Richard Nixon: Genocidial Warmonger and President
 

I've been compelled to start this thread because one of the posters on the Mane idolizes former President Nixon. So after bringing some facts to the table, i'm hoping to understand how anyone could like such a pile of sh*t. Now i'm not going to get into Watergate, or how Nixon was a drunk, or how H. Kissinger called him a "Meatball Mind" (Kissinger was a pos himself, he just knew Nixon was dumber then a box of rocks).

What i've come here to talk about, is the genocide Nixon commited in Cambodia.

Nixon droped more then 2.7 million tons of bombs on the people of Cambodia, killing more then 600,000 people, most women and children. The number of bombs Nixon droped on the Cambodians, was more then all the bombs we droped in WW2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOcRlEHrGBU
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KOcRlEHrGBU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is the declassified document of the phone call between H. Kissinger and Nixon before the bombing began.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...0pm%20%200.pdf

So I guess my question would be, how can anyone canonize such a American **** up? How can anyone with any kind of moral compass, glorify such a pox on American history? Maybe i'll even be lucky enough to hear the reasoning, from the poster himself?

LOL. I'm a big fan of President Nixon because I have huge respect for his achievements and intellect. The opening to China and the effects of SALT I and the ABM Treaty with the Soviets were the beginning of the end of the Cold War. Preserving US qualitative superiority (MIRVs) while giving the Soviets very soft caps on offensive weapons (to allow them to continue to burn money just to have a worthless quantitative advantage
out of fear of a two front war) was brilliant. It's too bad douchebag Reagan had to burn our money needlessly when we would have won regardless because the Soviets actually started their buildup before he took office (undoubtedly in response to the new international alignment Nixon created). I'm also impressed by many of his domestic feats as well.

As for Cambodia, they got the ok to go in from the country's leader...they thought it would help in terms of interdicting Communist supply routes and whatnot. There were casualties to be sure although most scholars agree that it was unforseeable that the bombings in Cambodia would lead to the Khmer Rouge taking over the country and turning it into a hellhole (Melvin Small). Here's where you and I disagree: You are a libertarian, and you don't want US involvement anywhere. I don't care hat US involvement may at times engender ill will. We are guided by our own strategic intersts. It's a cold analysis and I'm good with it. Our job is cold and calculating...pure and simple. They thought it would help to shorten the war, didn't work as well as they hoped, that's fine. I'm not some starry eyed idealist. I believe in realpolitik, I'm fine with that. Moral compass? Strategic interest comes first. That's my moral compass for US foreign policy. If everythign else is equal and we can help people than that is fine, but its not priority one. I'm not going to shudder at that, or getting rid of Allende either. It's a chess game. The purpose is to win, not to be "the better example". People don't make decisions based on "the better example". They make it in their own interests, as they should. I fundamentally disagree with your worldview. To each his own. I'd like to see Morsi get taken out. Having a secular, military-led government there is better for stability. Thats the end of the analysis.

That's also why I'd rather us leave Assad in power in Syria. While he's a huge dickbag and that is killing some of his own people, it would be in the US interest to have a secular leader that is at least surrounded and weakened, rather than having militant Islamic groups take charge (like they did in Egypt and elsewhere).It's a lesser of two evils scenario. There are no good choices in foreign policy, only less bad ones.

So basicly you're immoral as ****, you have no moral compass? It's ok for you that we commited genocide because it was in our "political interests". It was in the "political interests" of the Nazi's to commit genocide against their neighbors. So did you support that as well, or didn't just because that wasn't an American interest? It's people like you that incite blowback causing problems like 9-11, because of our "political interests".

It's Mcarthyists like you, who Libertarians like me despise. You cant follow the simplest rule you learned in Kindergarten, The Golden Rule. I just hope that all that karma you spread, comes back to you and yours 10 fold.

LOL. We have different worldviews. That's fine. Believe what you like. I'm not "immoral as ****". I prefer to look at things from perspective of strategic interest. As I mentioend above, if everything else is equal and we have the oppurtunity to do some good and be helpful (without it tipping hte scales against our interests) I'm all for it. Yes, there is sometimes blowback, but I'd rather deal with the occasional blowback than to withdraw from the world and simply "leave everyone and everything alone". There is generally not a vacuum in power for very long. I simply don't believe in everyone being happy go lucky so long as the US just "leaves people alone". It's a ratrace with everyone trying to protect their interests at all times. I'm not going to cede that just because of fear of occasional blowback. There are ways we can minimize blowback while protecting our intersets that don't invovle withdrawing from the world.

Oh ok, I understand. It was ok for you when the Nazi's commited genocide as well, because that was in their "political interest". Or you didnt like it because it was a Nazi interest and not an American one?

You part German?

LMAO. You are one militant libertarian arent you? Comparing Nazi aggression to US wars?

Really.

For the eighth time, I am not opposed to the US doing things to help people and to "do good", so long as its not contrary to our interests . So yeah..I'm good with the US defeating the Nazis because it was the right thing to do and it was also in our interests. Nice try.

Do you understand that not everyone believes in wild eyed libertarianism? People have other views. Get over it.

Woah, Woah, Woah....Droping 2.7 million tons of bombs, on civillians in Cambodia, in a covert op, is not war, it was never declaired...that was aggression son, maybe pull your head out, look at the sunshine.

So droping over 2.7 million tons of bombs on 600,000 people, mostly women and children, more then we droped on the Nazi's, was "doing good"?

You got some serious holes in your politik.

BTW Obushma, care to comment on your own hypocrisy?

I've noticed that you are a pretty big fan of Barry Goldwater, who, during his peak was about as warmongering as anyone could get. From making comments in 1964 about the usefulness of low yield nuclear weapons in Vietnam to calling nuclear weapons in general "merely another weapon", you've got alot of gall to be calling anyone out for anything. I'm so glad that clown got his ass beat by LBJ and I'm glad he got smeared with the Daisy ad too. Goldwater was an ungrateful piece of crap. Nixon worked very hard for him in 1964 and he repaid the President by constantly leaking crap to the WaPo during Watergate. I'm glad that b**** got raped by Johnson. I would vote for just about anyone before I would even think of voting for someone like Goldwater.

So what you're basically trying to do here is equate Non-Interventionist foreign policy with Isolationist foreign policy. Sorry Mike, you little Mcarthyist talking point is not valid.

Most Libertarians are Non-Interventionists, which means, they want open trade with all nations, and entangling alliances with none.

The Mcarthyists like to spin Libertarians as Isolationists, which they are not. I wont take the time to tell you what an isolationist is, since you seem to describe it with your "leave everyone and everything alone" comment.

To the extent that our interests require intervention in a specific instance than I am for that. I'd rather not get into ground wars, because they can become difficult and troublesome. There are generally much less costly (and more efficient) ways of acting without committing to an actual ground war.

Oh, I see. You cant comment on the post above this one cause you are so full of **** your eyes are brown Mike. Your politik is so full of holes, you have to derail.

Goldwater was not a Warmonger, Goldwater was a Non-Interventionist. We declaired war on Vietnam, someting that slimy pile of **** Nixon, didnt do in Cambodia, he just slaughtered people.

Goldwater was a true saint to whistleblow on that **** Nixon. Now the only people you see who think Nixon was a good president, is nobody :rofl:

Goldwater was a worthless jerk, who made incredibly inappropriate comments about the usefulness of nuclear wars. I'm glad he was put in his place. And I did comment on your post and my own theory of intervention.

No he didn't, and as far as being put in his place, yeah, thats why you're seeing a rebirth of Libertarianism and the death of Mcarthyism.

No Mike, you failed to comment on post 7.

Woah, Woah, Woah....Droping 2.7 million tons of bombs, on civillians in Cambodia, in a covert op, is not war, it was never declaired...that was aggression son, maybe pull your head out, look at the sunshine.


So droping over 2.7 million tons of bombs on 600,000 people, mostly women and children, more then we droped on the Nazi's, was "doing good"?

You got some serious holes in your politik.

For the 95th time, that they dropped tons of bombs is not an automatic disqualifier. I didn't say we should only act to "do good". I said we should first be guided by strategic intersets and I don't have a problem with trying to "do the right thing" IF it is not contrary to our interests and everything else is equal. Here, they felt the incursion would be helpful to the effort to shorten the war by hitting supply lines and whatnot. Prince Sihanouk had given the OK. Yes, there was alot of loss of life, but I'm not going to sit here and say a President's decisions should be based on emotion. They thought strategically it would be useful and that's fine. That's what I'm most concerned about. Does it suck that people died? Yes. But that is the case in every war (declared or undeclared).

He made one comment which I do not agree with, to use low grade nukes in Vietnam to destroy infrastructure, which he said he got from his millitary advisors.

Listen, you want to deflect and act like talking about using low grade nukes in a declaired war, is the same as commiting genocide against an entire country. Your politik is seriously slimy and ****ed, just like a Rockefeller.

It was a COVERT ACTION, not a war. He commited genocide droping 2.7 tons of bombs on civillians.

Shorten what war? You mean kill as many communists as possible? Read the declasified phone call, he was out to murder commie's.

Ofcourse it was a covert action...yet that hardly makes it illegal, even without the declaration of a war. The language of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution gave the President wide authority not just in Vietnam, but in Southeast Asia. Considering the communists were using bases in Cambodia to launch campaigns and then to retreat back across the border, I have no problem with the US attacking them there in 1970 to try and clear it out, especially given that we had been given the OK by the sovereign at the time.

Were the civilians collateral damage or the target. That makes a big difference. There is no doubt what the Nazis tried to do. Stupid to ever compare anyone to the Nazis. That happens a lot of this board though.

I like that movie Air America which is loosely based on Cambodia during the Vietnam war.

Wrong. It was illegal according to the Constitution.

To try and use the resolution of a False Flag event to justify the murder of over 600,000 people is pretty low, even for a slimeball from the Rockefeller wing.

Read the declasified phone call I posted, they were killing commies, didn't matter age or sex, Nixon was trying to prove a point.


Hey Cutt, you must have missed the part where Socal said or this beauty The Nazi's were guided by their strategic interests, even before the genocide, the Nazi's were in a land grab. So as far as I can see, the Nazi's were following their "strategic interests", they were "cold and calculating. Now for me, that type of world view is ****ing disgusting. For SoCal and Nixon, that's their politik.

The resolution is what gave Johnson the authority originally. That was the whole basis for everything and the language Congress used was pretty liberal. So to the extent that you are claiming its unauthorized/illegal whatever, you're wrong. To the extent that Congress agreed to give the Executive broad powers in SE Asia via t his resolution, it is hard to argue that Congress did not "declare" war when the President sought to use that power in certain venues and ways in SE Asia. This harkens back to Justice Jackson's concurrence in the old Youngstown Steel case, which has basically been adopted by most legal scholars....."When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate." Ofcourse, Congress later wanted its power back via the 1973 War Powers Act (which in of itself is unconstitutional, albeit for a highly technical and correctable reason, although they haven't corrected it yet), although by that time the activities in Cambodia (and Vietnam) had been concluded from a US perspective, so that Act was moot.

You are blaming the wrong party. If you don't want the Executive (either Johnson or Nixon) taking actions in SE Asia that you feel are morally reprehensible, then perhaps the Congress should not have ceded its war authority to the President. You don't tell the POTUS to do whatever is necessary in SE Asia and then later b**** that you don't approve of some activity and claim its unconstitutional. There's a word I'm thinking of and it sounds alot like waiver.

"We may say that power to legislate for emergencies belongs in the hands of Congress, but only Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers."

War was never declaired so your point is moot.

Again, it doesnt have to be. Congress gave authority to act in general. It's under Justice Jackson's first scenario, where the President's power is at its greatest, we're not in scenario 2 or 3, so it doesnt matter.

The Constitution does not give the right to declair war to the president. Congress is to declair war, war was never declaired in Cambodia, and 600,000 people were murdered with more bombs then we droped on the Axis.