Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery

+3
Floridatexan
2seaoat
Telstar
7 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

1Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/2/2017, 3:23 am

Telstar

Telstar

Richard M. Nixon always denied it: to David Frost, to historians and to Lyndon B. Johnson, who had the strongest suspicions and the most cause for outrage at his successor’s rumored treachery. To them all, Nixon insisted that he had not sabotaged Johnson’s 1968 peace initiative to bring the war in Vietnam to an early conclusion. “My God. I would never do anything to encourage” South Vietnam “not to come to the table,” Nixon told Johnson, in a conversation captured on the White House taping system.
Now we know Nixon lied. A newfound cache of notes left by H. R. Haldeman, his closest aide, shows that Nixon directed his campaign’s efforts to scuttle the peace talks, which he feared could give his opponent, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, an edge in the 1968 election. On Oct. 22, 1968, he ordered Haldeman to “monkey wrench” the initiative.
The 37th president has been enjoying a bit of a revival recently, as his achievements in foreign policy and the landmark domestic legislation he signed into law draw favorable comparisons to the presidents (and president-elect) that followed. A new, $15 million face-lift at the Nixon presidential library, while not burying the Watergate scandals, spotlights his considerable record of accomplishments.
Haldeman’s notes return us to the dark side. Amid the reappraisals, we must now weigh apparently criminal behavior that, given the human lives at stake and the decade of carnage that followed in Southeast Asia, may be more reprehensible than anything Nixon did in Watergate.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/nixons-vietnam-treachery.html







2seaoat



The Viet Nam war, the first war in Iraq, and the pretend war on terrorism all feed directly the MIC and the highly profitable weapons sales with very little having to do with the defense of this nation from foreign nations which realistically pose any kind of threat. We have become the bad guys in many situations as our founding fathers warned us of the dangers of standing armies.

Nixon was just clumsy. The folks who profit from continual war are not.

Guest


Guest

LBJ is the one who committed over 550,000+ troops to Vietnam. It has nothing to do with Tricky Dick who was not hardly as bad as your Queen Killary who has been Made politically irrelevant for life now. Must be desperate times for Dems when you have to bring up something from nearly 40 years ago to try to spin attention from the disarray that has become the DNC under Obama and others.

4Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/2/2017, 10:40 am

2seaoat



LBJ is the one who committed over 550,000+ troops to Vietnam.

Yes, and Ike and Kennedy began sending advisors to start the damn war after the French colonial exploitation of the people of Viet Nam were roundly defeated in the fifties by folks who rebelled against that exploitation. Democrats and Republicans have been bought and paid prostitutes for the MIC which even today is licking its lip with the possibility of more military spending and the creation of more teat suckers. Hillary Clinton was up to her neck with historic involvement with MIC, and if Trump holds true to his word to reduce our foreign bases, his party affiliation matters little.

5Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/2/2017, 11:00 am

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/

6Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/2/2017, 12:36 pm

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Had John F. Kennedy lived, there would have been no Vietnam War. The Cold War would have also ended years earlier than it actually did. We still would have put a man on the moon before 1970, too.

LBJ would have been robbed of his presidency, too. We should all be thankful he only served one term.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


It wasn't just Nixon:

https://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/07/october-surprise-and-argo/

Exclusive: Iran’s ex-President Bani-Sadr, in criticizing inaccurate history in “Argo,” says most Iranian officials wanted a quick end to the 1980 U.S.-Iranian hostage crisis, but Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign struck a deal with Ayatollah Khomeini to delay the hostages’ release, reports Robert Parry.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
It wasn't just Nixon:

https://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/07/october-surprise-and-argo/

Exclusive: Iran’s ex-President Bani-Sadr, in criticizing inaccurate history in “Argo,” says most Iranian officials wanted a quick end to the 1980 U.S.-Iranian hostage crisis, but Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign struck a deal with Ayatollah Khomeini to delay the hostages’ release, reports Robert Parry.

And this has what to do with Vietnam? Not a darn thing wench. Stay on task.

Guest


Guest

Had Jimmy Carter not been such a wussy, the hostages would've never been taken .

10Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/2/2017, 6:46 pm

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Tellthetruth wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
It wasn't just Nixon:

https://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/07/october-surprise-and-argo/

Exclusive: Iran’s ex-President Bani-Sadr, in criticizing inaccurate history in “Argo,” says most Iranian officials wanted a quick end to the 1980 U.S.-Iranian hostage crisis, but Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign struck a deal with Ayatollah Khomeini to delay the hostages’ release, reports Robert Parry.

And this has what to do with Vietnam? Not a darn thing wench. Stay on task.

