If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   So, it is looking more and more like Nixon really did sabotage the Vietnam war peace talks under Johnson, letting it drag on five more years, killing hundreds of thousands of people. Just to win the election   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 175
    More: Sick, Viet Cong, hilton hotel, South Vietnamese, peace talks, North Vietnam, national security adviser, Richard Nixon, Tet Offensive  
•       •       •

5316 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Mar 2013 at 8:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-16 08:03:46 PM

zerkalo: [i.imgur.com image 432x338]

"And then I told them that I had a secret plan for getting us out of Vietnam!"


He.... did. And it wasn't so secret.
 
2013-03-16 08:18:14 PM

X-boxershorts: Animatronik: This story is not new, it gets pulled out every 10 or 15 years. No doubt Nixon was an ass, but I doubt the talks in Nov. 1968 would have ended the war.

The talks may not have ended the Vietnam War. But they might have, and we'll never know, because private citizen Richard M. Nixon, without any official standing in the US Government, used back channels to secretly undermine official peace talks of the US Government.

It's documented. And sure, it came out into public discourse every decade or so, as a rumor. The reason it's news now, though, is that the actual documents that confirm this rumor are now public.

Richard M. Nixon committed treason for personal gain.


Maybe that's what gave Reagan and Bush the Elder the idear to fark with the hostage situation in 1979.

Cheney's abuse of his power in order to allow a windfall for Halliburton and himself also comes to mind here.
 
2013-03-16 08:25:50 PM

Ghastly: He had no mojo, Nixon.


Then his record store needs fixin'!
 
2013-03-16 08:32:39 PM

PsiChick: Yeah, we need to set up a system to handle legal prosecution of Presidents\major political figures in America that works slightly differently, but the system needs to at least be there, and ffs it doesn't need to be Congress doing it, since that clearly isn't working.


The "qui custodiet ipsos custodes" chestnut is an old problem.
 
2013-03-16 08:36:04 PM

quatchi: Ghastly: He had no mojo, Nixon.

Then his record store needs fixin'!


A Commodore Elvis commendation to both of you.
 
2013-03-16 08:56:39 PM
No surprise that Dick Cheney was a product of the Nixon Whitehouse, putting soldiers in harm's way for political advantage is an old GOP tradition
 
2013-03-16 09:28:35 PM

abb3w: PsiChick: Yeah, we need to set up a system to handle legal prosecution of Presidents\major political figures in America that works slightly differently, but the system needs to at least be there, and ffs it doesn't need to be Congress doing it, since that clearly isn't working.

The "qui custodiet ipsos custodes" chestnut is an old problem.


I prefer steamed chestnuts.
 
2013-03-16 09:48:30 PM

Kibbler: Back then, "because COMMUNISM" was the mantra for all politicians, the way "because TERROR" is today. Kennedy ran on hysterical anti-Communist paranoia. Nixon was vile in many ways, but not the only one to gladly use war for cheap political gain.


SSDD
 
2013-03-16 11:50:40 PM
24.media.tumblr.com

That's right you filthy hippies, and I'd do it again if I had the chance!

AROOOOOOOOO!!!!
 
2013-03-17 01:04:56 AM
lordjupiter:
Rationalizing all of the known treachery away with selective application of assumptions and facts accomplishes...what?

Rationalizing away what known treachery?  I thought I was asserting that South Vietnam already knew the US was a treacherous back-stabbing ally, so exposing the FBI and Nixon wouldn't really affect their actions one way or the other.  Picking between LBJ/Humphrey/McNamara and Nixon/Agnew/Kissinger is difficult; even 'lesser evil' comes down to 'sorta well-intentioned evil' versus 'SatanF*ckYeah!'  Still, flushing Nixon down the crapper and dropping Hoover's ass into the blades, despite the cost, would have left us a better country.
 
2013-03-17 02:27:00 AM
Someone mentioned this already, but never mentioned the book title. Read "The Trial of Henry Kissinger," if you want full info on this. It came out over a decade ago and I'm sad that Hitchens died before this finally being acknowledged in the larger journalistic world, not that he would have cared so much. He didn't need the vindication. However, the fact that he isn't alive will probably protect Kissinger for the future, as everyone will simply forget about his involvement (and dick-sucking) with Nixon.
 
2013-03-17 03:57:49 AM

Spaced Lion: I don't know which is worse - the fact that LBJ could have had Nixon indicted for treason but didn't, or the fact that he would have been portrayed as a traitor himself at the time for doing so.


this.
 
2013-03-17 06:43:52 AM

rogue49: Dick Nixon
Dick Cheney
Dick Armey


Why am I seeing a pattern here?
Is it a subconscious thing?


The lesson to be learned is: don't be a dick.
 
2013-03-17 06:47:04 AM

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: "War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means."

-Carl von Clausewitz


"I have seen the enemy, and he is us." - Pogo
 
2013-03-17 06:51:09 AM

Baron Harkonnen: Kibbler: Nixon was vile in many ways, but not the only one to gladly use war for cheap political gain.

Not by any means. But the price in blood he paid was the highest.


Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt seen laughing among themselves in the corner.
 
2013-03-17 06:59:31 AM

yeegrek: Meanwhile, this week:

"The cost of the Iraq war: 190,000 lives, $2.2 trillion "

I keep saying, if you don't prosecute Republicans, they'll keep pulling this shiat.  Good job, Obama.  You keep "looking forward, not backwards".  I'm sure Republicans will be thankful for the reprieve and won't pull this shiat again.


