27 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFSo you are ignoring the statesmen who pikced a fight with Vietnam to get the US into the war in the first place in favor of those who you feel merely extended the conflict? I suppose it is a question of preferring to pick on a Republican administration over a Demcrat one. In fact, it is much more preferable to pick on Nixon than LBJ for you I think even though LBJ was abysmal as a President and arguably one of the worst presidents in US history.
Paris peace negotiations 1968. Indochina. Bangladesh. Chile. Cyprus. East Timor.
If he doesn't get the nod as the Most Disgraceful 20thC U.S. Statesman, then who does?
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by whodeyNo. I am not ignoring anybody. I made my choice. I posed a question in the OP. So your choice is Johnson, is it? He's the most disgraceful U.S. statesman of the 20thC?
So you are ignoring the statesmen who ... blah blah blah....
So. So far we have Henry Kissinger, Joe Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
I wonder who else people will come up with?
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMFKissinger also started the process of peace with the USSR, negotiated non-proliferation treaties, opened US relations with Communist China and negotiated an end to the Vietnam war.
Paris peace negotiations 1968. Indochina. Bangladesh. Chile. Cyprus. East Timor.
If he doesn't get the nod as the Most Disgraceful 20thC U.S. Statesman, then who does?
I don't agree with the premise that his over-all body or work was disgraceful.
27 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76You're such a kidder!
Kissinger also started the process of peace with the USSR, negotiated non-proliferation treaties, opened US relations with Communist China and negotiated an end to the Vietnam war.
Just for mentioning Vietnam you should get slapped.
Do you even imagine how many Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians have died due to Kissinger?
You're a moron! A total moron!
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by sh76Interesting. In the past, you've ducked out of discussions on U.S. foreign policy in that era on account of your age and self-professed lack of knowledge, and yet you seem to have an opinion now. That aside, who would you nominate for the Title I may have erroneously awarded to Kissinger?
Kissinger also started the process of peace with the USSR, negotiated non-proliferation treaties, opened US relations with Communist China and negotiated an end to the Vietnam war.
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by adam warlockWhat I said was that he
You're such a kidder!
Just for mentioning Vietnam you should get slapped.
Do you even imagine how many Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians have died due to Kissinger?
You're a moron! A total moron!
negotiated an end to the Vietnam war
Did he or did he not?
Yes, he did.
Did say anything else about Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos?
No, I did not.
Your reading comprehension is as poor as your tinfoil hat loony left wing fruitcake conspiracy theories are absurd.
27 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI haven't ducked out of anything. I've conceded that your knowledge in that area is superior to mine. I still do. That doesn't mean I can't form an opinion.
Interesting. In the past, you've ducked out of discussions on U.S. foreign policy in that era on account of your age and self-professed lack of knowledge, and yet you seem to have an opinion now. That aside, who would you nominate for the Title I may have erroneously awarded to Kissinger?
I'n not sure I like the underlying implied premise of the OP and thus I declined to present a nominee; but now that someone else mentioned him, I suppose Joe Kennedy is as good a choice as any.
27 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76He didn't. You idiot!
What I said was that he
[b]negotiated an end to the Vietnam war
Did he or did he not?
Yes, he did.
Did say anything else about Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos?
No, I did not.
Your reading comprehension is as poor as your tinfoil hat loony left wing fruitcake conspiracy theories are absurd.[/b]
There's a difference between what people say and what people do.
The other half rejected the Nobel prize because it was meaningless. That should tell you something about the worth of Kissinger's Nobel!
What conspiracy theories do I have? Better yet: what is a conspiracy theory for you? And I'm still waiting for your reply in the Haiti thread.
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by adam warlockThe Nobel Peace Prize 1973
He didn't. You idiot!
There's a difference between what people say and what people do.
The other half rejected the Nobel prize because it was meaningless. That should tell you something about the worth of Kissinger's Nobel!
What conspiracy theories do I have?
Presentation Speech
Presentation Speech by Mrs. Aase Lionaes, Chairman of the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Storting
Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen:
On January 23 of this year a ceasefire agreement was concluded between the United States of America and the Vietnamese Democratic Republic.
At its meeting on October 16 the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Storting decided to award the Peace Prize for 1973 to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, the two chief negotiators who succeeded in arranging the ceasefire after negotiating for nearly four years.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1973/press.html
But of course, you know better. So much better that you're perfectly comfortable calling me an "idiot" for saying the exact same thing as the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.
But I suppose that they're just a bunch of right wing partisans who wanted the southeast Asians to suffer, right?
Why don't you learn to discuss things a bit more respectfully and argue against the IDEA, not the person?
27 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Of course they don't have to be right wing partisans. They just have to be doing their usual PR business, as usual.
But I suppose that they're just a bunch of right wing partisans who wanted the southeast Asians to suffer, right?
What do you know about Vietnam and Kissinger's role in it? Out of respect for the millions that perished in the Second Indochina War (unlike what you are told in America the Vietnam War wasn't just against Vietnam - not to mentions USA's role in the First Indochina War) you shouldn't say Kissinger and Vietnam in the first sentence. Just out of respect.
Do you know how many Indochinese civilians died? Do you know what Kissinger thought about it? Do you know what he thought about it? It's pretty easy to know if you're interested instead of talking non-sense.
Signing non-proliferation treaties... The man himself said that The USA should be a lot more heavily armed than the rest of the world. Oh but he signed a few treaties...
What a total and complete idiot.
Still waiting for your clarification in the Haiti thread. Still waiting for the meaning that you give to the expression "conspiracy theory", and sill waiting for a few examples of conspiracy theories on my part.
Edit: Le Duc Tho declined the Nobel and said why. Read about it.
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by adam warlockLOL
Of course they don't have to be right wing partisans. They just have to be doing their usual PR business, as usual.
What do you know about Vietnam and Kissinger's role in it? Out of respect for the millions that perished in the Second Indochina War (unlike what you are told in America the Vietnam War wasn't just against Vietnam - not to mentions USA' ...[text shortened]... heories on my part.
Edit: Le Duc Tho declined the Nobel and said why. Read about it.
YOU talking about "respect." 😀
That's rich.
YOU, who calls someone an "idiot" three times for making a point that you disagree with.
Next Shav will come on and tell people not to use bad language, Scherzo will come on and tell people not to criticize Israel and John Edwards and Tiger Woods will come on just to tell us to be faithful to our spouses.
I don't know whether you're an idiot, but you're definitely a jerk.
27 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76Don't dodge the questions please.
LOL
YOU talking about "respect." 😀
That's rich.
YOU, who calls someone an "idiot" three times for making a point that you disagree with.
Next Shav will come on and tell people not to use bad language, Scherzo will come on and tell people not to criticize Israel and John Edwards and Tiger Woods will come on just to tell us to be faithful to our spouses.
I don't know whether you're an idiot, but you're definitely a jerk.
Do you know what Kissinger planned and thought about what happened to the Indonese civilians?
Edit: Educate yourself regarding Kissinger and the "Vietnam" War:
http://hnn.us/articles/3073.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
27 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFI was not attempting to list Johnson as the "worst" ot anything. All I was doing is pointing out that Johnson went to war on a known false premise just so he could fight "the communists". He is, therefore, responsible for far more deaths than Kissinger.....that is, if that is the criteria you are going by. However, if you are using some other criteria, I would love to hear it.
No. I am not ignoring anybody. I made my choice. I posed a question in the OP. So your choice is Johnson, is it? He's the most disgraceful U.S. statesman of the 20thC?
So. So far we have Henry Kissinger, Joe Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
I wonder who else people will come up with?