KMA, little toad.

11Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/2/2017, 6:57 pm

Markle

Markle

Tellthetruth wrote:Had Jimmy Carter not been such a wussy, the hostages would've never been taken .

That's WAY too confusing for Progressives! They fervently believe that there is STRENGTH THROUGH WEAKNESS...or something.

Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery WimpObama

12Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/2/2017, 7:11 pm

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Tellthetruth wrote:And this has what to do with Vietnam? Not a darn thing wench. Stay on task.

That Trumpian misogyny is rearing it s head again, I see......

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

13Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/2/2017, 8:38 pm

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:LBJ is the one who committed over 550,000+ troops to Vietnam.

Yes, and Ike and Kennedy began sending advisors to start the damn war [...].
Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 6117dd60-5286-4e72-aca8-16189154dc12_zpskdnlvjte


LBJ is the one who committed over 550,000+ troops to Vietnam.

14Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/2/2017, 11:13 pm

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Markle wrote:Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 6117dd60-5286-4e72-aca8-16189154dc12_zpskdnlvjte

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Markle wrote:Such a voluminous word salad...all to tell us that LOSING IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

Why is nearly everything a 'world salad' to Lame Dork poster Markle? Shallow intellect and poor reading comprehension comes to mind.......

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

15Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/2/2017, 11:20 pm

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Markle wrote:Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 6117dd60-5286-4e72-aca8-16189154dc12_zpskdnlvjte

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Markle wrote:Such a voluminous word salad...all to tell us that LOSING IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

Why is nearly everything a 'world salad' to Lame Dork poster Markle? Shallow intellect and poor reading comprehension comes to mind.......

Why? Simple, 2seaoat, and a few of the others are so bored that if you ask the time, they tell you how to build the watch.

16Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/3/2017, 3:59 am

Telstar

Telstar

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Tellthetruth wrote:And this has what to do with Vietnam? Not a darn thing wench. Stay on task.

That Trumpian misogyny is rearing it s head again, I see......

Wench must be the pet name that cons call their daughters these days.

17Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/3/2017, 12:56 pm

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Had John F. Kennedy lived, there would have been no Vietnam War. The Cold War would have also ended years earlier than it actually did. We still would have put a man on the moon before 1970, too.

LBJ would have been robbed of his presidency, too. We should all be thankful he only served one term.

I don't know why you persist in believing that LBJ was involved in JFK's assassination. Plenty of people had much stronger motives...the opposition party, for example. Does the name BUSH ring any bells? LBJ was a lot like my grandfather, his cousin...6'4"...teetotaler...Southern Baptist...hard-working. And LBJ had a reputation for getting things done...negotiation was his strong suit. He was also lied to by Robert McNamara, both about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the "justification" for escalation. Those are facts.

18Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/3/2017, 1:20 pm

gatorfan



Floridatexan wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Had John F. Kennedy lived, there would have been no Vietnam War. The Cold War would have also ended years earlier than it actually did. We still would have put a man on the moon before 1970, too.

LBJ would have been robbed of his presidency, too. We should all be thankful he only served one term.

I don't know why you persist in believing that LBJ was involved in JFK's assassination.  Plenty of people had much stronger motives...the opposition party, for example.  Does the name BUSH ring any bells?  LBJ was a lot like my grandfather, his cousin...6'4"...teetotaler...Southern Baptist...hard-working.  And LBJ had a reputation for getting things done...negotiation was his strong suit.  He was also lied to by Robert McNamara, both about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the "justification" for escalation.  Those are facts.

I hate to break the news but LBJ was not a "teetotaler", he drank scotch by the gallon. He also cost hundreds of lives through his hot/cold hands on approach to the war. His Great Society effort was an abject failure. In short, he was a bumbling fool.

19Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/3/2017, 2:11 pm

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

\"gatorfan wrote:I hate to break the news but LBJ was not a "teetotaler", he drank scotch by the gallon. He also cost hundreds of lives through his hot/cold hands on approach to the war. His Great Society effort was an abject failure. In short, he was a bumbling fool.

LBJ is very low on my list of presidential greatness. More down there like George W. Bush. Both started wars that cost our nation dearly. We are lucky he served only one term.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

20Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/3/2017, 2:40 pm

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

gatorfan wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Had John F. Kennedy lived, there would have been no Vietnam War. The Cold War would have also ended years earlier than it actually did. We still would have put a man on the moon before 1970, too.

LBJ would have been robbed of his presidency, too. We should all be thankful he only served one term.

