Henry Kissinger is dead

Quote by MsStep

Now that’s plausible.

I'm not excusing Kissinger from the war criminal club. Lots of blood to go around.

Quote by MsStep

The war criminal accusation’s qualified by the Nobel and lack of inditement or trial. I actually like Tantaleyes’ FAFO description.

You would.

Quote by MsStep

It was effective at getting everybody to the peace talks, wasn't it?

over 1,600 civilians were killed during those bombings. not sure it was worth it to them or their families.

Quote by MsStep

So it wasn’t Kissinger, as Rowan says, but Nixon?

it was orchestrated by Kissinger.

Quote by MsStep

By who?

the Bengalis as well.

Quote by MsStep

I’ll never know for sure, but I think the civilians who die in a war think it was worth it for them. Like the civilians killed by the Viet Cong for instance.

that's got to be the most assinine thing i've heard in a long time. think about what you just said. seriously.

Quote by MsStep

Kissinger wasn’t a Bengali diplomat.

i suggest you crack open a history book or two before you completely embarrass yourself. gonna help you out here. no, he wasn't. Archer K. Blood was. he informed Kissinger that General Kahn, the Pakastani dictator (whom Nixon was supporting) was committing genocide against the Bengalis. Kissenger ignored him and then had him removed from office.

It was about time he called it quits.

Quote by MsStep

So you think the civilians who die in a war don’t think it was worth it? Is that your opinion about the civilians on both sides of a war, or only one?

do you think the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki thought it was worth it? what about those in the twin towers on 9-11? and yes, on both sides, obviously.

Quote by MsStep

I’m glad we agree about Kissinger not being a Bengali diplomat.

what point are you even trying to make?

Quote by MsStep

No he wasn’t.

he was the UN consul in E. Pakistan at the time, love.

Quote by MsStep

And you said he was a Bengali diplomat “no, he wasn't. Archer K. Blood was” You were wrong and I corrected you.

congratulations. you win the internet. give yourself a pat on the back.

Quote by MsStep

That Kissinger was working to advance the US’s interests. Not Vietnamese, and not Bengali.

how was it in the US's interests to carpet bomb Hanoi for 2 weeks?

Quote by MsStep

So now you want the Vietnam war explained to you? As I understand it, the negotiations in Paris between the warring parties had broken down. Nixon nudged the North Vietnamese back to the negotiation table.

yes, please. explain it to me. explain how someone thought murdering over 1600 people was a nudge. then explain how those 1600 people were okay with being murdered. Hanoi was NOT a military target. it was a city. would you be okay with it if we were having peace talks with another nation and they stalled, so someone decided to drop bombs on the city you live in?

Quote by MsStep

So now you want the Vietnam war explained to you? As I understand it, the negotiations in Paris between the warring parties had broken down. Nixon nudged the North Vietnamese back to the negotiation table.

Civilian bombing isn’t a nudge. It’s cold blooded murder. The language you use to describe mass killings is chillingly inappropriate and deliberately misleading. This was murder in a grand scale of women, men, and children who had nothing to do with these conflicts.

Any attempt to justify these actions as ‘for a greater good’ is both a intellectual stretch and offensive on every moral level.

Quote by MsStep

Was it successful in forcing North Vietnam back to the negotiations?

All your characters act the exact same way... why even make new ones if you're going to act the exact same?

Is it because you will be taken seriously for a couple posts before the thin veneer of dumbassery wears off to show the full on idiot underneath? Then you're just ignored again and off to make a new character.

Fuckin weirdo.

Quote by MsStep

I don’t think there’s any explanation you’ll be willing to accept. Hanoi was the capitol of North Vietnam. I’d say the bombing was successful because the peace talks resumed once it ended.

yes, it was. doesn't change the fact that they were still civilians. men. women. children. likely they had nothing to do with the conflict. apparently, you're okay with killing innocents as long as it achieves the desired results. apparently, you have little regard for the lives of others. and yet, you were making a big stink about not being able to give the homeless money for a hamburger. the word psychopath comes to mind. morally bankrupt at best.

Quote by MsStep

Was it successful in forcing North Vietnam back to the negotiations?

the means justifies the end, right? i mean, what's a few thousand lives? it really didn't change anything, despite what you might think. it was just an act of revenge.

Quote by MsStep

It was effective at getting everybody to the peace talks, wasn't it?

Just like the October 7 attacks by Hamas have proved effective in pointing the world's attention at Israel's genocidal strategy regarding the Palestinians. According to your logic, that justifies it.

And people wonder why they're called sick.

Quote by noll

Just like the October 7 attacks by Hamas have proved effective in pointing the world's attention at Israel's genocidal strategy regarding the Palestinians. According to your logic, that justifies it.

And people wonder why they're called sick.

