The Observation Deck

Stephen

Innocent people died in Vietnam!

Are you speaking of the US soldiers?

How many and why?

Are you speaking of the Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians?

How many and why?

Let's not gloss this over, that is a crime.

Why were we there?

It is nice that you select LBJs term, but who started it?

More to the point, which president has the most blood on his hands from the Vietnam War?

Who put half the names on the Vietnam War Memorial, strictly to get elected and re-elected.

LBJ although flawed, at least stepped down in an effort to stop the war.

Your answer is an insult to every soldier that fought in Vietnam. I lost friends there and they will not have died in vain if I have anything to say about it.

This is the problem with revisionist history lessons.

So you really believe we killed no civilians on purpose?

Robert McNamara has a slightly different take on that comment.

You sure?

.

Stephen

See here is the problem with revisionist history.

We should have learned from Vietnam, about entering wars that
the US Government LIED about why we had to do it.

Gulf of Tonkin: Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara admits "It didn't happen." (clicky)

Just like they lied about Iraq - Get it, we cannot trust them!

Do you realize this is not a game? This is not Republican/Democrat. This is
one America, our America, they are supposed to work for us the American people. When they lie and we do nothing, we condone it, we then become the liars.

This is the problem right now with GWB, he committed war crimes and lies. If we as a collective group turn our back than we all have committed war crimes.

It is not a game.

Get it?

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:More to the point, which president has the most blood on his hands from the Vietnam War?

Who put half the names on the Vietnam War Memorial?

That would be Lyndon Johnson.

There were over 30,000 US military deaths in Vietnam from 1964 through 1968. (Johnson's presidency was from Nov. 1963 to Jan. 1969).

Nixon took office in January of 1969. The US death toll in Vietnam from 1969 through 1974 was about 22,000.

You can view the yearly casualty totals here:

http://thewall-usa.com/summary.asp

Both numbers are tragically high, but it should be noted that direct US involvement on the ground started under Johnson and ended under Nixon.

Justine Cooper wrote:Some say "yea there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq but Saddam was a horrible person who tortured and killed people" but is it ok that our own prison did the same to "suspects" not even found guilty?

No nukes were there but there were a few reports not carried by the mainstream media that showed saddam was on the way to rebuilding nukes. He had centrifuges and materials thanks to the Oil for Food scam. It would have been only a few years before he was there.

No WMDs were found because they were moved to Syria. These reports were not carried by the mainstream either.

saddam maimed, killed and/or tortured hundreds of thousands of people. Him and his sons averaged 50,000 killings a year.

Ever see the PBS special on how saddam came into power? In his first speech after taking power, he called out names of people who spoke out or were plotting against the ba’ath party and his leadership. As those people were in attendance during his speech, each one stood up and was escorted outside where they were executed on the spot. By the way, there was no shoe throwing, only constant wiping of brows.

Him and chemical ali gassed whole villages and bulldozed them as if they were never there. saddam and his sons sent thousands to die in huge paper shredders, mass executions, electrocutions, etc.

Remember what happened to failed athletes? How quickly some forget.

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003 ... ports.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_onl ... of_saddam/

Can’t forget about uday and qusay. His son’s were serial rapists and murderers. Read a few google results for uday and qusay rapist murder.

What was done in Abu Ghraib was despicable. There is no comparison to what we’ve done at Guantanamo or anywhere else to what saddam and his sons have done.

Charlie Page wrote:No nukes were there but there were a few reports not carried by the mainstream media that showed saddam was on the way to rebuilding nukes. He had centrifuges and materials thanks to the Oil for Food scam. It would have been only a few years before he was there.

No WMDs were found because they were moved to Syria. These reports were not carried by the mainstream either.

Charlie

Both of these falsehoods have been were owned up to by the Bush Administration. The only one that refused to see the truth was Dick Cheney. Even George Bush in his final days admitted no legs on those dogs.

So a simple question, who gave Sadaam the targeting help he needed to
deliver the chemicals weapons that he secured from the USA?

Was done by satellites, and Iraq has none. Sadaam was not a friend of the
Soviet Union, which leads us closer to the truth.

General thought by most that I have read and seen, Sadaam had no nuke program. None. Chemical weapons, sure, the bill of sale is in Washingtpn.

In this very unsafe world sometimes you have to befriend and work with some very very evil people. Usama Bin Ladin on CIA payroll for over a decade. He helped us fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Then we cut the checks and ran. He got pissed, and turned on us. But we cannot act like they never happened. We cannot see the cause and affect. If there is one truth underlined in Charlie Wilson's War which everyone should see, then do the background is. The USA allowed this nightmare to happen, when we were willing to spend billions to give weapons to the Taliban, but would give nothing for schools, and simply walked away.

There are some very simple truths that lead to some very ugly rumors. Simple truth, Timothy McVie's girlfriend was a government agent. He found her while she was working undercover in the white power separatist movement. John Doe number two is alive and well and living in Germany. The BBC found him and have interviewed him and he matches the person in the video. He has never been brought back to stand trial. From there it gets murky, but one can see how conspiracies can be seen, real or not. She might not have had any idea what was going on. He might of thought that McVie needed a Ryder Truck for other reasons. Who knows. I certainly do not.

What I do know is after Oklahoma City, Americans were ready to give up many of their freedoms for a perception of security.

What I do know is the reason for us getting in Vietnam, never happened.

What I do know is the General Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "Beware of the military industrial complex." and that he was not talking about someone else's.


FWIW

.

Keith Kopko wrote:Nixon took office in January of 1969. The US death toll in Vietnam from 1969 through 1974 was about 22,000.

You can view the yearly casualty totals here:

http://thewall-usa.com/summary.asp

Both numbers are tragically high, but it should be noted that direct US involvement on the ground started under Johnson and ended under Nixon.

Keith

Thanks for the post, I had thought the numbers were reversed but agree both are tragically high.

As Eisel is missing from this conversation suddenly here is a clicky on the Nixon deaths, and just how tragic they are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qiz3l5qO7lg

The 22,000 on Nixon's watch were dead only for one reason, because
Nixon kept the war going to get elected, no other reason.

Two very important films on this: "Fog of War" with Robert MacNamara, where he breaks down in tears realizing what he did, and "The Trials of Henry Kissinger" written and filmed by Conservative Christopher Hitchens.

It should make you sick to your stomach.

Still, what are the numbers of innocents killed in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, whose only crime was living there.

I heard one quote that if Vietnam were to build a "Wall" there would not be enough black marble in the world to list all the names.

FWIW


.

As Eisel is missing from this conversation suddenly here is a clicky on the Nixon deaths, and just how tragic they are.

Death does not discriminate when a Democrat is at the helm of the US of A. History has proven that.

Should I pull a Justine and blame these deaths on Obama?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090125/ap_ ... fghanistan

KABUL, Afghanistan – President Hamid Karzai condemned a U.S. operation he said killed 16 Afghan civilians, while hundreds of villagers denounced the American military during an angry demonstration Sunday.

Stephen Eisel wrote:Should I pull a Justine and blame these deaths on Obama?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090125/ap_ ... fghanistan

KABUL, Afghanistan – President Hamid Karzai condemned a U.S. operation he said killed 16 Afghan civilians, while hundreds of villagers denounced the American military during an angry demonstration Sunday.

it is too early to blame President Obama for this. 16 civilians? only a few million to go until he is in Kissinger's league.

At least this time it isn't about Communism and Capitalism. The Taliban aren't going to take over America with their horses and boots and western made rifles.

It cannot be reiterated enough that most U.S. casualties in Iraq happened after the Hussein administration was deposed. Most civilian casualties in Iraq happened after the U.S. took over. So far none have been reported as being from weapons of mass destruction. the three million refugees who left Iraq left after the U.S. failed to maintain most government functions Saddam Hussein kept going. This is a track record that is going to have to be worked into the college courses all our top government folks take. They may begin to grasp the message in 30 to 40 years.

Stephen Eisel wrote:Death does not discriminate when a Democrat is at the helm of the US of A. History has proven that.

Stephen

This is one thing I do not understand about your stances. You are correct, death does not discriminate when a democratic is at the helm. So why bring that up?

I point to Nixon not because he was a Republican, but why the war was extended.

We need to understand how we got in, how we stay, how we escalate, and why we continue, and how we get out.

I think we can all agree that some wars are necessary evils. Although most could be avoided at some time. Had we prosecuted the Kaiser for WWI instead of forgiving them, maybe Hitler never would have risen to power.

Had we prosecuted Nixon for Watergate, which would have included the crumbs that were swept under the rugs, ie Cambodia and Laos, maybe Iraq never would have happened.

Ryan Costa has once again nailed this one so perfectly. How does he always do that?

While it might be too early if we are playing war games instead of just accepting responsibility for our actions, and through us the actions of the people we hire in this case Obama, I have very little problem putting 16 dead on his shoulders.

But then lets finish the equation on the dead in Iraq. Americans? How and why? Iraqi innocents? How and why?

This is another thing that confuses me, about some of you. Why the moving bar, the bar should not move. Everyday we wake up Americans. Every night we go to bed Americans. We in the end are responsible for who we hire as CEO to run our country. While the party changes, the country, and its boundaries stay pretty much static.

This is why I asked Charlie and now ask you. Bill Clinton lied, about a personal affair with an of age adult. He was brought to trial for lying to the American people and found guilty. I also think he was guilty of much worse crimes like the bombing raid in Libya. If you think that was just, then how can you now turn your back on your duty as an American? How can the collective WE as Americans allow the last group to piss on the Constitution and the Geneva Convention?

This is not a game of Rs and Ds, those are just the "tags" for the election.

.

Stephen

This is one thing I do not understand about your stances. You are correct, death does not discriminate when a democratic is at the helm. So why bring that up?

Who brought up? Go back with an open mind and read throught this thread...

it is too early to blame President Obama for this. 16 civilians? only a few million to go until he is in Kissinger's league.

so much for life being precious

edit: Who brought it up?

Stephen Eisel wrote:edit: Who brought it up?

Stephen

Maybe I did label, but the fact remains and I am sure you would agree that at this point and time there is very little difference between the two parties. One cuts taxes the other gives money for social programs. Neither represent that people.

Still I am waiting for some easy answers from the "clicky" man.


.

Stephen,
We do have something in common: we both think the other's posts are insane. My post on the democrats was in ridiculous posts blaming that one party for fault in our country without looking at the facts. I find it amusing and transparent that you avoid questions from other people but take whatever personal shots you can to try to reduce me. There is nothing in the English language that you could write to make me feel small, crazy, uninformed, unintelligent, or anything less than who I know I am. Standing for PEACE and TRUTH and for taking care of our country and its people as well as other innocent people in the world is who I am today and who I will be until the day I die.

We are supposed to be the country helping other countries end war and find Peace and what we have done has been in direct opposition. While you stand as an "independent" full of hatred for the Democrats, we have a president who has already begun the process to unify sides that should not be so divided in one country, and everyone around who truly wants a unified America can feel it. There is nothing you can say to take away from that, but if you need to, go ahead and vent your anger. It won't affect me. While others are out helping the homeless, you continue attacking.

Just sayin.