New evidence Nixon did indeed sabotage peace talks in 68

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

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

[punked]

Then why did Kennedy / LBJ put over 500,000 of them in Vietnam ?

It was a bad decision then I agree.

[bush_cheney2004]

It was a bad decision then I agree.

But you said that Republicans....oh....nevermind. It was a silly notion to begin with.

[DogOnPorch]

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

Or the millions of SE Asians who were murdered in the peace that followed the war. Sometimes there are reasons to fight. I think most can agree the Viet-Nam War was fought in entirely the wrong way. Napalming friendlies...as mentioned. Free fire zones...etc. A powerful combined arms force should have sliced the trail while another drove north Rommel-style to Hanoi...Red China be damned. But...alas...

Edited March 16, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

Or the millions of SE Asians who were murdered in the peace that followed the war.

A peacemongers reward can be just as bad (and often worse) than war. But then again, these are the same people who want unfettered abortion on demand....go figure !

[punked]

But you said that Republicans....oh....nevermind. It was a silly notion to begin with.

Two Elected Presidents made those decisions not some guy in a backroom who had no authority to be making the deals he was making.

[DogOnPorch]

A peacemongers reward can be just as bad (and often worse) than war. But then again, these are the same people who want unfettered abortion on demand....go figure !

It was easier to pretend Boat People just got sucked out to sea from the Hong Kong harbour.

[bush_cheney2004]

It was easier to pretend Boat People just got sucked out to sea from the Hong Kong harbour.

I met a lot of Boat People back in the 70's....none wanted to go back to Vietnam then. Instead, Vietnam has come back to them.

Little trace remains of any hostility towards America—just one, after

all, of the many countries Vietnam fought during the past century. It

went to war more recently (in 1979) with China, a perennial enemy over

the last millennium, and the authorities still seem more suspicious of

their northern neighbours and fellow communists than of anyone else.

America and Vietnam restored diplomatic ties in 1995, and signed a trade

pact in 2000. America is now Vietnam's largest export market. Disputes

between the two countries hinge more on tariffs and market access than

on war crimes or missing soldiers.

http://www.economist.com/node/3914886

Edited March 16, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Two Elected Presidents made those decisions not some guy in a backroom who had no authority to be making the deals he was making.

Who won the election ? Guess it worked.....didn't your vote from Canada matter ?

Edited March 16, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

I met a lot of Boat People back in the 70's....none wanted to go back to Vietnam then. Instead, Vietnam has come back to them.

Little trace remains of any hostility towards America—just one, after

all, of the many countries Vietnam fought during the past century. It

went to war more recently (in 1979) with China, a perennial enemy over

the last millennium, and the authorities still seem more suspicious of

their northern neighbours and fellow communists than of anyone else.

America and Vietnam restored diplomatic ties in 1995, and signed a trade

pact in 2000. America is now Vietnam's largest export market. Disputes

between the two countries hinge more on tariffs and market access than

on war crimes or missing soldiers.

http://www.economist.com/node/3914886

Yes...but it's flogging Kathie Lee Gifford's fine line of products...etc. Not a South Korea.

[WWWTT]

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

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/14/obama-says-iran-a-year-away-from-nuclear-weapon/

The link you provided proves my point!

Thanks Shady!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Yep. Not to mention Jimmy Carter replacing the Shah with the current theocracy in Iran,

When did that happen???

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Agreed.....the young ones here do not have that context, and it cannot be learned with Google.

Therefore you can not be wrong?

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

Therefore you can not be wrong?

Right or wrong means little to those who lived and died. In time, you shall learn this too, son.

[WWWTT]

Spare us the drama.

We need facts my friend.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

Spare us the drama.

We need facts my friend.

No...you need facts....old timers like me actually experienced the time in question. 'We' voted for Nixon, of course.

Edited March 16, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

The link you provided proves my point!

Thanks Shady!

WWWTT

How does the link prove your point?

[WWWTT]

No...you need facts....old timers like me actually experienced the time in question. 'We' voted for Nixon, of course.

So you are saying that only I need facts and that everyone else has the facts?Right?

OK,if you say so then???

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

How does the link prove your point?

Obama is downplaying the alleged threat.

Thanks again!

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

So you are saying that only I need facts and that everyone else has the facts?Right?

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

[Shady]

Obama is downplaying the alleged threat.

Thanks again!

WWWTT

How is he downplaying the threat.?

[DogOnPorch]

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

Heh...well done.

[Guest American Woman]

So you are saying that only I need facts and that everyone else has the facts?Right?

OK,if you say so then???

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.

[DogOnPorch]

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.

Barry Goldwater?? Who the heck is that guy? I guess if yer from Arizona or something....

Edited March 17, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[WWWTT]

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.

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