Well, at least they didn't drag us into two World Wars. Let's see... which party did that, again?
 
2013-03-17 07:36:17 AM
img.auctiva.com
 
2013-03-17 08:48:21 AM

DrPainMD: yeegrek: Meanwhile, this week:

"The cost of the Iraq war: 190,000 lives, $2.2 trillion "

I keep saying, if you don't prosecute Republicans, they'll keep pulling this shiat.  Good job, Obama.  You keep "looking forward, not backwards".  I'm sure Republicans will be thankful for the reprieve and won't pull this shiat again.

Well, at least they didn't drag us into two World Wars. Let's see... which party did that, again?


The National Socialist German Workers' Party?
 
2013-03-17 08:59:13 AM

runwiz: Thankfully we've found this out in time to at least prevent Nixon from being elected to another term.


upload.wikimedia.org

I hear he's got a good chance in the 3004 race.
 
2013-03-17 12:54:11 PM

DrPainMD: yeegrek: Meanwhile, this week:

"The cost of the Iraq war: 190,000 lives, $2.2 trillion "

I keep saying, if you don't prosecute Republicans, they'll keep pulling this shiat.  Good job, Obama.  You keep "looking forward, not backwards".  I'm sure Republicans will be thankful for the reprieve and won't pull this shiat again.

Well, at least they didn't drag us into two World Wars. Let's see... which party did that, again?


The Japanese Emperor?  Not a party, technically speaking, but Japan did actually attack the US.  Should FDR have then bent over and said, "Thank you sir, may I please have some more"?
 
2013-03-17 02:04:40 PM

RyogaM: MFAWG: RyogaM: If you refuse to read the article, at least read the above before trying to be a Nixon apologist.

Do you recall Humphrey's official position on Vietnam? This shiat doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Actually, I don't, but the article mentions that Johnson was taped saying the he felt Humphrey was too soft.  Are you suggesting that Johnson allowed Nixon's treasonous interference in the Peace conference to go unremarked because he wanted Nixon to win and not Humphrey?


Which is why Johnson, who let this slide for whatever retarded reason, is also a criminal here.
 
2013-03-18 08:09:12 AM

yeegrek: DrPainMD: yeegrek: Meanwhile, this week:

"The cost of the Iraq war: 190,000 lives, $2.2 trillion "

I keep saying, if you don't prosecute Republicans, they'll keep pulling this shiat.  Good job, Obama.  You keep "looking forward, not backwards".  I'm sure Republicans will be thankful for the reprieve and won't pull this shiat again.

Well, at least they didn't drag us into two World Wars. Let's see... which party did that, again?

The Japanese Emperor?  Not a party, technically speaking, but Japan did actually attack the US.  Should FDR have then bent over and said, "Thank you sir, may I please have some more"?


I understand you probably went to public school, but the US Navy was fighting the Germans, and the Army had built an air base in Burma and was a week or so away from bombing the Japanese SIX MONTHS before Pearl Harbor.
 
2013-03-18 01:13:49 PM

DrPainMD: yeegrek: DrPainMD: yeegrek: Meanwhile, this week:

"The cost of the Iraq war: 190,000 lives, $2.2 trillion "

I keep saying, if you don't prosecute Republicans, they'll keep pulling this shiat.  Good job, Obama.  You keep "looking forward, not backwards".  I'm sure Republicans will be thankful for the reprieve and won't pull this shiat again.

Well, at least they didn't drag us into two World Wars. Let's see... which party did that, again?

The Japanese Emperor?  Not a party, technically speaking, but Japan did actually attack the US.  Should FDR have then bent over and said, "Thank you sir, may I please have some more"?

I understand you probably went to public school, but the US Navy was fighting the Germans, and the Army had built an air base in Burma and was a week or so away from bombing the Japanese SIX MONTHS before Pearl Harbor.


If the German government had been anxious to avoid war with the US in 1941, it could have instructed its submarine fleet in the eastern North Atlantic not to attack ships belonging to neutral or nonbelligerent countries, as the Kaiser's government did in 1915.

The Army had plans to fight the Japanese, of course, but there is no evidence that I know of that the Roosevelt Administration intended to execute them before December 7.
 
2013-03-19 02:48:42 PM

rogue49: Dick Nixon
Dick Cheney
Dick Armey


Why am I seeing a pattern here?
Is it a subconscious thing?


Counterpoint: Dick Gephart
 
2013-03-19 03:02:35 PM

DrPainMD: yeegrek: DrPainMD: yeegrek: Meanwhile, this week:

"The cost of the Iraq war: 190,000 lives, $2.2 trillion "

I keep saying, if you don't prosecute Republicans, they'll keep pulling this shiat.  Good job, Obama.  You keep "looking forward, not backwards".  I'm sure Republicans will be thankful for the reprieve and won't pull this shiat again.

Well, at least they didn't drag us into two World Wars. Let's see... which party did that, again?

The Japanese Emperor?  Not a party, technically speaking, but Japan did actually attack the US.  Should FDR have then bent over and said, "Thank you sir, may I please have some more"?

I understand you probably went to public school, but the US Navy was fighting the Germans, and the Army had built an air base in Burma and was a week or so away from bombing the Japanese SIX MONTHS before Pearl Harbor.


Yeah, and Hitler declared war on the USA. It doesn't matter that they were preparing for it. All that matters is the Japanese attacked first, and the Germans backed them up with a declaration of war.

No US party made it happen, even though it seems that Roosevelt, rightly, wanted to join the war earlier on the Allies' side.
 
Displayed 25 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report