I watch Brokaw's documentary a couple of times, but I must admit it's not as good as the other one that FOX did back in 1993 with Martin Sheen hosting and narrarating. Because they only needed one hour (compared to two that Tom did) to show the outrage that was 1968 (among them, the montage that showed all the cities in the world that rioted-and it was all because of what was happening in Vietnam!), while Brokaw's is just celebrating the history of it.
started secret bombings in cambodia, which indirectly led to pol pot, kept kissinger in which indirectly lead to east timor, didnt do anything about the energy crisis, which indirectl lead to the iraq invasion of 2003, oh, and i think he caused aids. that last one, just speculation tho
He started secret bombings because our nation had become so poisoned by the Soviet-backed Peace Movement that we lost the peace at home (as well as relying on Containment Policy to dictate whether we could wage an aggressive campaign against the Vietnamese or play sit-and-wait like we did for most of the war) and couldn't go on a proper offensive up the Ho Chi Minh Trail and into Hanoi. Nixon was a great leader; deeply flawed, but great. He kept us strong & safe in our greatest time of need.
if the secret bombings were such a great idea, why didn't they work? all they did, as far as i can tell, is make a bunch of hmong refugees, and have a lot of cambodian farmers lose their limbs to mines. what impact did it have on winning or losing the vietnam war?
It showed the Vietnamese & Commie Block that although we were willing to extricate ourselves from the region, if they didn't negotiate not only would we remain, but intensify our campaign against them. It forced them to the table and gave us better bargaining position. Plus, it prolonged our presence. Even though we lost the political war in Vietnam, we won in the long run because it showed the Reds how much we were willing to sacrifice to prevent the spread of Marxist-Lenninst Ideology.
uhm.... the "Reds" built the computer you are using right now. we are borrowing money from Marxist-Lenninsts to finance our incompetent wall-street CEOs who are making billions of dollars in bonus payouts even after their companies go down the toilet.
Excuse me, the Chinese -- although they retain the militancy & power structure -- are not Marxist-Lenninist in ANY way. Deng changed all of that. They are more Confucian than Communist nowadays. In fact, in many ways, they are somewhat neo-mercantilist given their xenophobia. Those CEOs who benefited WERE NOT engaged in a capitalist system. They were engaged in a pseudo-capitalist system: everything but the risk & w/ gov intervention. As well, your final point has zilch to do with my point.
So the massive state censorship, state ownership of corporations, restrictions on freedom of speech and press, huge prison industrial complex, etc, are 'confucianist' , not 'communist'? The Communist Party is not communist? We won the cold war, because we call communism by a different name?
The Chinese government is not Communist anymore.They gave that up.They are very much still totalitarian in their pursuits, however, Communism is an economic ideology and China shed the Marxist-Lenninist concepts of economics. Look at the diff between Mao's Great Leap Forward & China's economy under Deng & beyond and most corporations in China are NOT Chinese owned, most of them are from other nations. We won the Cold War b/c we stopped the spread of Communism & collapsed the USSR & freed Europe.
Yes, but I was always taught that the evil of communism was the political system? Are you saying that is not true? Is it OK to get rid of the economic part of communism, but maintain the political part of it? I have been asking various people this question for about 5 years now, and nobody can explain it to me to my satisfaction. . .
Its the overall system.However Communism is primarily an economic movement.Marx believed he had identified what he called the "mechanism of history" being through the economy.Lenin added onto that with believing that a totalitarian political system was the only way to lead a Communist gov until Deng Xiaoping, the PRC practiced this.However,they quickly moved away from Communism when they switched economic model.Their political system is still vile but not traditional communism.Its something new.
@AcePilot101 Nixon didn't split the Soviet/China bloc; there's a LOT more underlying history you need to pay attention to besides Nixon going to China. The Chinese and Russians were pretty much set apart by 1962: look up the Sino-Soviet Split.
@catclaw357 Nixon showed a flair for foreign diplomacy, witnessed the lunar landing of 1969, and brought an end to the U.S. military involvement in Vietnam is matter of fact Nixon dealed with some of the thoughest decision of the nation and I think he turned out better than some other presidencies look at Grant's he had more scandals that probrably any other president during his terms.
@1Historygenius Nixon did end the Vietnam war, but only after he prolonged it. Nixon had nothing to do with the moon landing. President Grant did have a lot of scandals, but he wasn't involved in them. Grant just had no executive leadership experience. How can you say that of all the presidents? John Adams (term 1796-1800) definitely had more than Grant, not only that, they were all his fault. John Adams had people arrested, because they didn't support him. bottom: line Nixon and Adams were bad.
@catclaw357 Other presidencies such as James Buchanan's was never good from start he was just a pathetic spectator as the country spun into civil war. Then Andrew Johnson's presidency after the civil war was also a disaster he was impeached. But you cannot just call these presidents bad Nixon had good sides. The Vietnam war was prolonged but Nixon did send diplomats such as Henry Kissinger to negotiate but he was just trying to do as much damage before the U.S. left.
@1Historygenius I disagree with you, I don't believe that Nixon had a "good side". I know about how Buchanan sat and watched America go to Hell and didn't do a thing to stop it, but Nixon and Adams were worse; both violated the Constitution, I still can't decide whether Adams or Nixon is worse. Also, under Nixon's poor leadership we lost the Vietnam war, not only that, but it was an illegal war, because Congress never declared war with Vietnam. John F. Kennedy, now he was a great president!
