John Kerry the Betrayer: Unfit to Command, part 3

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom

I'm curious Ned- how honourable is it to bomb a neutral country?


Now with regard to peace talks- when were the Paris peace talks meant to begin, Ned?

During which Presidency?

And which Republican candidate for President seems to have helped scupper those peace talks?

Molly, The bombing was secret so that Cambodia could continue to be officially neutral.

The bombing was militarily necessary to reduce American casualities. It was criminal that Johnson allowed our troops to take it the way he did. Many if not most soldiers who fought in Vietnam during the Johnson era are bitter about giving the NVA safe refuges in Cambodia.

The talks began with the bombing halt in 1968. Johnson was president. Nothing was decided that year as a dispute broke out between the Viet Cong and the government of South Vietnam about being at the same table. Just before Nixon took office, that dispute was finally settled by agreeing to a round table.

Talks continued in Paris throughout the Nixon administration. The North's position was consistent. They demanded unilateral US withdrawal. They did not budge from this position until Nixon was re-elected. They had been hoping that Congress would force a withdrawal or that McGovern would be elected. Disappointed, they settled with Nixon.

[Patroklos]

Absolutely fine if that neutral country is

a) actively participating in the support of a belligerent, voluntarily or not.

b) giving us the secret go ahead for our secret bombing.

You guys are really drawing ffor straws now.

[Ramo]

Proof? Just what would carry have done different than Bush? Not disband the Iraqi army?

Yes. Also, we could've actively fostered a civil society, supporting trade unions instead of using Saddam's laws to break them. We could've actually spent the money Congress allocated for reconstruction (we used their oil revenues, for the most part) to contract out to Iraq businesses and Iraqi workers, rather than give out corporate welfare with these oil revenues to some notoriously antiunion American firms. We could've supported democracy in Iraq, instead of handing out power exclusively to corrupt exiles, who used that power took over large parts of the Iraqi economy. We could've opposed militas, instead of having an idiotic policy towards them, even importing the Badr Corps from Iran. We could've supported Iraqi freedom of press, instead of squashing the Sadrist paper, which set off their rebellion (in addition to the various other aforemented actions). And so on, and so forth.

[Ming]

It's interesting how it's shifted from kerry to the secret bombings.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Maybe the Dems here would rather have people talking about something else

[Patroklos]

Mai Li considered in the most exagerated level possible, to accuse the entire Army of being war criminals is absurd. To do it in the way he did is absurd. Awesome that John Kerry never witnessed any of this "policy" bieng the war hero he invented. Should have a necklace of severed ears around his neck after 3 Phs in four months. So which should we do, believe his war record and claim he is a blood soked conspirator in mass homicide? Or should we debuke his warior status and consider him a traitorus turncoat who probobly got som ass because of it (truth)? You guys tell me.

Of course I guess he was magically transported to Cambodia after a bad acid hit once he got back, if you want to count that tale.

I don't blame Kerry, he was just trying to get some of that free love and mind expansion when he got back. Whores love guys that stick it to the man!

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Ming
It's interesting how it's shifted from kerry to the secret bombings.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Maybe the Dems here would rather have people talking about something else

Well, considering that Vietnam happened 30 odd years ago, and we should be discussing current politics and policies of both candidates, I think its valid that we would want to talk about something else.

[Patroklos]

He said what would he have done different. He would have done none of what you said. If fact I doubt any of the canditates from any party would have, because they don't have you gift of hindsight.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


So Ned, bombing neutral countries without the consent of Congress or the American people is o.k. with you?

Pullleaseeee! Don't be deliberately obtuse.

Now as to not deliberately killing civilians- if you drop more bombs on a country than you did, on, oh, Japan, in the course of WWII, how many civilians will those bombs not kill?

Yes, you are being deliberately obtuse.

May-August 1973

Months after the Paris Agreement, which marked the official end of the Vietnam War, the United States, under the leadership of President Richard Nixon and his assistant for National Security Affairs Henry Kissinger, steps up its bombing of Cambodia—contradicting earlier claims that the rationale for bombing Cambodia had been to protect American lives in Vietnam. During the months of March, April and May, the tonnage of bombs dropped on Cambodia is more than twice that of the entire previous year. The bombing stops in August under pressure from Congress. The total number of civilians killed since the bombing began in 1969 is estimated to be 600,000 (see March 1969-1973). [Blum, 1995; Guardian, 4/25/2002] '

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=cambodia

We were suporting our allies, the government of Cambodia, against the Khmer Rouge.

Supporting allies is not "illegal."

[Ramo]

He said what would he have done different. He would have done none of what you said. If fact I doubt any of the canditates from any party would have, because they don't have you gift of hindsight.

I misread the question ("would" and "carry" blended together for me to "could").

But he probably would've done at least some of that. We'll never know what he would do. I was just suggesting possibilities. As for the "gift of hindsight," I as well as others knowledgable about the situation were criticizing these actions at the time.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
You don't really believe this, do you, Spiffor?

Yeah, it was only ten years before we invaded Grenada.

[Kontiki]

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's aunt's boss said that Kerry once wore mismatched socks.

My co-worker's cousin's vet's wife's parchisi partner's tupperwear salesman said that Bush once took a wrong turn on the way to a 7-Eleven to get a Slurpee.

THESE are the important issues we should be discussing folks! I'm shocked and appalled that they aren't the big swing topics for the upcoming elections!!

[Ned]

Ramo, if the report does pin the blame, in part, on Rumsfeld and Myers, I suggest that they need resign.

[Patroklos]

Critisizing from the peanut gallery. I have no illusions that what was done was the best possible course of action, but I understand that we that are not actually doing things like to do what we want, as opossed to what we can.

And of course we have no idea what the results of our "better" decisions might be. We assume our way would have been better because that makes us right.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
We were suporting our allies, the government of Cambodia, against the Khmer Rouge.

Supporting allies is not "illegal."

Cambodia was not our ally when the bombing began. Cambodia was nuetral, but unable to keep the VC and NVA from using their territory. The bombing began before the U.S. had Sianook overthrown and replaced with Lon Nol. Then we began bombing the crap out of Cambodia, killing about half a million people, and driving hundreds of thousands more into the cities. It sapped the country's able to cope and left the country side open for the KR to recruit organize and overthrow the military dictatorship.

And then it all went to hell.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yeah, it was only ten years before we invaded Grenada.

Che, THINK!

1) Clear objectives.
2) Overwhelming force.
3) A defined exit strategy.

Sound familiar? Where do these ideas come from?