I don't know why you persist in believing that LBJ was involved in JFK's assassination.  Plenty of people had much stronger motives...the opposition party, for example.  Does the name BUSH ring any bells?  LBJ was a lot like my grandfather, his cousin...6'4"...teetotaler...Southern Baptist...hard-working.  And LBJ had a reputation for getting things done...negotiation was his strong suit.  He was also lied to by Robert McNamara, both about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the "justification" for escalation.  Those are facts.

I hate to break the news but LBJ was not a "teetotaler", he drank scotch by the gallon. He also cost hundreds of lives through his hot/cold hands on approach to the war. His Great Society effort was an abject failure. In short, he was a bumbling fool.

My grandfather didn't drink alcohol...I should have clarified. I didn't know LBJ, but my grandfather did. The human rights and voting rights legislation he pushed through are landmarks in our history...and both cost him personally...politically...big time. I didn't know he was a relative until around 1970, and he died in 1972. How convenient for the revisionists who want to tarnish him to cover up their own criminality.

21Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/3/2017, 2:47 pm

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
\"gatorfan wrote:I hate to break the news but LBJ was not a "teetotaler", he drank scotch by the gallon. He also cost hundreds of lives through his hot/cold hands on approach to the war. His Great Society effort was an abject failure. In short, he was a bumbling fool.

LBJ is very low on my list of presidential greatness. More down there like George W. Bush. Both started wars that cost our nation dearly. We are lucky he served only one term.

The stage for the Vietnam war was set in both the Roosevelt and Truman administrations.

Eisenhower played a role:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-gives-famous-domino-theory-speech

President Dwight D. Eisenhower coins one of the most famous Cold War phrases when he suggests the fall of French Indochina to the communists could create a “domino” effect in Southeast Asia. The so-called “domino theory” dominated U.S. thinking about Vietnam for the next decade.

By early 1954, it was clear to many U.S. policymakers that the French were failing in their attempt to re-establish colonial control in Indochina (Vietnam), which they lost during World War II when the Japanese took control of the area. The Vietnamese nationalists, led by the communist Ho Chi Minh, were on the verge of winning a stunning victory against French forces at the battle of Dien Bien Phu. In just a few weeks, representatives from the world’s powers were scheduled to meet in Geneva to discuss a political settlement of the Vietnamese conflict. U.S. officials were concerned that a victory by Ho’s forces and/or an agreement in Geneva might leave a communist regime in control of all or part of Vietnam. In an attempt to rally congressional and public support for increased U.S. aid to the French, President Eisenhower gave an historic press conference on April 7, 1954.

He spent much of the speech explaining the significance of Vietnam to the United States. First was its economic importance, “the specific value of a locality in its production of materials that the world needs” (materials such as rubber, jute, and sulphur). There was also the “possibility that many human beings pass under a dictatorship that is inimical to the free world.” Finally, the president noted, “You have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the ‘falling domino’ principle.” Eisenhower expanded on this thought, explaining, “You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is a certainty that it will go over very quickly.” This would lead to disintegration in Southeast Asia, with the “loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following.” Eisenhower suggested that even Japan, which needed Southeast Asia for trade, would be in danger.

Eisenhower’s words had little direct immediate impact–a month later, Dien Bien Phu fell to the communists, and an agreement was reached at the Geneva Conference that left Ho’s forces in control of northern Vietnam. In the long run, however, Eisenhower’s announcement of the “domino theory” laid the foundation for U.S. involvement in Vietnam. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson both used the theory to justify their calls for increased U.S. economic and military assistance to non-communist South Vietnam and, eventually, the commitment of U.S. armed forces in 1965.

***********

22Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/3/2017, 2:58 pm

gatorfan



Floridatexan wrote:
gatorfan wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Had John F. Kennedy lived, there would have been no Vietnam War. The Cold War would have also ended years earlier than it actually did. We still would have put a man on the moon before 1970, too.

LBJ would have been robbed of his presidency, too. We should all be thankful he only served one term.

I don't know why you persist in believing that LBJ was involved in JFK's assassination.  Plenty of people had much stronger motives...the opposition party, for example.  Does the name BUSH ring any bells?  LBJ was a lot like my grandfather, his cousin...6'4"...teetotaler...Southern Baptist...hard-working.  And LBJ had a reputation for getting things done...negotiation was his strong suit.  He was also lied to by Robert McNamara, both about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the "justification" for escalation.  Those are facts.

I hate to break the news but LBJ was not a "teetotaler", he drank scotch by the gallon. He also cost hundreds of lives through his hot/cold hands on approach to the war. His Great Society effort was an abject failure. In short, he was a bumbling fool.

