Activism Change

Ignorance of Lefty Liberals knows no bounds (blaming Nixon for Vietnam…)

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kerry tossed his medals due to a simularly corrupt, greedy, lying  Pug, Richard Nixon. If you weren’t there, don’t comment on what is beyond your  comprehension. What Kerry did was Patriotic to the American Way. LibDem Lyndon Johnson had nothing to do with it, eh? "Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many boys are you going to kill today?" Funny how these ignorant libs have bought into one of the most repulsive examples of historical revisionism of the previous generation – the idea that Nixon was responsible for the Vietnam War. :O| Nixon just kept it going for a few extra years for political reasons. For all his faults, Nixon tried to find a way to end it w/o the result being utter defeat for the US. However, the lefties WANTED us to turn tail and run so they could credit themselves for a victory against the US, which is one of the reasons they hated him.

Damn those leftists. Every time, I mean every time something goes wrong those lefties are in there somewhere. ((puts on his tin foil hat)) ((look around nervously for signs of black helicopters))

Response:

Paleo-liberals like yourself are going the way of the dodo.

Kerry may represent their last gasp.  Trouble is, if he’s elected he may be the last gasp for all of us. — Jafo

Response:

You like quotes huh? I like facts. Choke these down:

"There are in my memoirs letters he wrote me while I was conducting the negotiations, which say the exact opposite of what’s on this conversation, in which he says ‘Go ahead and do what you need to do, but don’t be affected by the election, and we want an agreement that lasts.’

Response:

Fact is, War means work and Bush as well as Nixon awareness that munitions companys in the Military-Industrial Complex sometimes stimulate the economy doesn’t get by me. Cambodia?  No question about it, we were in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, etc. Hmmmmmm…Where did all the right wing revisionists go?

The left are the masters of history revisionism, the left wing revisionists outnumber the few if any right wing ones. The right is held to a higher standard in the media then the left. The left gets way with murder. The right will be hyper examined and magnified every time. Look at how they tried to burn Reagan for calling the Soviets an Evil Empire. They called him a warmonger. They attacked Reagan for decades. They failed. History has proven him Reagan right.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I replied to your nonsense. LBJ was the one who made the mess in the first place. Nixon was culpable up to the point where he basically went along with LBJ’s and McNamara’s failed policies "You fucked up!  You trusted us!"   – "Otter" (Tim Matheson) in "Animal House" He did introduce the "Vietnamization" program to transition US troops out, and he put on the heat to force the North Vietnamese back to the peace talks in 1972. For all Nixon’s faults, he probably did the best job possible given the mess LBJ put us in, and the political constraints of the time. The left can’t accept this, because their agenda was not only to obscure the fact that a liberal Democrat created the debacle in the first place, but their goal was to ensure the victory of the North as a slap in the face to America as a whole. We heard the left braying the same tired old crap in the eighties in opposition to the Reagan policies that eventually precipitated the fall of the Soviet Union. The left never wanted peace – Joe Draftee wanted peace, so he didn’t have to go, but as a whole the left wasn’t interested in whether the people of SEA lived in peace or not. The left wanted a defeat of the American military, as a way of not only humiliating the "military- industrial" complex, but as a way of gaining brownie points with their socialist/communist brethren all over the world. The only thing that would have been acceptable is if American troops waved white flags and confessed to war crimes to feed their propaganda machine. And the same people today ignore the atrocities of Saddam Hussein. The Left never learns from experience, and therefore it’s time that we instituted some sort of basic tests in intelligence and reasoning ability before one should be allowed to cast a vote in an American election.

For the sake of playing "devil’s advocate" (I’m sure DA will understand the context), what if we were to assume that the left does not WANT "peace"? The left has NEVER rejected Communism or socialism – any criticism of the Soviet Union or China are in terms of specific policies and results, as opposed to the "intentions" or the philosophy as a whole. In fact, the left thinks that socialism can be made to "work" in America, as long as THEY are the ones put in charge. In every major conflict of the last two or three generations, with one singular exception (helping their comrade Uncle Joe Stalin in WWII), the left has been vociferously opposed to our taking up arms against anyone, no matter how brutal the regime or serious the threat to the US. The left also does everything they can to impede our involvement, disrupt necessary support to our troops, provide propaganda victories to our enemies, and undermine our own morale. When it comes to actually trying to resolve an issue to end armed conflict, the left does with it can to obstruct, whether protesting the strategic bombings in Vietnam (the only course of action that was able to force the NV back to the negotiating table to draw up a peace plan), research of space-based missle defense systems during the Reagan Administration, or sanctions against Iraq. Is all this consistent with wanting "peace"? Is ignoring the atrocities of Communists in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the starvation and misery of the "workers" in Cuba and Zimbabew consistent with "peace"? The left loves to claim it is on the side of "freedom", "enlightenment", and "humanity" as it flails against the imagined spectre of conservative Christian fundamentalism in this country, but it fails to have a problem with the very real evil of radical Islam, and the culture of violence and brutality in Iran, Iraq, and the Sudan. Is this their idea of "peace"? Personally, I don’t doubt that there are well-intentioned but misinformed and gullible liberals who have no real malice, but do uncritically endorse any position that claims to be in the name of "peace". However, I submit that the hard-core left in this country (the "Lefty Liberals" I refer to) has no interest in "peace" whatsoever. These people are rabid socialist/communists who recognize that the biggest obstacle to their implementation of their Proletariatan Revolution is the American military-industrial complex, so they seek to dismantle it by dismantling our defense capability and destroying our economy. In this case, I would submit that they HAVE learned from the experience of Vietnam – that the best way to defeat the US is by spreading disinformation, damaging morale, and weakening the will to fight – and have used that for their model from then on to the present day. :O|

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kerry tossed his medals due to a simularly corrupt, greedy, lying Pug, Richard Nixon. If you weren’t there, don’t comment on what is beyond your  comprehension. What Kerry did was Patriotic to the American Way. LibDem Lyndon Johnson had nothing to do with it, eh? "Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many boys are you going to kill today?" Funny how these ignorant libs have bought into one of the most repulsive examples of historical revisionism of the previous generation – the idea that Nixon was responsible for the Vietnam War. :O| Are you saying Nixon bears no responsibility for the Vietnam war or are you just saying that Nixon didn’t start the damn thing. He didn’t start the Vietnam war but he certainly bears some responsiblity for some portion of that war. Of course you will give no credit whatsoever to ending the war to Nixon will you?

The Left spent a lot of time in the historical revisionism department trying to convince the gullible masses that a liberal Democrat would NEVER get us bogged down in an unwinnable war… :O|

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Fact is, War means work and Bush as well as Nixon awareness that munitions companys in the Military-Industrial Complex sometimes stimulate the economy doesn’t get by me. Cambodia?  No question about it, we were in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, etc. Hmmmmmm…Where did all the right wing revisionists go? The left are the masters of history revisionism, the left wing revisionists outnumber the few if any right wing ones. The right is held to a higher standard in the media then the left. The left gets way with murder. The right will be hyper examined and magnified every time. Look at how they tried to burn Reagan for calling the Soviets an Evil Empire. They called him a warmonger. They attacked Reagan for decades. They failed. History has proven him Reagan right.

The left hated Reagan BECAUSE he stood up to the Soviets and communism. American Leftists are still convinced to this day that they could make communism and socialism work – if only they were put in charge. :O|

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kerry tossed his medals due to a simularly corrupt, greedy, lying Pug, Richard Nixon. If you weren’t there, don’t comment on what is beyond your comprehension. What Kerry did was Patriotic to the American Way. LibDem Lyndon Johnson had nothing to do with it, eh? "Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many boys are you going to kill today?" Funny how these ignorant libs have bought into one of the most repulsive examples of historical revisionism of the previous generation – the idea that Nixon was responsible for the Vietnam War. :O| No, he’s just responsible for the deaths of about 1 million Cambodians. Sources?

Almost any book on the history of the Cambodian/Kmer Rouge disaster. Here’s one: From http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Pol-Pot It has been argued that the Khmer Rouge may not have come to power without the destabilization of the Vietnam War, particularly of the American bombing campaigns to "clear out the Vietnamese sanctuaries" in Cambodia. William Shawcross argued this point in his 1979 book Sideshow. [...] When the Khmer Rouge gained power, they evacuated citizens from the cities to the countryside where they were forced into communal farms. Property became communalized, and education was done at communal schools. Pol Pot’s regime was extremely harsh on political dissent and opposition. Thousands of politicians and bureaucrats were killed, while Phnom Penh was turned into a ghost city with many dying of starvation, illnesses, or execution. Landmines, which Pol Pot praised as his "perfect soldiers," were widely distributed around the countryside. The casualty list from the civil war, Pol Pot’s consolidation of power, and the invasion by Vietnam is disputed. A figure of three million deaths between 1975 and 1979 was given by the Vietnamese-sponsored Phnom Penh regime, the PRK. Father Ponchaud suggested 2.3 million

Filed under: Activist Movement

Related Posts

• Student EnviroLink
• Arlin Troutt, hemp activist to be sentenced Feb 15
• Zionist government to banish relatives of commandos to Gaza
• New Fender Guitars For 2000
• !*SAN JOSE MERCURY AND CRACK STORY: WHAT *YOU* CAN DO!!
• Free Leonard Peltier
• SH.ARON/NETANY.AHU - w.ar criminals - [1/2]
• JF Mezei issuing rogue cancels again
• Gallup poll: 50 million Americans are libertarian
• POLITICAL PRISONERS IN THE U.S.