese leaders had their own wants and desires. Thieu despised LBJ and felt his push for a 'Great Society' in SVN merely left him open for a coup by rivals; not to mention get in the way of his unfettered corruption. Yah go figure LBJ the President of the US was doing what he thought was in the US best interest. How dare he, good thing that good guy Nixon flew in, killed the talks in a backroom away from the public and let the war take another 30,000 American lives. I am sure history will absolve him for sure though, I mean people love the Vietnam war now right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Presidential Candidates should not being making backroom deals with other governments period. Know what that leads to? It leads to some republicans making a promise to some dictator that if they take Americans hostage for a year they will give them some missiles. That isn't good for America and thinking Republicans not only justify that but support it isn't going to win them any votes. This is laughable....and clearly demonstrates your disconnect from the reality of the time. America was at war with itself over Vietnam, and opinions about what was good for the country wasn't needed or welcomed from Canada...then or now. 'PEACE' at any cost may appeal to you and war protesters, but obviously it did not win the '68 election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Yah how about you link to a citation about his "removal of the Shah" Shady. Love to read that article. He purposely abanoned the Shah, and allowed him to fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Yah go figure LBJ the President of the US was doing what he thought was in the US best interest. How dare he, good thing that good guy Nixon flew in, killed the talks in a backroom away from the public and let the war take another 30,000 American lives. I am sure history will absolve him for sure though, I mean people love the Vietnam war now right? History has already spoken for (Democrat) LBJ's Vietnam War....and it does not speak well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 History has already spoken for (Democrat) LBJ's Vietnam War....and it does not speak well. And (Democrat) Kennedy's Vietnam War too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 And (Democrat) Kennedy's Vietnam War too. OMG...this must mean that Democrats don't care about the American armed forces and wasted their lives for political reasons. For shame !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Yah go figure LBJ the President of the US was doing what he thought was in the US best interest. How dare he, good thing that good guy Nixon flew in, killed the talks in a backroom away from the public and let the war take another 30,000 American lives. I am sure history will absolve him for sure though, I mean people love the Vietnam war now right? It was a very....colorful war. It can't be summed up in one post. Suffice to say North Viet-Nam started it in the late 1950s and had the mettle to fight the US until public opinion turned against the war at home. Saigon...an Ancient city...now has a name that I'm sure would have made Ho cringe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 He purposely abanoned the Shah, and allowed him to fall. So he didn't remove the Shah at all? That was just Shady rewriting History to be the History he wanted eh? Good job there little buddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 So he didn't remove the Shah at all? That was just Shady rewriting History to be the History he wanted eh? Good job there little buddy. US intervention would have certainly saved the Shah's...errrr...bacon. But, all Carter managed was a half-baked rescue effort that got good folks killed. No Entebbe for him. The world...as you can see...is a much different place. Did you know that Israel and Iran were allies during that time? Now wouldn't that be a switch today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 So he didn't remove the Shah at all? That was just Shady rewriting History to be the History he wanted eh? Good job there little buddy. Oh he did. He knew what he was doing, in his benign way. It was purposely done. The North Korea situation however, I think he was just fooled. Used as a kind of useful idiot for the despotic regime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) US intervention would have certainly saved the Shah's...errrr...bacon. But, all Carter managed was a half-baked rescue effort that got good folks killed. No Entebbe for him. The world...as you can see...is a much different place. Did you know that Israel and Iran were allies during that time? Now wouldn't that be a switch today? Right...and the reason why President Carter is despised by some to this day. Backed with power, he failed to execute the duties of his office. Unlike Carter, President Obama bombs people Edited March 16, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Oh he did. He knew what he was doing, in his benign way. It was purposely done. The North Korea situation however, I think he was just fooled. Used as a kind of useful idiot for the despotic regime. Thats funny because the leading researcher on this subject Kurzman who wrote The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran (maybe you should read it) says Carter supported the Shah and even urged the Iranian military to stage a "last-resort coup d'etat" to keep him in power. Stop talking about things you know nothing about Shady it is getting tiring correcting you made up history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 US intervention would have certainly saved the Shah's...errrr...bacon. But, all Carter managed was a half-baked rescue effort that got good folks killed. No Entebbe for him. The world...as you can see...is a much different place. Did you know that Israel and Iran were allies during that time? Now wouldn't that be a switch today? Not sending American troops into a country does not make the President at Fault for what happens in that country. Do I get to Blame Bush for election Fraud in former Soviet Republics now because he didn't send in troops? Come on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Right...and the reason why President Carter is despised by some to this day. Backed with power, he failed to execute the duties of his office. Plus...we both know that the Rooshins were busy playing their own game of grab-azz in Viet-Nam. Like they were every-damn-where else. Most of the NVA air force and air defense had less than Asian features. Peace talks in '68...in America's dreams. But, hold the B-52s until after '68 election....please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 ...Peace talks in '68...in America's dreams. But, hold the B-52s until after '68 election....please. Exactly....'peace' was a joke then and really really stupid over 40 years later, stripped of context and exigencies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Not sending American troops into a country does not make the President at Fault for what happens in that country. Do I get to Blame Bush for election Fraud in former Soviet Republics now because he didn't send in troops? Come on. Iran was an Israel level buddy of the US. Not some failed Russian republic with few ties to America other than allowing road access. Iran was tossed under the bus...as the saying goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Just like South Viet-Nam... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Iran was an Israel level buddy of the US. Not some failed Russian republic with few ties to America other than allowing road access. Iran was tossed under the bus...as the saying goes. Damn right it was....shiny new Grumman F-14's and Spruance class destroyers were on their way to the Shah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Damn right it was....shiny new Grumman F-14's and Spruance class destroyers were on their way to the Shah. He was a fine fellow next to the current...leaders...of Iran. His secret police, at least, used to regularly turn the screws on 'em. His wife was sumthin' else too. Sophia Loren with WAYYYYYYYYYYY more $$$$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Iran was an Israel level buddy of the US. Not some failed Russian republic with few ties to America other than allowing road access. Iran was tossed under the bus...as the saying goes. Yah it was such a great buddy supporting that oil embargo and causing energy prices to go through the roof and all. For someone who was there and thus knows everything you are making some pretty shaky claims. Putting Americans troops on the ground is a big deal and shouldn't be done lightly sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 There wasn't a chance in Hell of peace in 1968, anyways. That war was ON and Tricky Dick did not start it. Viet-Nam was one of those events where nobody was at fault but everyone else was to blame. Oh, yeah. Like someone else was to blame for US planes pouring napalm on helpless kids. A clear example of where nobody was at fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 ...Putting Americans troops on the ground is a big deal and shouldn't be done lightly sorry. Then why did Kennedy / LBJ put over 500,000 of them in Vietnam ? 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.