Nixon and Bush with their own conspiracy for war.

http://underlinenews.blogspot.com/2013/03/history-shows-war-tool-for-political.html

We have no idea the untold thousands who died for absolutely nothing, at the hands of these two.

 

You evidently don't know it, but our participation in Viet Nam started with John Kennedy, not Nixon. And it escalated under Lyndon Johnson who likely faked the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to justify that escalation.

 

and Nixon deliberately arranged to have the peace talks sabotaged in 1968 !

 

You probably didn't know it, but that video proves there was malicious premeditated evil displayed directly on the part of Nixon to keep his chances of getting elected, at the expense of thousands of lives. And likely faked the Gulf of Tonkin is your opinion. Which means absolutely nothing. And,you have no proof through video. Even though it was escalated during that period, does not mean he did it for political gain. Nixon did!

 

And Kennedy looked the other way re Diem's assassination because he and his brother were negotiating a truce, and John Boy was worried this would make him look 'soft on communism' and lose the next election. This pretty much made escalation inevitable; whether Johnson lied or not is irrelevant.

This is all secondary to the need to prevent the building of a major Soviet naval base astride Asian trade routes, and ultimately that strategy succeeded, along with the added benefit of bankrupting the Soviet Union and tanking Brezhnev's imperialist plans.

How many 'anti-war' activists have ever taken the credit due them for Pol Pot's massacres, I wonder, a clear result of their activism and it's hamstringing of the U.S.'s containment policies? Anybody know? Noam Chomsky certainly didn't, and in fact was one of Pol Pot's biggest fan club members, so, there is at least one popular genius who never took responsibility for his kibbitizing, but maybe somebody can name just one? I actually can name several, but it would be fun to see if anybody else actually can.

 

As did Kennedy in the early 1960's, and Mao and Khrushchev in the 1950's. So what? It was necessary to lie, and justifiable.

 

Have anything in the way of evidence that many more than that wouldn't have died if the U.S. was to indulge in isolationist follies?

 

justifiable?? hahahahahaahaha. the so called peace agreement that Nixon got was almost exactly what Johnson would have got in 1968 and Nixon killed about 35,000 more G I 's to get it!!

 

don't be an ass. pol pot was a minor player until nixons illegal bombing drove thousands of the khmers into his arms. and the extreme corruption of their pet Lopn Nol was responsible for the extreme desertion rates of Khmer soldiers to the Khmer rouge. you know nothing.

 

LOL, no proof, just suspected and the left wing wackos call this Nixon escalating the war for years:

Vietnam deaths during Nixon's Presidency.

1969 11,616
1970 6,081
1971 2,357
1972 641
1973 168
1974 178

Vietnam deaths during Kennedy and Johnson:

1961 16
1962 52
1963 118
1964 206
1965 1,863
1966 6,143
1967 11,153
1968 16, 592

Using the current wacko lib tactics, Nixon's first four or five years of war deaths were all Johnson's fault.

 

lol! if Nixon hadn't sabotaged the peace, the deaths after 1968 would have been zero!

 

We'll, for all you want a be war lords sitting around asking for evidence of what isolationism can do to a country, versus a political conspiracy, why not, instead of living in this perpetual comatose state of willful ignorance and stupidity, open your eyes and your brain to the realities around you. You know, there is a thing called common sense. Between the two wars, it is estimated they will cost this country $7 trillion dollars by the time they are done. Right now, we are fighting to keep S.S. Do you know why? Take a wild guess. People jeopardizing their life line to these programs by putting the wars on the S.S. credit card, is many times more dangerous to our safety here, than any war games for profit disguised as keeping us safe over there.

 

No, it isn't

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/politics/02tonkin.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print&

You think video is 'proof'? ROFLMAO!! You are too funny! Have you filed your application to Hogwarts yet, or are you holding out for Star Fleet Academy?

 

And if Johnson hadn't lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, the deaths after 1964 would have been zero.

 

yep. doncha love a one party state!!

 

OK, now kindly explain that to me.

Lyndon Johnson was President in 1968, not Richard Nixon. So what on earth could Mr. Nixon done in 1968, and how could Mr. Nixon (a civilian holding no public office) have sabotaged "the peace"?

You are giving lots of talky-talk, but no facts. And to bad for you, I actually know who was President in 1968.

Besides, in order to have peace you need both sides to cooperate. And it should be obvious to everybody that North Vietnam did not want peace. The simple fact that the peace treaty they eventually signed did not even last 3 years should give everybody an indication how serious the North Vietnamese thought the treaty was.

Now kindly explain to me and everybody else why North Vietnam thought it was appropriate to violate a Peace Treaty and destroy their neighbor.

 

No, a lot more would have died, they just might not have been American and SEATO allies dying at first, but eventually not pursuing the containment policies would have sooner or later led to a much greater, widespread war that would have killed many millions, meanwhile most of Asia would have suffered the same fate as Chinese under Mao, and of course the usual communist practice of slave labor in the fields, 're-education camps', and all the rest of the trappings that go with communist paradises the South Vietnamese suffered under in the aftermath, which for some reason pseudo-leftist cheerleaders never seem to take responsibility for promoting through their mindless advocacy of 'peace at any cost'.

 

Sure cupcake.

 

Refer to post # 1. and watch the video in it's entirety if you really seek the truth.

 

Lot's of "suspected" no proof.

 

No, you beat me to it. I went to pick up my application and saw that you were ahead of me in line, so I new I would never have a chance of getting into such a prestigious academy with you there. I wouldn't have enjoyed it anyway. They teach about magic. Not real time video. You know, things that are real, like the Johnson conversation, that no one like you can prove happened differently.

 

That's if you have your head in the sand. Then Watergate followed for old tricky Dick. Just follow his trail of corruption through the years. It's not hard.

 

read a little history for a change.

 

LOL, in other words, you don't need proof, you have already made up your mind.

 

You see, this is the problem.

You are seeking "Truth", and I am seeking "Facts". And if your only response is to tell me to watch some video without giving any kind of facts, then your claim is nothing but fail.

I humored you though, and for 3 minutes watched that smarmy lady until I was about to vomit. On Ms. Maddow's show, there is very little that resembles "truth", let alone "facts". She is a political pundit who has a 1 hour opinion show. When I was downrange, the TV in the Command Post was turned to the Armed Forces news channel every day. So for a year I got to watch and read her show (no sound, closed captioning) and I can't think of a single person that served there in my unit that thought she was anything but a clown. And her constant attacks on the military told us what she really thought of us.

Oh really now.

Then kindly tell me the history where I can read about Richard Nixon being President in 1968. Please tell me this history that I can read that does not have North Vietnam breaking ceasefire after ceasefire after armistice after peace treaty? Please tell me the history I can read that does not end with North Vietnam plotting toe downfall of South Vietnam before the ink was even dry on the agreement.

Interesting side note that everybody should consider when looking at the intentions of North Vietnam at the Paris Peace Accords. Even as the negotiations were going on to end the war, the NVA was making plans for their next offensive. And when the next year the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Dr. Kissinger and North Vietnamese Foreign Minister Lê Ðức Thọ, Minister Tho declined the award, stating that "Peace had not yet been achieved".

Of course, to North Vietnam, there could be no "real peace" until South Vietnam was destroyed. Period.

Now kindly tell me of the history where these events as I laid them our are not factual. Tell me the history where North Vietnam ever negotiated in good faith. Please tell me where to go to find these amazing facts, because I have never found them in any history book I have ever read.