Hell, I wouldn’t even say this is a fair analogy. The Palestinians were being killed and kept in a large open air prison for a decade. Most the kids have deformations and lifetime health issues from starvation and lack of medical care. I at least understand where that hate can come from.

The US was the invading force. They were already sending troops and weapons to the other side of the globe to kill these people under the thin guise of ‘national security’. And they are the ones who engage in civilian killings.

Quote by RowanThorn

Hell, I wouldn’t even say this is a fair analogy. The Palestinians were being killed and kept in a large open air prison for a decade. Most the kids have deformations and lifetime health issues from starvation and lack of medical care. I at least understand where that hate can come from.

The US was the invading force. They were already sending troops and weapons to the other side of the globe to kill these people under the thin guise of ‘national security’. And they are the ones who engage in civilian killings.

The comparison is fair in a "the end justifies the means" way.

Quote by MsStep

So now you want the Vietnam war explained to you? As I understand it, the negotiations in Paris between the warring parties had broken down. Nixon nudged the North Vietnamese back to the negotiation table.

Oh ffs. Like what you just read off of Wikipdiea qualifies you as a knowlegeable person?

GTFOH... You are one of the most divisive and wrongest people on this forum. Are you actually AI pretending to be a human being?

Quote by MsStep
I’d say the bombing was successful because the peace talks resumed once it ended.

So human life is expendable as long as it slightly furthers American political interests? That's got to be the most callous and shitty statement I've read in the Think Tank in awhile. But probably true of the dehumanized way that Kissinger and others see the world which allowed them to commit (or celebrate) these atrocities.

Quote by ElCoco

You're saying that more than 50% of the children in Gaza have deformations and lifetime health issues from starvation and lack of medical care.

Obviously bullshit, but I'm looking forward to reading your reply. That's assuming you even try.

Nah man, I don’t interact with idiots who promote a mass bombing of civilians and millions dead as ‘saving lives’. You are less than human.

This isn’t your usual brand of dumbassery, this is hateful and a terroristic mentality. Get help you ghoul.

This thread has gone to shit? I am shocked, I tell you.

Quote by MsStep

So now you want the Vietnam war explained to you? As I understand it, the negotiations in Paris between the warring parties had broken down. Nixon nudged the North Vietnamese back to the negotiation table.

Quote by sprite

the means justifies the end, right? i mean, what's a few thousand lives? it really didn't change anything, despite what you might think. it was just an act of revenge.

LBJ was desperately trying to end the war in Vietnam in the spring and summer of 1968...being able to announce the end of fighting and the retreat of Americans out of country would've been a huge feather in the hat of LBJ's vice president (Hubert Humphrey) who was running against Nixon for the Presidency.

Nixon and his goons had other plans they were unveiling... They were successful with their treasonous efforts to steal the 1968 election and prolong the war (making the Democrats look inept) - this allowed Kissinger to come aboard Nixon's team of vipers and set the stage for millions more Vietnamese deaths and another 20,000 US troops dying.

https://hartmannreport.com/p/can-the-gop-be-stopped-from-defying-e5c?utm_

In 1968, for example, after tens of thousands of American deaths and millions of Vietnamese, President Lyndon Johnson had worked out a peace deal between the US, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam. His vice president, Hubert Humphrey, was running for president in the 1968 election against Richard Nixon, and announcing the peace deal in the fall of ’68 would almost certainly swing the election in Humphrey’s favor.

So Nixon went to work. He had his people reach out to the South Vietnamese officials and tell them that he’d make them rich if they’d just refuse to go along with LBJ’s peace deal. It worked.

The FBI had been wiretapping the Vietnamese and told LBJ about Nixon’s effort to prolong the Vietnam War. Thus, just three days before the 1968 election, Johnson phoned the Republican Senate leader, Everett Dirksen, (you can listen to the entire):

President Johnson: Some of our folks, including some of the old China lobby, are going to the Vietnamese embassy and saying please notify the [South Vietnamese] president that if he’ll hold out ’til November 2nd they could get a better deal. Now, I’m reading their hand. I don’t want to get this in the campaign. And they oughtn’t to be doin’ this, Everett. This is treason.

Sen. Dirksen: I know.

Those tapes were only released by the LBJ library in the past decade, and that’s Richard Nixon who Lyndon Johnson was accusing of treason.

At that point, for President Johnson, it was no longer about getting Humphrey elected. By then Nixon’s plan had already worked and Humphrey was being wiped out in the polls because the war was ongoing.

Instead, Johnson was desperately trying to salvage the peace talks to stop the death and carnage as soon as possible. He literally couldn’t sleep.

In a phone call to Nixon himself just before the election, LBJ begged him to stop sabotaging the peace process, noting that he was almost certainly going to win the election and inherit the war anyway. Instead, Nixon publicly said LBJ’s efforts were “in shambles.”

But South Vietnam had taken Nixon’s deal and boycotted the peace talks, the war continued, and Nixon won the White House thanks to it.

An additional twenty-two thousand American soldiers, and an additional million-plus Vietnamese died because of Nixon’s 1968 treason, and he left it to Jerry Ford to end the war and evacuate the American soldiers.

Nixon was never held to account for that treason, and when the LBJ library released the tapes and documentation long after his and LBJ’s deaths it was barely noticed by the American press.

Because Nixon got away with it, Reagan tried the same stunt, this time with Iran’s mullahs. His campaign — confirmed just this year by The New York Times — reached out to the Ayatollah and told him that if he’d hold the US hostages taken in the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, he’d begin shipping weapons and spare parts to Iran as soon as he became president.

American soldiers died trying to rescue the hostages, but they were firmly held by Iran to meet the terms of Reagan’s deal; it was during Reagan’s swearing-in ceremony on January 20, 1981 that Iran released them, just as Reagan put his hand on the bible, to the minute.

Reagan and Nixon getting away with rigging elections inspired Texas Governor George W. and his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Jeb had his Secretary of State, Kathryn Harris, throw around 90,000 African Americans off the voting rolls and then, just for good measure, invented a new category of ballots for the 2000 election: “Spoiled.”

* (This article speaks to Republicans stealing elections and going from the back rooms full of cigar smoke to right out in the open stealing and rigging/gerrymandering) However, the minor history recollection about the end of that war is talked about truthfully for a change.

Those tapes were only released by the LBJ library in the past decade, and that’s Richard Nixon who Lyndon Johnson was accusing of treason.

At that point, for President Johnson, it was no longer about getting Humphrey elected. By then Nixon’s plan had already worked and Humphrey was being wiped out in the polls because the war was ongoing.

Instead, Johnson was desperately trying to salvage the peace talks to stop the death and carnage as soon as possible. He literally couldn’t sleep.

In a phone call to Nixon himself just before the election, LBJ begged him to stop sabotaging the peace process, noting that he was almost certainly going to win the election and inherit the war anyway. Instead, Nixon publicly said LBJ’s efforts were “in shambles.”

But South Vietnam had taken Nixon’s deal and boycotted the peace talks, the war continued, and Nixon won the White House thanks to it.

An additional twenty-two thousand American soldiers, and an additional million-plus Vietnamese died because of Nixon’s 1968 treason, and he left it to Jerry Ford to end the war and evacuate the American soldiers.

Nixon was never held to account for that treason, and when the LBJ library released the tapes and documentation long after his and LBJ’s deaths it was barely noticed by the American press.

Because Nixon got away with it, Reagan tried the same stunt, this time with Iran’s mullahs. His campaign — confirmed just this year by The New York Times — reached out to the Ayatollah and told him that if he’d hold the US hostages taken in the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, he’d begin shipping weapons and spare parts to Iran as soon as he became president.

American soldiers died trying to rescue the hostages, but they were firmly held by Iran to meet the terms of Reagan’s deal; it was during Reagan’s swearing-in ceremony on January 20, 1981 that Iran released them, just as Reagan put his hand on the bible, to the minute.

Reagan and Nixon getting away with rigging elections inspired Texas Governor George W. and his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Jeb had his Secretary of State, Kathryn Harris, throw around 90,000 African Americans off the voting rolls and then, just for good measure, invented a new category of ballots for the 2000 election: “Spoiled.”

* (This article speaks to Republicans stealing elections and going from the back rooms full of cigar smoke to right out in the open stealing and rigging/gerrymandering) However, the minor history recollection about the end of that war is talked about truthfully for a change.

Sir, I fully appreciate your in depth analysis of the situation. Really important information for people. I will tell you for your sake and time that if you are responding to older comments from MsStep, coco, ironic… few others I think…. That was all one person who has been given the boot from the forums. I fully endorse the good info, but if it’s to try and talk sense into that person they are gone.

Rowan - that particular, miserable, old fool can probably still log onto Lush as a guest to read the havoc he thinks he's injected into this overwhelmingly, liberally tilted website. And he's just as impotent to respond here with his typed words - as he is in real life with grooming and gathering up his harem of submissive females.

It's helpful for younger people to actually know how the dominoes have fallen for the last 60 years and who has been throwing the switches in the background to control domestic and global events.

Quote by WellMadeMale

Rowan - that particular, miserable, old fool can probably still log onto Lush as a guest to read the havoc he thinks he's injected into this overwhelmingly, liberally tilted website. And he's just as impotent to respond here with his typed words - as he is in real life with grooming and gathering up his harem of submissive females.

Actually, he can't. There's a reason you were only able to quote the MsStep account via someone else's quoting of him. Their posts are no longer visible, unless someone's quoted them. And the chunks of remaining quotes aren't enough to warrant the "havoc" moniker.

Therefore, the best way to avoid the aforementioned havoc is to let the quoted posts die, as they have thus far.