My grandfather didn't drink alcohol...I should have clarified.  I didn't know LBJ, but my grandfather did.  The human rights and voting rights legislation he pushed through are landmarks in our history...and both cost him personally...politically...big time.  I didn't know he was a relative until around 1970, and he died in 1972.  How convenient for the revisionists who want to tarnish him to cover up their own criminality.

Perhaps you could clarify that statement too, por favor.

23Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/3/2017, 4:38 pm

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Floridatexan wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
\"gatorfan wrote:I hate to break the news but LBJ was not a "teetotaler", he drank scotch by the gallon. He also cost hundreds of lives through his hot/cold hands on approach to the war. His Great Society effort was an abject failure. In short, he was a bumbling fool.

LBJ is very low on my list of presidential greatness. More down there like George W. Bush. Both started wars that cost our nation dearly. We are lucky he served only one term.

The stage for the Vietnam war was set in both the Roosevelt and Truman administrations.  

Eisenhower played a role:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-gives-famous-domino-theory-speech

President Dwight D. Eisenhower coins one of the most famous Cold War phrases when he suggests the fall of French Indochina to the communists could create a “domino” effect in Southeast Asia. The so-called “domino theory” dominated U.S. thinking about Vietnam for the next decade.

By early 1954, it was clear to many U.S. policymakers that the French were failing in their attempt to re-establish colonial control in Indochina (Vietnam), which they lost during World War II when the Japanese took control of the area. The Vietnamese nationalists, led by the communist Ho Chi Minh, were on the verge of winning a stunning victory against French forces at the battle of Dien Bien Phu. In just a few weeks, representatives from the world’s powers were scheduled to meet in Geneva to discuss a political settlement of the Vietnamese conflict. U.S. officials were concerned that a victory by Ho’s forces and/or an agreement in Geneva might leave a communist regime in control of all or part of Vietnam. In an attempt to rally congressional and public support for increased U.S. aid to the French, President Eisenhower gave an historic press conference on April 7, 1954.

He spent much of the speech explaining the significance of Vietnam to the United States. First was its economic importance, “the specific value of a locality in its production of materials that the world needs” (materials such as rubber, jute, and sulphur). There was also the “possibility that many human beings pass under a dictatorship that is inimical to the free world.” Finally, the president noted, “You have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the ‘falling domino’ principle.” Eisenhower expanded on this thought, explaining, “You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is a certainty that it will go over very quickly.” This would lead to disintegration in Southeast Asia, with the “loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following.” Eisenhower suggested that even Japan, which needed Southeast Asia for trade, would be in danger.

Eisenhower’s words had little direct immediate impact–a month later, Dien Bien Phu fell to the communists, and an agreement was reached at the Geneva Conference that left Ho’s forces in control of northern Vietnam. In the long run, however, Eisenhower’s announcement of the “domino theory” laid the foundation for U.S. involvement in Vietnam. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson both used the theory to justify their calls for increased U.S. economic and military assistance to non-communist South Vietnam and, eventually, the commitment of U.S. armed forces in 1965.

***********


LBJ made the Vietnam commitment into the debacle it turned out to be. I was only a teenager during his presidency, but he was another one with a shady history both ethically and politically.

Why do presidents who never served in wars always start them? LBJ was in the Naval Reserve and made one visit to the war zone in WWII, flying on a single combat mission as a passenger on a bomber, for which he was awarded the Silver Star--he actually did nothing to deserve this. He was then called back to Washington to his congressional duties (he was a Texas congressman at the time). We are all fully aware of George W. Bush's history of hiding in the Texas National Guard while real soldiers went to the war zone in Vietnam.

John F. Kennedy, a war vet who saw combat in the South Pacific, wanted to withdraw the American military commitment to Vietnam. He has my utmost respect for this, and I wish he had lived to see this through.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

24Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/3/2017, 7:01 pm

RealLindaL



Telstar wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Tellthetruth wrote:And this has what to do with Vietnam? Not a darn thing wench. Stay on task.

That Trumpian misogyny is rearing it s head again, I see......

Wench must be the pet name that cons call their daughters these days.

And if they don't, why not?  You mean, it isn't CHRISTIAN to call women that name?  Really??

Maybe we should just all start calling TTT "bastard" all the time and see how he likes it, since tit for tat is the favorite Con ethic.

25Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery Empty Re: Nixon’s Vietnam Treachery 1/3/2017, 7:13 pm

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Had John F. Kennedy lived, there would have been no Vietnam War. The Cold War would have also ended years earlier than it actually did. We still would have put a man on the moon before 1970, too.

LBJ would have been robbed of his presidency, too. We should all be thankful he only served one term.

 He was also lied to by Robert McNamara, both about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the "justification" for escalation.  Those are facts.

More double standards.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum