Mhaze:
You Richard Cranium! Buy a Television Set or a Radio and you would have heard all about Tony Blair`s statement admitting that Britain went to war against Iraq, based upon the WMD LIE!

It was splattered across the news services at the time, which was somewhere around a fortnight ago.

Regardless of what was actually said by Blair, it is of little consequence now, as the destruction of Iraq and it`s centuries old culture, has been reduced to a smouldering ruin, and nothing will ever restore it to the way it was!

It is now Syria`s turn to be leveled by the good `ole boys and their mates ISIL, which was set up and funded by your "protectors of Democracy" in the first place!....that is of course according to the "Conspiracy Theorists"!

While we are on the subject of "Conspiracy Theories", you might like to explain why your good old buddies closed LAX to all aircraft for over a 100 miles over the week-end, and fired a "supposedly unarmed" ABM?

Could it possibly have been to flex a bit of muscle as a warning to Russia and China, that they are prepared to use ABM`s and IBM`s should the opportunity arise?

Paul,

With all due respect when has factual accuracy been a liability? You have been telling me how well you had studied the Vietnam war, yet your account is riddled with basic factual inaccuracies.

And yes, it is a matter of record that the Soviets blocked the elections which is no surprise, as they have never supported free and fair elections anywhere.

And the Viet Minh while being nationalists were heavily tied into the communists, from which they got top of the line fighter aircraft, missiles, tanks, guns and training, and their subsequent regime in no way resembled anything democratic.

And yes, the Americans did learn something from Vietnam. They used the same tactics against the Russians in Afghanistan which brought the soviet empire to its knees.

Come.come Shadow, you really are a historical revisionists "it is a matter of record that the Soviets blocked the elections" Who's record, yours!

Why on earth would you want to block an election when the one you are backing, in this case Ho Chi Minh, was a moral to win.
I admit I typed 1973 instead of 1975 hardly "riddled with basic factual inaccuracies"

Facts

The French were defeated 1954, the subsequent Geneva Accords allowed for the temporary division of the country into North and South. Until elections could be held in 1956 which would have allowed for reunification.

In 1955 a referendum was held in the south, the US backed Prime Minister Neo Dinh Diem who proposed a republic with him as head, the opposition was former emperor Bao Dai, wanting a monarchy. Dinh claimed victory in what was a massively fraudulent election. The US claimed the election was fair, and backed Diem's victory, even going as far as calling the complete fraud "a triumph for democracy" That was the end of the French who had backed Dai, they had installed Dai's puppet government in 1949. Both the Soviets and China failed to offer any serious objection to Diem. Diem with CIA assistance moved quickly to consolidate his power base in the south. Diem then claimed his victory was justification for scrapping the reunification elections due in 1956. Diem remained in power until 1963, when he was ousted through a CIA orchestrated coup, having Diam assassinated.

So Shadow there is the facts. It was Diam with US backing which stopped the elections in Vietnam in 1956.

So Crackcup,

We'll take that as your admission that Blair never said that he lied about the WMDs. Yes he has said that we now know that they probably didn't exist. And yes he's said that they went to war based, at least in part, on that false belief. But nowhere has he said that he or the government lied about their existence.They were mistaken about their existence but didn't lie about their existence. IS the difference too subtle for you? So either you decided to gild the lily to make your point more pronounced OR you heard what you wanted to hear rather than what was actually said.

"why your good old buddies closed LAX to all aircraft for over a 100 miles over the week-end, and fired a "supposedly unarmed" ABM?"

Well, actually, they didn't close LAX. Just another case of hearing what you want to hear rather than hearing the truth?

I'm fascinated how you, in your rabid, unthinking anti-US mode, would think that test firing an ABM would be an act of aggression. ABMs are, by definition, defensive weapons. IF the US was telling the Russians/Chinese anything (and I don't think they were) it was that if you attack us we'll defend ourselves. Now I know that in the world you inhabit the US should just let itself be wiped out so that those you'd prefer to be running things can do so, but its a stretch of logic (sorry to use words you don't understand) to think that testing defensive weapons is an act of aggression.

I can't help but notice that after you and Paul were demanding to know who were these democracies defended by the US, and my providing some examples, there was a rush to change the subject.

Mhaze:

You seem to be a total master at manipulating statements or alleged statements? you said:" I can`t help but notice that after you and Paul were demanding to know who were these democracies defended by the US, and my providing some example, there was a rush to change the subject."

Once again you have excelled in contriving your own bovine excreta.
Never have I "demanded" to be told anything in this article. You fabricated another "porky" to try to make yourself appear to be a little more intelligent than you obviously really are!

I have no need to ask "who were these democracies......." I am fully aware of some of the total disasters incurred by your idols, eg: The Korean "police action", the Vietnam tragedy, Cuba`s Guantanamo "Bay of Pigs", the semi-obliteration of Iraq and the ongoing "attempt to remove Syria`s President Assad",....just to name a few, and disregarding Afghanistan and the probably many other little forays into modern day insanity.

As far as the Blair issue is concerned,..."when is a lie NOT a LIE?"...when it is a statement issued by a Politician, and we have heard so many of them aimed at the gullible public in recent years!

Your further "nuggets of fertilizer" that I "must be rabid and unthinking to suggest that the firing of an ABM would be an act of aggression"?.....well, all I can say is that I am glad I am NOT living next door to you!

Paul,

After declaring yourself to be an expert, you got several key facts wrong. France did not breach the 1938 Franco Siamese treaty, as there was no such treaty. Neither did Saigon fall in 1973, but in 1975 as I saw on TV when I was 12. These were not just typos but fundamental mistakes. Yes, I do use google before posting opinions which is exactly where I got that the Soviets were the ones to block elections in North Vietnam.

Given the choice between an online account of the war, and your error ridden opinion, I will take the online account every time. If you can support your "facts" with references you might retain a shred of credibility.