26-01-2004 21:16									#121
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Bush, October 7, 2002:

quote: The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

You can play semantics all you want, but this is clearly a wilful misrepresenation of the facts intended to manipulate the American people to support a war against Iraq.

	27-01-2004 04:54									#122
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Alexander's Horse, who was risking World War III when they put missiles in the Cuba? Who was a risking World War III when they actively supported the Vietcong in violation of the peace accords against a country they had a defensive treaty with the United States of America? Who was risking World War III when they attacked the U.S. Navy on the open seas? The problem of promoting aggression against a nation that is defended by a nuclear power is obvious. Now why does such aggression began in the first place one must ask. I submit that the aggression began because one signals that the aggression will not result in serious resistance. The Korean aggression began after United States pulled out of South Korea. The Vietnam aggression began in earnest after Kennedy was elected and indicated his weakness at the Bay of Pigs. His weakness at the Bay of Pigs also brought on the Cuban missile crisis and the Berlin Wall crisis. In order to restore some credibility to American policy, Kennedy actually had to say publicly that an attack on West Germany would be met with a full-scale nuclear response on the Soviet Union. Perhaps this statement was the only thing that prevented World War III from happening from Soviet aggression in Europe. Johnson had the opportunity of reversing all that by making it clear that North Vietnam had to stop its aggression or risk war with United States. He never did that. And that is why we lost 55,000 troops for no good reason. The reason I say that had Johnson been firm the Communists would have backed down is that they did back down when threatened with war over Cuba and did back down and failed to support their client state the United Arab Republic.

So we're taking our standards of international behaviour from totalitarian dictatorships now?

I think there's a lot of nostalgia around about the Cold War - the major power blocs kept everybody in line and limited conflict.

	27-01-2004 06:51									#123
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse So we're taking our standards of international behaviour from totalitarian dictatorships now? I think there's a lot of nostalgia around about the Cold War - the major power blocs kept everybody in line and limited conflict.

Tell that to the 38,000 Americans who died when Stalin OKed the invasion of South Korea. Tell that to the 55,000 Americans who died when Kruschev OKed the invasion of South Vietnam.

	27-01-2004 09:08									#124
	Remove this text

It could have been a lot worse.

	27-01-2004 09:18									#125
	Got spare money?

Ned, throughout this thread you go on as if Hilary Clinton led the invasion of Iraq.

Simply repeating over and over that other people also espoused these things (sincerely or otherwise) is simply at odds with the fact that other people didn't start a war and at the same time alienate most of the civilized world as Bush did.

As much as you would like to blame the Clintons for all the out-and-out lying and dishonesty employed by the Bush admin to lead America into war, it won't wash. Clinton would never have presided over the foreign relations debacle which we have seen unfold under the "you're either with us or against us" Bush admin.

	27-01-2004 09:33									#126
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It's all lies.

	28-01-2004 08:34									#127
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Tell that to the 38,000 Americans who died when Stalin OKed the invasion of South Korea. Tell that to the 55,000 Americans who died when Kruschev OKed the invasion of South Vietnam.

50,000 in Korea and 56,000 in Nam.

	28-01-2004 08:41									#128
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So why make the same mistake again?

	28-01-2004 22:34									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse It could have been a lot worse.

True. But one has to ask why the commies suddenly became so aggressive. My point is that they always took as much as they could in the face of weakness and backed down in the face of strength.

Kennedy fully understood why things went badly so quickly when he became president, and was well underway at fixing his mistakes when he was assassinated. Johnson, however, understood nothing and even caused the Six Day War through his stupidity.

	28-01-2004 22:37									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by mindseye Ned, throughout this thread you go on as if Hilary Clinton led the invasion of Iraq. Simply repeating over and over that other people also espoused these things (sincerely or otherwise) is simply at odds with the fact that other people didn't start a war and at the same time alienate most of the civilized world as Bush did. As much as you would like to blame the Clintons for all the out-and-out lying and dishonesty employed by the Bush admin to lead America into war, it won't wash. Clinton would never have presided over the foreign relations debacle which we have seen unfold under the "you're either with us or against us" Bush admin.

But, that is a different issue mindseye. I've already said that the diplomatic "fiasco" may be the best issue for the Democrats, not that Bush lied about WMD.

BTW, there are reports, it appears, that Saddam is saying he bribed Chirac into taking the stand he did.

	28-01-2004 22:47									#131
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Apparenty what Kay said to the interviewers, or what they manipulated his words to mean, have no relation to what he says when allowed to speak without a middle man.

See thread on Senate hearing, in progress now.

	29-01-2004 00:42									#132
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ned Che, Where is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Vietcong today? Independent my a$$.

The Vietcong were more or less destroyed by the U.S. gov in the late 60s. After we were already fully committed to the war is when NV got fully involved.

Had the U.S. not got involved, the South Vietnamese gov would problably have fallen in the mid-60s, and the two countries would have united, as they should have after the elections in '56.

BTW, Kruschev was no longer in power when the NVA invaded the RVN. He hadn't been for about a decade.

	29-01-2004 01:07									#133
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Che, Khruschev was behind the aggression that occurred when Kennedy took power. I agree that he was ousted in 1964, the year before the NVA began operations in the South.

Now, is it your position that the NVA were in the South as invaders and not in support of the Vietcong?

	29-01-2004 01:32									#134
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned Now, is it your position that the NVA were in the South as invaders and not in support of the Vietcong?

In the 60s they were supporting the VC, just as the US was supporting the RVN. In 1975, the North invaded for real. The VC began operations without and in spite of the North.

According to what I've read, the North wasn't real big on starting a new war so soon, but the VC never took orders from the North and launched their own war of liberation. As a newly established revolutionary state and as Vietnamese nationalists, the North couldn't sit by and not help their Southern brethren once they had begun to fight.

In 1962, the VC were very close to declaring a provisional government. It's too bad they didn't because it would have made intervention much more politically difficult for the U.S.

	29-01-2004 08:47									#135
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Che, unless the Vietcong somehow ceased to exist, the fact that there is no Democratic People's Republic of Vietcong tells anyone who is fair that the Vietcong were not independent of North Vietnam and were not fighting for their own country.

	29-01-2004 18:06									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The Vietnamese did what they wanted without any approval from the USSR. The CIA noted Ho Chi Minh's independence from Moscow in the late 1940s.

Khrushchev had nothing to do with the NLF's actions; that idea is as silly as thinking that Eisenhower gave the go-ahead for the Berlin and Hungarian uprisings in the 1950s.

"North Vietnam" and "South Vietnam" were convenient shorthand terms for the two political entities created in 1954. Both sides agreed that the division of Vietnam was temporary. Let me raise the volume a bit so that this can be heard even out there on Planet Ned: both sides agreed that the division of Vietnam was temporary.

The Republic of Vietnam, aka "South Vietnam," claimed to be the only legitimate government of all Vietnam, not just the south: everything from the Ca Mau peninsula to the Chinese border, kit and kaboodle. (Hanoi made the identical claim, BTW.)

As for the communists-nationalists-Viet Minh-NLF-whatever, the difference between those in the north and those in the south was nothing more than that in the north, they represented the generally recognized government. In the south, they didn't. Thus, in the south, they turned to insurgency -- not surprisingly, since it was the same tactic they'd used against the French and the Japanese.

Of course, they didn't do so immediately. Geneva had called for elections in 1956, and everybody knew that the winner would be Ho Chi Minh. The insurgency began only after the elections were canceled, South Vienam became a US client state, and Saigon began a general repression against all dissidents (left, right, and center).

Hanoi wasn't entirely happy with the insurgency, Ho in particular, at least at first. War was dicey; if there was still some chance of getting reasonably honest, nation-wide elections, then why fight? The north did give logistical help, but no serious manpower until US intervention began tipping the scales against the NLF in the mid-60s.

Gotta run...

	29-01-2004 20:53									#137
	Support Apolyton

uh Clem, I think the Communist world held their fire globally under the Eisenhower-Khruschev detente that was finally brought to an end by the U2 incident. That occurred in May of 1960. It caused the Paris summit to break down. Relations deterioted fast.

The Vietcong were formed in December of 1960.

	30-01-2004 07:48									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Oh, I almost forgot!

*gloats*

	30-01-2004 07:51									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

*still gloating*

	03-02-2004 08:32									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Now W orders an indepedent committee to look into this mess, and backpedals like mad.

	03-02-2004 16:19									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

* Spiffor gloats even more

	04-02-2004 02:31									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Ah the left is now gloating? What Kay has shown is that the Democrats who accused Bush of lying were themselves lying.

If Bush were really clever, he'd appoint Clinton to head the new commission.

	04-02-2004 03:03									#143
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse The wmd claims remind me of the way Hitler always claimed little countries had attacked Germany just about an hour before the unprovoked surprise attack was launched. It's also just like the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which North Vietnam was claimed to have fired on US navy ships. The U.S. used this to justify intervention in Vietnam. It never happened. Oh well - they are paying for it now. The whole war is a just a big pack of lies.

Our destoryer was fireing it guns at than North Vietman town and the North Vietman have the perfect legal right under International war to attack our destoryer for it hostle action.

	04-02-2004 03:17									#144
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Ned - Bush didn't lie and OJ didn't kill Nicole. I'm tired of arguing the obvious to people that REFUSE to admit they were in error. Note - I was given the options of a) believing Bush, or b) believing Saddam. I chose to believe Bush and I was wrong. I can admit what the facts show. edit: spelling

I watch 98% of the OJ trail on TV an I would have vote not guietry as the jury did. First the State have than very weak case and the local DA make it into a potical case by saying I than going to make than example out of OJ that no black man is going to abuse his white wife.

	04-02-2004 03:18									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

* gloats.

	04-02-2004 03:22									#146
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ned "Ned, but the real point is that we had been provoking the NVs into an incident. Blowing up bridges and roads is generally considered an act of war, is it not? And Johnson DID use a fictional event to justify the war, not a real one." Maybe I'm missing something here, but regardless of why we were attacked by North Vietnam, the point is that we were attacked by North Vietnam and not by the Vietcong. The Tonkin Gulf incident provided no legal basis in my view for active combat hostilities against the Vietcong. It did provide a basis for declaration of war on North Vietnam. Johnson did not pursue the enemy that had attacked us. In the end, this failure to pursue the true enemy cost us any chance of victory.

Ned the North was under the USSR and China Nuclear protecting it we have invade NV China would have enter the war with the USSR against us.

	04-02-2004 03:56									#147
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Charles, I am not going to dispute that NV was protected against nuclear attack by China and the USSR. I will assume they were for the sake of argument.

But if that were true, the whole strategy in Vietnam was doomed to failure because the North knew we would never do anything decisive to win the war and all they had to do was stay in the "ring" long enough and they would eventually win.

We lost the war the day after the Tonkin Gulf resolution when Johnson began ops in SV but left NV alone save for bombing some weeds.

	04-02-2004 08:42									#148
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ned Charles, I am not going to dispute that NV was protected against nuclear attack by China and the USSR. I will assume they were for the sake of argument. But if that were true, the whole strategy in Vietnam was doomed to failure because the North knew we would never do anything decisive to win the war and all they had to do was stay in the "ring" long enough and they would eventually win. We lost the war the day after the Tonkin Gulf resolution when Johnson began ops in SV but left NV alone save for bombing some weeds.

Plus if we have invade NV China would have sent it army down into NV to fight us. LBJ did this so we would have won than second term as president, it didnot work out that way, Bush invade Iraq to win than second term and it seem to be backfireing on Bush. I hear that some countries that have troop[s in Iraq now are thinking about pulling then out now.

	05-02-2004 04:08									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Charles, Johnson screwed up by committing troops where there was no clear strategy for victory.

That is the lesson we learned from Vietnam more than any other lesson.

	05-02-2004 04:16									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I just saw Blair lie to parliament. He made a claim that he didn't know that the 45 minute claim referred only to battlefield weapons and Robin Cook pointed out that he knew from cabinet meetings and had made public reference to it (in his resignation speec) at the time the PM claimed not to know.

oooooohhhhhh.... lying to the house. He's toast.