Thoughts about Richard Nixon

[Haggis@wk]

it established that Republican Presidents were no better than Democrat ones when it came to States' rights.

Sheesh. Lincoln pretty well did that one in.

Valid point.

True, but a lot of those final nails were well and truely hammered in during the 20th Century beginning, at least, with the perfidy of the 17th Amendment

[barfle]

The importance of states as legal entities has been eroding, as far as I can tell, since the days of the Articles of the Confederation. There have been several big hits to that concept over time, including secession and telling states how to select their senators.

We already have a leviathan of a government in deecee. It seems to be what people want (which I tend to blame on public education, but I need to be able to back that up before I say that's the main cause).

[Shapley]

I'm still reading Richard Nixon's No More Vietnams, but I have made it through the chapter on how we became involved in the war. I find a few of his points interesting.

President Nixon believes that, had we committed a small number of troops to help the French at Dien Bien Phu we could have defeated the Viet Minh. President Eisenhower was unwilling to commit troops to the effort without a coalition of European forces, specifically looking to the British. Churchill, however, was unwilling to commit forces to preseve French colonialism at a time they were busily dismantling their own. President Eisenhower, likewise, did not wish to appear to be a supporter of colonialism. President Nixon, however, believes that, while our support would have propped up French colonialism for the short-term, Indochinese independence was inevitable, and that our support would have given us leverage to press the French towards that goal.

He says our primary military failure in the war was failing to treat it as an invasion, rather than an insurgency. He believes that, had we extended the DMZ to the Mekong River, we could have stopped the flow of men and supplies from the North.

He faults President Kennedy for his support of the coup against, and assassination of, South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. He faults the complicity of the U.S. press in flooding the press with anti-Diem propaganda, which led to President Kennedy's withdrawal of support, and eventual betrayal of, President Diem. He does not accuse Kennedy of actually ordering the assassination, but he does point out that Diem was killed with U.S. Weapons, in the back of a U.S. armored personnel carrier, after being offered security by the U.S. forces to which he surrendered. Pretty damning, IMHO. The leadership vacuum left by Diem's demise hampered our efforts to unify the South Vietnamese. Ho Chi Minh was reported to have said, regarding assassination of Diem, that the United States had accomplished something they had tried and failed to do for nine years. Diem may have been a flawed leader, but he was a strong nationalist and a unifying presence.

President Kennedy was assassinated shortly after Diem, thrusting President Johnson into leadership. President Johnson, as we all know, sought to ease us gradually into the war, fighting the war, as President Nixon puts it, not to win, bur merely not to lose. He was concerned that he couldn't defeat communism and win support for his 'Great Society' legislation, and his priorty was the with the legislation.

I was not familiar with the events prior to President Johnson's involvement. Most history's of the Vietnam war begin with the Johnson administration. Some link the events of the French War, referring to them as the 'first Vietnam war'. President Nixon regards it as a single conflict, beginning with the end of Japanese occupation during World War II, and ending with the fall of Saigon after the Congress (for whom he has no kind words) forced him to abandon our support for our long-time allies in the struggle against the spread of Communism.

V/R
Shapley

[Serenity]

I'm sure you can argue your way out of any hole you've dug yourself into.

[dai bread]

I wouldn't say that French Indochinese independence was inevitable. French Polynesia is still run from Paris, and is officially a "Department". The Polynesians tolerate it because the French pour in heaps of money.

Another Indochinese rebellion is more likely, led, almost certainly, by the same man who led the one we know about.

[Haggis@wk]

I wouldn't say that French Indochinese independence was inevitable. French Polynesia is still run from Paris, and is officially a "Department". The Polynesians tolerate it because the French pour in heaps of money.

Another Indochinese rebellion is more likely, led, almost certainly, by the same man who led the one we know about.

Rebellions never succeed without external support from a country sympatric to the cause of the rebels or hostile to the government being rebelled against. The U.S. war of independence and the U.S. Civil war were prime examples. in the former the French supported the colonists more to tweak the nose of the British than because of their love of the "locals".

In the latter, the French and the British supported the South because they feared a unified U.S; a fear that history proved right.

[dai bread]

But the Confederate rebellion was a failure.

I have a vague stirring at the back of my mind that I'd heard of foreign support for the South in the Civil War, but I can't say I know anything about it. Can you enlighten me, briefly.

Since Britain had outlawed slavery in 1807, long before the Civil War, it seems we have yet another example of "Perfidious Albion". Napoleon's phrase, wasn't it?

Then there's this, even if is from Wikipedia. During the American Civil War, American cotton exports slumped due to a Union blockade on Southern ports, also because of a strategic decision by the Confederate Government to cut exports, hoping to force Britain to recognize the Confederacy or enter the war, prompting the main purchasers of cotton, Britain and France, to turn to Egyptian cotton.

"Perfidious Albion" surfaced again in Egypt when the Civil War ended and British (and French) importers went back to American cotton.

[Haggis@wk]

But the Confederate rebellion was a failure.

True, but had they had no support from Europe the Confederacy probably wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. But the point I was making was that successful rebellions at a minimum require outside support, not that the external support guarenteed success.

All countries are governed by self-interest which is why it drives me crazy to hear Americans whine about how much the rest of the world hates us.

It was in our self interest to invade Iraq, it is not in our interest to invade Nigeria (a larger source of oil) or Burma.

[dai bread]

All countries are governed by self-interest which is why it drives me crazy to hear Americans whine about how much the rest of the world hates us.

It was in our self interest to invade Iraq, it is not in our interest to invade Nigeria (a larger source of oil) or Burma.

I won't re-open the Iraq business here, but I agree about the self-interest as a general rule. It's usually fairly obvious in U.S. affairs; less so in British, and only indirectly in ours. (We go into all these foreign wars to get brownie points- there's nothing else in it for us).

Mind you, GWB & co. really did blow the goodwill you guys had on 9/12.

[Haggis@wk]

Mind you, GWB & co. really did blow the goodwill you guys had on 9/12.

Who cares? can't eat it, can't wear it, it doesn't take anything out or put anything in my pocket. "Goodwill" is worthless.

I'll just settle for the status quo; fear, envy and an overwhelming desire to immigrate to the U.S.

During the following periods of "badwill," requests for visas and immigration increased exponentially every year.

[jamiebk]

Who cares? can't eat it, can't wear it, it doesn't take anything out or put anything in my pocket. "Goodwill" is worthless.

I would rather be known as a country that helps the rest of the world than wear the name of "Ugly American". Truth is, that when traveling abroad years ago, I as an American, felt special...everyone liked and respected us. Now, I am afraid to put my flag pin on my clothes or luggage for fear of retribution. It's a shame, really. Goodwill is important. and if you don't believe that, ask the accountants of the world. Value is assigned to such a concept.

[Haggis@wk]

Who cares? can't eat it, can't wear it, it doesn't take anything out or put anything in my pocket. "Goodwill" is worthless.

I would rather be known as a country that helps the rest of the world than wear the name of "Ugly American". Truth is, that when traveling abroad years ago, I as an American, felt special...everyone liked and respected us. Now, I am afraid to put my flag pin on my clothes or luggage for fear of retribution. It's a shame, really. Goodwill is important. and if you don't believe that, ask the accountants of the world. Value is assigned to such a concept.

1. We ARE the country that helps the rest of the world regardless of their attitudes towards us.

Egypt is the second largest recipient of our foreign aid and mostly hates us.

We sent more money and aid to the victims of the Xmas Tsunami and they mostly hate us in Indonesia, Malaysia, and southern Thailand.

We feed most of the third world for free and quite a bit of the first world for pay and their attitudes have never changed since the 1850s.

We have freed more Muslims from tyranny than any other country or groups in the history of the world and they mostly hate us.

If we do the tangible, If we feed and clothe and help rebuild someone's home and they still hate us, how in the hell are we going to win their "goodwill" by doing intangible things?

Answer; we aren't

2. You obviously never read the book "The Ugly American" and don’t know Homer.

3. Ah, because it's an accounting term that makes it a valid international relationship term. Give me one example where goodwill has ever had a concrete result for the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) I've already shown that concrete, positive things to help the people who hate has not changed anything.

4. "Truth is, that when traveling abroad years ago, I as an American, felt special...everyone liked and respected us."

I've been traveling outside the U.S. since 1957. I've found that the people who hate us have always hated us and vice versa. Nothing we did or will do changed that.

[analog]

Note also how perverse is the attitude of the weak toward their benefactors. They feel generosity as oppression; they want to retaliate. They say to their benefactors: "May the day come when you shall be weak and we will send bundles to America."
You do not win the weak by sharing your wealth with them; it will but infect them with greed and resentment. You can win the weak only by sharing your pride, hope, or hatred with them.

--Eric Hoffer, 1954


the success stories seem to come from countries that've begun to manufacture and build their own wealth... in my lifetime Korea, Vietnam, China....

[dai bread]

Mind you, GWB & co. really did blow the goodwill you guys had on 9/12.

Who cares? can't eat it, can't wear it, it doesn't take anything out or put anything in my pocket. "Goodwill" is worthless.

I'll just settle for the status quo; fear, envy and an overwhelming desire to immigrate to the U.S.

During the following periods of "badwill," requests for visas and immigration increased exponentially every year.

Goodwill puts troops into YOUR battles.

[jamiebk]

Thanks Dai. I was thinking exactly the same thing, but you said it best.

[Haggis@wk]

Mind you, GWB & co. really did blow the goodwill you guys had on 9/12.

Who cares? can't eat it, can't wear it, it doesn't take anything out or put anything in my pocket. "Goodwill" is worthless.

I'll just settle for the status quo; fear, envy and an overwhelming desire to immigrate to the U.S.

During the following periods of "badwill," requests for visas and immigration increased exponentially every year.

Goodwill puts troops into YOUR battles.

And the obverse of that is a lack of goodwill gets those troops pulled? That doesn't sound much like a commitment to self-interest as it does a description of fickle governments. Phrases like “fair-weather friends” are cliché because they are true.

Fortunately, for you and the rest of the world that thinks like that, the U.S. generally rises above such pettiness. Is there any doubt in your mind that the U.S. wouldn’t help NZ in the event of a disaster or a threat to your sovereignty? And that that help would not be contingent on NZ’s goodwill or lack of same?

And doesn’t the knowledge that the U.S. will help, regardless, make it politically easier to criticize the U.S.?

Or do you think that Australia’s Labor government’s recent thumb-in-the-eye withdrawal of troops from Iraq (i.e. “fair-weather friend”) should result in the loss of American goodwill towards Australia?

I would propose that the question should be reversed. How much goodwill would it take to involve OUR troops in YOUR battles?

[Giant Communist Robot]

I'm sure you can argue your way out of any hole you've dug yourself into.

I found this thought provoking. All my life I've been meeting people who are so skilled at arguing they don't need facts. I think it begins in childhood, and through a lifetime of experience the techniques are refined.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.. . . And such is the way of all superstitions, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like; wherein men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, although this happened much oftener, neglect and pass them by. — Francis Bacon (1620)

and so on

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Wow. Francis Bacon was one smart guy.

That quote illuminates Scientology, chiropractic, and astrology quite nicely - and I may have to think about some of my own preferred opinions... :thinking: :rethinking:

[Shapley]

So, now, back to President Nixon, since some here want to talk about goodwill. President Nixon, through acts of agressively fighting (and winning) an unpopular war, won the goodwill of the Chinese and the Soviets, goodwill that was lost when Congress undermined the Presidents' actions. The Soviets and the Chinese had curtailed support for Ho Chi Minh, largely because of the Presidents' bombing of North Vietnamese supply routes and the mining of the harbour. With encouragement from the Chinese, the North Vietnamese signed the Paris Peace accord in 1973, even though they had no intention of complying with it. It was their hope that the South Vietnamese and the Americans would comply, while the cease-fire gave them time to regroup and resupply.

Much to the North Vietnamese' astonishment, the United States did not live up the agreement, instead cutting the support for South Vietnam that the agreement promised. In essense, the anti-war congress did the North Vietnamese work for them, weakening the South Vietnamese army while ensuring that we would take no action against the North Vietnamese for their blatant violations of the peace agreement.

As Saigon finally fell, after a valiant struggle by the undersupplied and unsupported South Vietnamese troops, President Ford, the sixth President to have to deal with the Vietnam issue, begged Congress for emergency appropriations to supply the South Vietnamese fighting for their survival. His request never even made it to the floor, dying in committee. The deaths of millions of South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotions rests on the hands of the anti-war congressmen and Senators, and some of those congressmen and Senators remain there to this day. President Nixon finds irony in the fact that Sen. Edward Kennedy, brother of the President who first committed troops to curb the influence of communist aggression in South Vietnam, was one of the communist aggressors firmest supporters in the Congress. I find that not ironic, but sickening.

President Nixon has good things to say about President Johnson, though not about his handling of the war. President Johnson confided in him that his cessations of the bombings had been mistakes, and urged President Nixon not to make the same mistake. President Johnson, he says, withdrew broken-hearted to his ranch after his term ended, and died on the eave of the signing of the peace agreement.
He calls him an honourable politician who found himself abandoned by his 'friends' in politics and business, once they found he could no longer give them anything.

It's an interesting book, and there are many parallels to the War in Iraq. Particularly so, when you realize that some of the opponents whose hands are stained with South Vietnamese blood appear to be fighting hard to bathe them in Iraqi blood as well. I fear that they will dry up support for the Iraqi government, just as they did the South Vietnamese, once our troop withdrawal has been secured.

Sad.

[Serenity]

You remind me of Vizzini from the movie "Princess Bride" (Inconceivable!).

Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.

Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in Black: You've made your decision then?

Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?