John Kerry the Betrayer: Unfit to Command, part 3

[Patroklos]

Can you imagine if we had every politician that made a wrong decision resign? Besides, this was going to get messy regardless of how it went. We deposed a government through force, inherited a populous with impossible high expectations of us (yet appartely hate us) with a home populous whose sole enjoyment is second guessing and griping. Face it, we would have created chaos no matter what happend. Chaos makes better news clips.

[Ramo]

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.

I suggested various things that certainly could have been done (and indeed should have been done). I don't know what your problem is.

Is there anything in particular that I suggested that either wasn't possible or wouldn't have been good?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Bull.

Nope, true. The biggest demos were after Nixon was Prez, and it wasn't until he was Prez that a majority of the public turned against the war. When Nixon invaded Cambodia, he was seen as expanding the war, rather than trying to get out of it. That's why the campuses exploded they way they did.

Course, after they killed four students at Kent State and two students at Jackson State, the antiwar movement on campus collapsed.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Right, cause the Soviets would only keep someone in the gulag cause a German accused his own people of war crimes- its not like the very acts on the ground would give the other side a reason to make such claims?

Why do you even offer this up. The cases are so disimilar as to have no bearing on each other.


German/Soviet conflict - No treaty talks during conflict.

US/Vietnam - Exit strategy clearly impacted by protesters home front dissention.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned


Che, THINK!

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

Sound familiar? Where do these ideas come from?

Not Iraq, that's for sure.

[Patroklos]

Cambodia was nuetral, but unable to keep the VC and NVA from using their territory

So in other words unable to keep itself nuetral. Oh well, sour grapes, I guess we will just have to let our enemy have secure logistics. Sorry GI.

Anyone remember Iceland being nuetral in WWII? Lasted long didn't it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Che, THINK!

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

Sound familiar? Where do these ideas come from?

OOH, the Iraq checklist:

1) "Turn Iraq into a free country": hmm, yes, clear. We will know we succedeed?

2) Several stop-loos orders, an ever shrinking coalotion...

3) When Iraq is a free country, why don't you know! Wait, so why are we still there? According to Bsuh commercial's it is already free...

[Ramo]

I guess sour grapes to the hundreds of thousands of Cambodian civilians who were killed from the bombing, as well.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So in other words unable to keep itself nuetral. Oh well, sour grapes, I guess we will just have to let our enemy have secure logistics.

What's your point? I didn't say that shouldn't have done it, if one ignores the point that the U.S. shouldn't have been in Vietnam at all. Now if Nicaragua used the Cambodia precident as justification and invaded Honduras to clear out the Contras, the U.S. would have used it as a pretext to invade Nicaragua. But that's perogative of superpower. It's nothing to do with international law.

You also ignore the point that our intervention directly led to the collapse of the Sianook monarchy (not that I give a **** about monarchs) and the establishment of a military dictatorship, which led to a massive increase in the Kmher Rouge's popularity, which led to the killing fields. Plus we killed half a million Cambodeans.

As I'm not a nationalist, I don't think trading half a million Cambodians for a few hundred Americans is right.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


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.

Che, close. Cambodia was "officially" neutral. That is why the bombing was secret. After the coup, the secrecy came off and the incursion into Cambodia by the ARVN to destroy the NVA bases began.

We never bombed "Cambodia." We bombed communist troops, bases and supply lines. You make it seem as if we were bombing our allies in support of the communists.

[Arrian]

The main problem I have with intervening (bombing or otherwise) in a neutral country in order to interdict enemy supply lines in an ongoing war is that it shouldn't have been secret. To me, it's perfectly understandable the we would wish to stop the NVs from using Cambodia against us. So we shoudl've announced that if they keep doing it, and the Cambodians can't stop them, we will do it for them. Provided Congress would approve it. If not, no-go. Congress exists for a reason. You know, that whole "checks and balances" thing?

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
The main problem I have with intervening (bombing or otherwise) in a neutral country in order to interdict enemy supply lines in an ongoing war is that it shouldn't have been secret. To me, it's perfectly understandable the we would wish to stop the NVs from using Cambodia against us. So we shoudl've announced that if they keep doing it, and the Cambodians can't stop them, we will do it for them. Provided Congress would approve it. If not, no-go. Congress exists for a reason. You know, that whole "checks and balances" thing?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Ned, we sure as **** bombed Cambodia. We killed a ****load of people. Those people were Cambodians, living in Cambodia. Thus, we bombed Cambodia. That's pretty cut 'n dried.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Nope, true. The biggest demos were after Nixon was Prez, and it wasn't until he was Prez that a majority of the public turned against the war. When Nixon invaded Cambodia, he was seen as expanding the war, rather than trying to get out of it. That's why the campuses exploded they way they did.

Course, after they killed four students at Kent State and two students at Jackson State, the antiwar movement on campus collapsed.

No dispute that the Cambodia invasion caused massive protests on campuses. I dispute whether it changed anyone's mind about Nixon's policy of Vietnamization and "Peace with Honor." The accusation that Nixon was "expanding" the war was nonsense on its face.

[molly bloom]

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

I'm not a fan of Kerry- but I'm not a fan of Ned's version of history either.


If he doesn't want the conduct of the Nixon administration brought up, he should stop whitewashing it.



And it's clear he's never heard of Anna Chennault.

Oh and Ned- the covert/illegal/secret bombing of Cambodia stimulated support for the Khmer Rouge.

I must say, covertly bombing the civilian population of a country you're not at war with is an odd way of trying to stop an insurgency and win friends and influence people.


Perhaps to win hearts and minds in Iraq you should try it in Jordan.




I swear, Ned, you just make this Nedaverse history up as you go along.