C
cacruden
Guest
>Then, you must agree that Truman and Churchill belong
>alongside Hitler, Stalin and Saddam. Between the incendiary
>and atom bomb attacks on Japan and the fire-bombing of
>German cities, we have a million or two civilian victims, not
>counting anything else.
Churchill -- that was a defensive war (a war of necessity) .... just as Stalin's war was defensive (although Stalin committed crimes against humanity -- not connected to that war).
Johnson -- that was getting the US involved in a civil war (it was not their war and they should not have gotten involved) -- it was a war of choice not a war of necessity. The regime he was supporting was corrupt and no better than the regime on the North (no arguement of doing it for the eventual betterment of society -- Vietnam would just have been a puppet regime) -- they should not have been there. The chemical warfare that took place is still causing a very high birth defect rate even today -- and it was a war crime.
>Also, Johnson presided over hundreds of thousands of >Vietnamese killed.
Yes there were. Again the US should not have been in that position -- the side they were supporting were just as bad. There was no "right choice".
BTW, I had a Vietnamese family from the south (refugees) that lived with us (sponsored by my parents) for 18 months while they were getting there feet on the ground.... [without government support]. How many far left people here have done that with there own money, instead of relying on Government all the time?
>How do you justify that?
Who said I did?
The dropping of nuclear bombs on japanese cities (i.e. civilians were not collateral in that case) -- was a war crime.
But when you come down to it -- it is just intent that seperates people. Trueman (although he committed a war crime) was doing it because the US was drawn into the war (a defensive war). Saddam did not give a .... about people dying... it was all about himself.
>alongside Hitler, Stalin and Saddam. Between the incendiary
>and atom bomb attacks on Japan and the fire-bombing of
>German cities, we have a million or two civilian victims, not
>counting anything else.
Churchill -- that was a defensive war (a war of necessity) .... just as Stalin's war was defensive (although Stalin committed crimes against humanity -- not connected to that war).
Johnson -- that was getting the US involved in a civil war (it was not their war and they should not have gotten involved) -- it was a war of choice not a war of necessity. The regime he was supporting was corrupt and no better than the regime on the North (no arguement of doing it for the eventual betterment of society -- Vietnam would just have been a puppet regime) -- they should not have been there. The chemical warfare that took place is still causing a very high birth defect rate even today -- and it was a war crime.
>Also, Johnson presided over hundreds of thousands of >Vietnamese killed.
Yes there were. Again the US should not have been in that position -- the side they were supporting were just as bad. There was no "right choice".
BTW, I had a Vietnamese family from the south (refugees) that lived with us (sponsored by my parents) for 18 months while they were getting there feet on the ground.... [without government support]. How many far left people here have done that with there own money, instead of relying on Government all the time?
>How do you justify that?
Who said I did?
The dropping of nuclear bombs on japanese cities (i.e. civilians were not collateral in that case) -- was a war crime.
But when you come down to it -- it is just intent that seperates people. Trueman (although he committed a war crime) was doing it because the US was drawn into the war (a defensive war). Saddam did not give a .... about people dying... it was all about himself.
