Kissinger, Nixon and Vietnam

[gipper]

We should have gotten out in 1964

I will go one further and say we should never have been there in the first place. That was Americas second biggest mistake in the lat 75 years

OK, I’ll bite

What was the biggest?

The illegal Iraq invasion.

The illegal Iraq invasion.

https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1898&context=faculty_publications

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

from YOUR link:

widely debated

wiki---hahahhahahah
AND, plain and simple--Iraq VIOLATED the cease fire
Definition of cease-fire

1: a military order to cease firing
2: a suspension of active hostilities

Definition of CEASE-FIRE

a military order to cease firing; a suspension of active hostilities… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So violating a cease fire, had it happened, means the US government can invade causing mass murder and destruction. Is that right?

That’s sounds eerily like we had to kill you to save you.

 

[harmonica]

We should have gotten out in 1964

I will go one further and say we should never have been there in the first place. That was Americas second biggest mistake in the lat 75 years

OK, I’ll bite

What was the biggest?

The illegal Iraq invasion.

The illegal Iraq invasion.

https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1898&context=faculty_publications

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

from YOUR link:

widely debated

wiki---hahahhahahah
AND, plain and simple--Iraq VIOLATED the cease fire
Definition of cease-fire

1: a military order to cease firing
2: a suspension of active hostilities

Definition of CEASE-FIRE

a military order to cease firing; a suspension of active hostilities… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So violating a cease fire, had it happened, means the US government can invade causing mass murder and destruction. Is that right?

That’s sounds eerily like we had to kill you to save you.

....hahahahhahahahah
so, just let the enemy do what they want????!!!!! violate the cease fire???
hahhahahahahahhahah IDIOCY
..that's what a cease fire is for---obey the terms or else
hahahahahaha
....!!!!!!! hahahahhaahha

 

[gipper]

We should have gotten out in 1964

I will go one further and say we should never have been there in the first place. That was Americas second biggest mistake in the lat 75 years

OK, I’ll bite

What was the biggest?

The illegal Iraq invasion.

The illegal Iraq invasion.

https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1898&context=faculty_publications

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

from YOUR link:

widely debated

wiki---hahahhahahah
AND, plain and simple--Iraq VIOLATED the cease fire
Definition of cease-fire

1: a military order to cease firing
2: a suspension of active hostilities

Definition of CEASE-FIRE

a military order to cease firing; a suspension of active hostilities… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So violating a cease fire, had it happened, means the US government can invade causing mass murder and destruction. Is that right?

That’s sounds eerily like we had to kill you to save you.

....hahahahhahahahah
so, just let the enemy do what they want????!!!!! violate the cease fire???
hahhahahahahahhahah IDIOCY
..that's what a cease fire is for---obey the terms or else
hahahahahaha
....!!!!!!! hahahahhaahha

Strange response. So, just kill...because the Empire must do it, because it can’t allow any nation to control itself.

 

[harmonica]

We should have gotten out in 1964

I will go one further and say we should never have been there in the first place. That was Americas second biggest mistake in the lat 75 years

OK, I’ll bite

What was the biggest?

The illegal Iraq invasion.

The illegal Iraq invasion.

https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1898&context=faculty_publications

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

from YOUR link:

widely debated

wiki---hahahhahahah
AND, plain and simple--Iraq VIOLATED the cease fire
Definition of cease-fire

1: a military order to cease firing
2: a suspension of active hostilities

Definition of CEASE-FIRE

a military order to cease firing; a suspension of active hostilities… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So violating a cease fire, had it happened, means the US government can invade causing mass murder and destruction. Is that right?

That’s sounds eerily like we had to kill you to save you.

....hahahahhahahahah
so, just let the enemy do what they want????!!!!! violate the cease fire???
hahhahahahahahhahah IDIOCY
..that's what a cease fire is for---obey the terms or else
hahahahahaha
....!!!!!!! hahahahhaahha

Strange response. So, just kill...because the Empire must do it, because it can’t allow any nation to control itself.

more silliness from you ...and no facts from you

 

[gipper]

We should have gotten out in 1964

I will go one further and say we should never have been there in the first place. That was Americas second biggest mistake in the lat 75 years

OK, I’ll bite

What was the biggest?

The illegal Iraq invasion.

The illegal Iraq invasion.

https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1898&context=faculty_publications

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

from YOUR link:

widely debated

wiki---hahahhahahah
AND, plain and simple--Iraq VIOLATED the cease fire
Definition of cease-fire

1: a military order to cease firing
2: a suspension of active hostilities

Definition of CEASE-FIRE

a military order to cease firing; a suspension of active hostilities… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So violating a cease fire, had it happened, means the US government can invade causing mass murder and destruction. Is that right?

That’s sounds eerily like we had to kill you to save you.

....hahahahhahahahah
so, just let the enemy do what they want????!!!!! violate the cease fire???
hahhahahahahahhahah IDIOCY
..that's what a cease fire is for---obey the terms or else
hahahahahaha
....!!!!!!! hahahahhaahha

Strange response. So, just kill...because the Empire must do it, because it can’t allow any nation to control itself.

more silliness from you ...and no facts from you

You need facts to prevent an illegal war. It should be self evident. No?

 

[there4eyeM]

Might makes right. No one can stop or punish the U.S., so it is entitled to do anything.

 

[gipper]

Might makes right. No one can stop or punish the U.S., so it is entitled to do anything.

That’s exactly the mindset of our ruling class.

 

[harmonica]

Might makes right. No one can stop or punish the U.S., so it is entitled to do anything.

the US didn't start the wars..sorry

 

[Dick Foster]

never should've have been in Vietnam

If it weren't for mostly Democrat presidents shoving their heads up France's ass it wouldn't have been. At least the republican presidents kept their heads up their own asses.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

We should have gotten out in 1964

Had JFK not been ruthlessly murdered by a cabal of criminals, we would have.

You nailed it

Someone seems to have the sick mind it’s funny that he was going to pull us out,would not be surprising if it was agents wrongwinger or the hawk,err I mean the idiot,but that’s what is surprising about it,it’s not

 

[Picaro]

We should have gotten out in 1964

Had JFK not been ruthlessly murdered by a cabal of criminals, we would have.

JFK would have followed the same path that LBJ did in Vietnam

He had the same advisors

Many disagree, but you wouldn’t know this.

Those who martyr JFK think he is incapable of making a wrong decision. Any President in 1965 would have done the same as LBJ. Nixon, Goldwater AND JFK would not have passed on an opportunity to fight communism. It would have ruined their careers

You’re uninformed. JFK changed dramatically while in the White House, from his days as a hardened cold warrior. He gave a speech not long before he was murdered, that people like you ignore. Guess what? It’s call the Peace Speech. He also was covertly negotiating with Khrushchev to end the Cold War. He was in constant disagreement with the JCS and many others in his administration who wanted war. He intended to pull out of Vietnam as soon as he was re-elected. All these things are ignored or minimized by people like you.

Yea...everyone was advocating peace in Vietnam in 1963.
Then Diem was assassinated (three weeks before JFK) and the South went into turmoil. North Vietnam was on the verge of overtaking the South unless they received military aid.

LBJ wanted no part of putting American troops on the ground. But he was adamant that “Vietnam won’t turn communist on my watch” and his military advisers and Secretary of Defense MacNamara (same as LBJ had) all said we needed a few ground troops to turn back the tide and we would be home by Christmas.

LBJ took the bait. So would have JFK

And LBJ's policy led to the defeat of the Viet Cong 1968; their last gasp was the Tet offensive, and they lost. Anti-American propaganda had intensified greatly in both Europe and the U.S. when LBJ also took over from the French as the patrons of Israel, with the resulting Arab defeats in 1967 and again in 1973, which bankrupted the Soviets and destroyed their credibility with the Arab states. Without the U.S. in Viet Nam, the Soviets would have a free hand in Asia, and they wouldn't have gone bankrupt trying to prove to their client states they could beat our containment policy.

Kissinger merely exploited the wedge between the Soviets and Red Chinese from the Korean War, and in the end his policies led to the abandonment of the South Vietnamese to the commies, not ashining moment for the U.S.; we should have bombed them back into the stone age with that blatant violation of the treaties they signed, not they ever abided by any agreements and certainly the commie leftists in the U.S. were very happy with the results as they still are today. Kissinger and Nixon accomplished nothing by selling out the South, while the North could still count on Red Chinese and Soviet support.

 

[Picaro]

We should have gotten out in 1964

Had JFK not been ruthlessly murdered by a cabal of criminals, we would have.

JFK would have followed the same path that LBJ did in Vietnam

He had the same advisors

Many disagree, but you wouldn’t know this.

Those who martyr JFK think he is incapable of making a wrong decision. Any President in 1965 would have done the same as LBJ. Nixon, Goldwater AND JFK would not have passed on an opportunity to fight communism. It would have ruined their careers

You’re uninformed. JFK changed dramatically while in the White House, from his days as a hardened cold warrior. He gave a speech not long before he was murdered, that people like you ignore. Guess what? It’s call the Peace Speech. He also was covertly negotiating with Khrushchev to end the Cold War. He was in constant disagreement with the JCS and many others in his administration who wanted war. He intended to pull out of Vietnam as soon as he was re-elected. All these things are ignored or minimized by people like you.

Yea...everyone was advocating peace in Vietnam in 1963.
Then Diem was assassinated (three weeks before JFK) and the South went into turmoil. North Vietnam was on the verge of overtaking the South unless they received military aid.

LBJ wanted no part of putting American troops on the ground. But he was adamant that “Vietnam won’t turn communist on my watch” and his military advisers and Secretary of Defense MacNamara (same as LBJ had) all said we needed a few ground troops to turn back the tide and we would be home by Christmas.

LBJ took the bait. So would have JFK

LBJ had to deal with the fact that the military and MCNamara were liars, and he was on his own in trying to figure out fact from fiction; overall he did very well, and 3 years later the NLF was toast. Radicals here in the U.S. jumped to the defense of their Soviet heroes and ruined any chance to follow that up.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Picaro’s comments just gave me ... a headache. I’m going to take an aspirin and go to bed.

 

[Picaro]

Picaro’s comments just gave me ... a headache. I’m going to take an aspirin and go to bed.

Facts always bother the fantasists; they need a Big Giant Evul Amerka to slay, and they don;t dare admit how evil the Reds were then and still are. you can't get good grades in college without sucking up to the racists and America haters in academia these days, and the same goes for the right wing pseudo-intellectual narratives.

 

[Picaro]

never should've have been in Vietnam

If it weren't for mostly Democrat presidents shoving their heads up France's ass it wouldn't have been. At least the republican presidents kept their heads up their own asses.

Well, it was mostly 'liberals' who were willing to fight both Nazism and Communist imperialism, while the 'isolationists' hid under their beds wetting themselves, and in any case some Republicans had balls; they ran Wilke against Roosevelt in 1940, and he supported the same policies as FDR re war in Europe and the Pacific, and the liberal wing of the GOP was all for the Cold War as well, so your narrative doesn't hold water.

And we all know the GOP establishment and Wall Street loves them some Red China and the profits from labor racketeering in Communist states, and they hate Americans, especially those uppity anti-communist white proles as much as their partners the Democrats do.

 

[harmonica]

We should have gotten out in 1964

Had JFK not been ruthlessly murdered by a cabal of criminals, we would have.

JFK would have followed the same path that LBJ did in Vietnam

He had the same advisors

Many disagree, but you wouldn’t know this.

Those who martyr JFK think he is incapable of making a wrong decision. Any President in 1965 would have done the same as LBJ. Nixon, Goldwater AND JFK would not have passed on an opportunity to fight communism. It would have ruined their careers

You’re uninformed. JFK changed dramatically while in the White House, from his days as a hardened cold warrior. He gave a speech not long before he was murdered, that people like you ignore. Guess what? It’s call the Peace Speech. He also was covertly negotiating with Khrushchev to end the Cold War. He was in constant disagreement with the JCS and many others in his administration who wanted war. He intended to pull out of Vietnam as soon as he was re-elected. All these things are ignored or minimized by people like you.

Yea...everyone was advocating peace in Vietnam in 1963.
Then Diem was assassinated (three weeks before JFK) and the South went into turmoil. North Vietnam was on the verge of overtaking the South unless they received military aid.

LBJ wanted no part of putting American troops on the ground. But he was adamant that “Vietnam won’t turn communist on my watch” and his military advisers and Secretary of Defense MacNamara (same as LBJ had) all said we needed a few ground troops to turn back the tide and we would be home by Christmas.

LBJ took the bait. So would have JFK

And LBJ's policy led to the defeat of the Viet Cong 1968; their last gasp was the Tet offensive, and they lost. Anti-American propaganda had intensified greatly in both Europe and the U.S. when LBJ also took over from the French as the patrons of Israel, with the resulting Arab defeats in 1967 and again in 1973, which bankrupted the Soviets and destroyed their credibility with the Arab states. Without the U.S. in Viet Nam, the Soviets would have a free hand in Asia, and they wouldn't have gone bankrupt trying to prove to their client states they could beat our containment policy.

Kissinger merely exploited the wedge between the Soviets and Red Chinese from the Korean War, and in the end his policies led to the abandonment of the South Vietnamese to the commies, not ashining moment for the U.S.; we should have bombed them back into the stone age with that blatant violation of the treaties they signed, not they ever abided by any agreements and certainly the commie leftists in the U.S. were very happy with the results as they still are today. Kissinger and Nixon accomplished nothing by selling out the South, while the North could still count on Red Chinese and Soviet support.

the VC didn't lose--the US did
...we lost in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam.....we LOST in Nam and Russian HAD a free hand ....
..so we bomb them to the stone age, then what?
no way we could win Vietnam--all proof here:

Vietnam War was unwinnable

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever..... ..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[harmonica]

We should have gotten out in 1964

Had JFK not been ruthlessly murdered by a cabal of criminals, we would have.

JFK would have followed the same path that LBJ did in Vietnam

He had the same advisors

Many disagree, but you wouldn’t know this.

Those who martyr JFK think he is incapable of making a wrong decision. Any President in 1965 would have done the same as LBJ. Nixon, Goldwater AND JFK would not have passed on an opportunity to fight communism. It would have ruined their careers

You’re uninformed. JFK changed dramatically while in the White House, from his days as a hardened cold warrior. He gave a speech not long before he was murdered, that people like you ignore. Guess what? It’s call the Peace Speech. He also was covertly negotiating with Khrushchev to end the Cold War. He was in constant disagreement with the JCS and many others in his administration who wanted war. He intended to pull out of Vietnam as soon as he was re-elected. All these things are ignored or minimized by people like you.

Yea...everyone was advocating peace in Vietnam in 1963.
Then Diem was assassinated (three weeks before JFK) and the South went into turmoil. North Vietnam was on the verge of overtaking the South unless they received military aid.

LBJ wanted no part of putting American troops on the ground. But he was adamant that “Vietnam won’t turn communist on my watch” and his military advisers and Secretary of Defense MacNamara (same as LBJ had) all said we needed a few ground troops to turn back the tide and we would be home by Christmas.

LBJ took the bait. So would have JFK

And LBJ's policy led to the defeat of the Viet Cong 1968; their last gasp was the Tet offensive, and they lost. Anti-American propaganda had intensified greatly in both Europe and the U.S. when LBJ also took over from the French as the patrons of Israel, with the resulting Arab defeats in 1967 and again in 1973, which bankrupted the Soviets and destroyed their credibility with the Arab states. Without the U.S. in Viet Nam, the Soviets would have a free hand in Asia, and they wouldn't have gone bankrupt trying to prove to their client states they could beat our containment policy.

Kissinger merely exploited the wedge between the Soviets and Red Chinese from the Korean War, and in the end his policies led to the abandonment of the South Vietnamese to the commies, not ashining moment for the U.S.; we should have bombed them back into the stone age with that blatant violation of the treaties they signed, not they ever abided by any agreements and certainly the commie leftists in the U.S. were very happy with the results as they still are today. Kissinger and Nixon accomplished nothing by selling out the South, while the North could still count on Red Chinese and Soviet support.

the VC didn't lose--the US did
...we lost in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam.....we LOST in Nam and Russian HAD a free hand ....
..so we bomb them to the stone age, then what?
no way we could win Vietnam--all proof here:

Vietnam War was unwinnable

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever..... ..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their...

www.usmessageboard.com

...also, it wasn't the Soviets that lost credibility, it was the ARABS!!!

 

[mikegriffith1]

Nixon deserves part of the blame for the loss of Vietnam, but the Democrats deserve much more blame. Nixon's peace deal was a disaster, but it ended in disaster because the Democrats would not honor our pledge to South Vietnam to provide bombing and supply support if North Vietnam invaded again.

 

[rightwinger]

Nixon deserves part of the blame for the loss of Vietnam, but the Democrats deserve much more blame. Nixon's peace deal was a disaster, but it ended in disaster because the Democrats would not honor our pledge to South Vietnam to provide bombing and supply support if North Vietnam invaded again.

The real blame goes to Truman who sold out Vietnam to the French after WWII.

Rather than supporting a free and Democratic Vietnam, Truman supported France reestablishing it’s Colonial Empire.

And people wonder why Vietnam turned to Communism

 

[mikegriffith1]

Nixon deserves part of the blame for the loss of Vietnam, but the Democrats deserve much more blame. Nixon's peace deal was a disaster, but it ended in disaster because the Democrats would not honor our pledge to South Vietnam to provide bombing and supply support if North Vietnam invaded again.

The real blame goes to Truman who sold out Vietnam to the French after WWII. Rather than supporting a free and Democratic Vietnam, Truman supported France reestablishing it’s Colonial Empire. And people wonder why Vietnam turned to Communism.

Regardless of what Truman did in the late 1940s regarding Vietnam, South Vietnam would be much like South Korea today if the Democrats had not refused to provide South Vietnam with the bombing and material support that we had promised them if North Vietnam invaded again. But the treasonous Democrats took advantage of the Watergate scandal to break our pledge of support to South Vietnam and allowed the Communists to overrun the country.