Surprised to see Denmark have an agreement with Rwanda. It's not clear if any asylum seekers have been sent. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...anda-unconscionable-and-potentially-unlawful/
I’m beginning to understand political impartiality in the MSM. If you say anything that makes the Tories look good and the opposition look bad, then that is acceptable - see Laura Kuenssberg and various other political journalists for examples. But if you say anything that makes the Tories look bad and the opposition look good then you are in breach of political impartiality rules. Can’t point you towards any examples of this.
Not to mention sabotaging the Paris peace talks which ended up extending the Vietnam War for another 7 horrific years.
The accounts I have found on this suggest Nixon “tried” to delay talks that many believe were already on the ropes and that the north Vietnamese were not serious about ending the war. Note the “tried” not “successfully sabotaged”. I don’t think there is any verified evidence of this He was also in not position to make such an offer as he wasn’t in power and the election was allegedly close (popular vote was but EC wasn’t so I don’t know how it was reported in the time) So representing this story as he successfully sabotaged the talks and was (by implication) personally responsibly for 5 more years or war seems to align quite closely with my original comment of “treated unfairly”
Watch Ken Burns' excellent series on the Vietnam War, it goes into detail about how Hubert Humphrey was committed to the peace talks being successful leading up to the 1968 election. Nixon basically killed Humphrey's chances by using CIA dirty tricks to stop the peace talks.
Whether Nixon succeeded or not is somewhat beside the point. He absolutely tried to sabotage the talks by persuading the South Vietnamese to walk away, no scare quotes needed, and there's documentary evidence of him trying. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-nixon-interfered-1968-peace-talks-180961627/ His intent was to prolong a bloody war for his own political benefit, a rather heinous action, as evidenced by the part where he lied about having done so until his death.
Does the series explain how Nixon had any sway over the CIA in his position as Republican Party nominee? Surely he can’t make the cia do anything? Or is it ex CIA from when he was VP nearly a decade earlier ? And does it consider that there is a belief that the north had no intention of agreeing to a peace at that time anyway ?
Ah so you found the same source I did. Which basically doesn’t align to what Chilcs says at all. Hence “treated unfairly” Because the comment above very much suggested he succeeded. When he didn’t Like I said - I’m not saying he is a saint. I personally don’t believe the at blaming someone for something they didn’t do fits they definition of “fair”. And yes even if they tried and didn’t succeed And that same article also suggests that there are people who believe the talks were not going to succeed anyway.
This explains it better than I did: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-nixon-interfered-1968-peace-talks-180961627/
On an unrelated note - I am getting increasingly irked with the “there is a war on” defence of Johnson and Sunak We are not even fighting in it. I think this was mentioned a lot above - including the laboured Nixon joke that started this separate discussion Hopefully there is a kicking coming in the local elections but part of me has learned not to count on it. Also there is apparently likely to be a Wakefield by-election. I saw it mentioned as a test for the red wall. I might have misread / misremembered it being called the “first test”. I thought there had already been a by election in a red wall seat lost in the GE that went back to labour ? The one Galloway ran in? Although maybe my memory really is scrambled
Again, though, if we're talking about Nixon as a human being: how is "tried and failed to execute a series of dirty tricks to prolong the Vietnam War for his benefit" a better reflection on him than "tried and succeeded in executing as series of dirty tricks to prolong the Vietnam War for his benefit"? The intent is the same either way. The actions are the same either way.
Johnson's latest lie, deceit, misinformation whatever you want to call it. He claimed the deal with Rwanda was enabled by the new freedom gained by brexshit. Not so Denmark signed a similar agreement May last year and have been in the EU since 1973. Another falsehood to add to the government drip feed glorifying the national self harm done by leaving.
I was very surprised to learn Denmark had a similar deal. I certainly wouldn’t expect them to have a similar approach to such situations as our insane cabinet I saw he claimed that Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world. He did not clarify the metrics this was based on - surprise surprise
It's been mentioned in a number of reports. It's the government quoting it as freedom gained by brexit that I'm pissed off with, there's a drip feed similar stories claiming freedoms we already had. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...anda-unconscionable-and-potentially-unlawful/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eekers-boris-johnson-offshoring-b2057787.html
It’s because there are so few / almost no actual Brexit benefits that they just have to make them up And this one is perfect as it appeals to the anti-immigration crowd which are mostly if not all going to have been pro-brexit
This makes no sense whatsoever, and neither is it particularly true. Attempting to do something illegal is generally punished even if you ultimately fail to accomplish the illegal action. Attempted bank robbery is bank robbery.