@catclaw357 That is why the Vietnam War is not an offical war. Originally all the US was doing there was to help the South Vietnamese in "their" against the North Vietnamese then we would grandually leave once things looked good and let the south handle it on its own well we did underestimate the NVA Lyndon Johnson wanted to continue it as a war which was what the American people saw it as. Nixon expanded the "war" as people thought hisd plan was actually just to stop NVA supplies in Cambodia...
@catclaw357 .... as his diplomats secured a peace with the north. Meanwhile Nixon was ever so slowly attemptin to take out troops and you cannot mention his foreign diplomacy showed good he also had to deal with some tough descision and had lowered the debt. Although he would not be on my gold standard list of presidents I believe that he was not such a bad president.
@1Historygenius In my opinion he was a very bad president, any president who cheats to get re-elected, bribes the people he hired to do it, and then lies about it is not a good president. I believe that a president must be honest to be a good president. Also, I think that McGovern would have done a better job ending The Vietnam Conflict. Also I think that Ford should not have pardoned him. By the way, who does make your "Gold Standard presidents list"?
@catclaw357 Gold Standard list: 1. Lincoln 2. Washington 3. FDR 4. Jefferson 5. T. Roosevelt 6. Jackson 7. Truman 8. Wilson 9. Eisenhower 10. Reagan. McGovern doing a better job? A man who would cut our military almost in half thats outrageous especially in time when we had rivals such as the USSR and China on us. He was going to put alot of money into welfare that he would be able to finance 47% of the country that is a little to much.
@1Historygenius Cutting military funding, and using it for welfare would have been good. We did NOT need to attack the Soviet Union, had we done that, it would have been a nuclear war, that we would have lost. Reagan proved that we that negotiation was all we needed to bring Soviet Russia down. In the 1970's the economy was bad, unemployment was high, increasing welfare would have helped people. Part one of two.
@catclaw357 It was more than military funding it was funding from every organization that was diverted to welfare to give 47% of the country welfare that is almost every other person in our nation on welfare system. Yes welfare good in the short term in the long term however welfare is the thing that caused people to become lazy in America in the late 1990s I believe if it was done in the 1970s the abuse of the welfare system could have happened earlier.
@1Historygenius Part two of two: My top 10 presidents are: 1. Abraham Lincoln 2. John F. Kennedy 3. Franklin D. Roosevelt 4. Bill Clinton 5. Ronald Reagan 6. Thomas Jefferson 7. Teddy Roosevelt 8. Andrew Jackson 9. Woodrow Wilson 10. James Madison
Never should have been elected in the first place. That was Bobby Kennedy's election.
Derekrife 6 months ago
V NIxon V
Gtamaster503 9 months ago
The bloodiest battles in history involved brave men.... and HIPPIES.
MCBEEFALICIOUS 1 year ago
Ugh....everytime I hear "Nixon" all I can think about is "Sounds like someone's breaking in!"
IIxHoll0WxII 1 year ago
I watch Brokaw's documentary a couple of times, but I must admit it's not as good as the other one that FOX did back in 1993 with Martin Sheen hosting and narrarating. Because they only needed one hour (compared to two that Tom did) to show the outrage that was 1968 (among them, the montage that showed all the cities in the world that rioted-and it was all because of what was happening in Vietnam!), while Brokaw's is just celebrating the history of it.
EricandDish 2 years ago
@EricandDish do you remember the name of the documentary ? I would love to see it
ishotu747 2 years ago
thanks for giving me a seizure.
phdecora 3 years ago
President Nixon (R) ended the Vietnam War, ended the draft, split the Soviet/China bloc and was forced to resign over Watergate.
AcePilot101 4 years ago 5
started secret bombings in cambodia, which indirectly led to pol pot, kept kissinger in which indirectly lead to east timor, didnt do anything about the energy crisis, which indirectl lead to the iraq invasion of 2003, oh, and i think he caused aids. that last one, just speculation tho
phdecora 3 years ago
He started secret bombings because our nation had become so poisoned by the Soviet-backed Peace Movement that we lost the peace at home (as well as relying on Containment Policy to dictate whether we could wage an aggressive campaign against the Vietnamese or play sit-and-wait like we did for most of the war) and couldn't go on a proper offensive up the Ho Chi Minh Trail and into Hanoi. Nixon was a great leader; deeply flawed, but great. He kept us strong & safe in our greatest time of need.
AllTerroristsMustDie 3 years ago
if the secret bombings were such a great idea, why didn't they work? all they did, as far as i can tell, is make a bunch of hmong refugees, and have a lot of cambodian farmers lose their limbs to mines. what impact did it have on winning or losing the vietnam war?
phdecora 3 years ago
It showed the Vietnamese & Commie Block that although we were willing to extricate ourselves from the region, if they didn't negotiate not only would we remain, but intensify our campaign against them. It forced them to the table and gave us better bargaining position. Plus, it prolonged our presence. Even though we lost the political war in Vietnam, we won in the long run because it showed the Reds how much we were willing to sacrifice to prevent the spread of Marxist-Lenninst Ideology.
AllTerroristsMustDie 3 years ago
uhm.... the "Reds" built the computer you are using right now. we are borrowing money from Marxist-Lenninsts to finance our incompetent wall-street CEOs who are making billions of dollars in bonus payouts even after their companies go down the toilet.
how is that 'win'? how is that even 'capitalism'?
phdecora 3 years ago
Excuse me, the Chinese -- although they retain the militancy & power structure -- are not Marxist-Lenninist in ANY way. Deng changed all of that. They are more Confucian than Communist nowadays. In fact, in many ways, they are somewhat neo-mercantilist given their xenophobia. Those CEOs who benefited WERE NOT engaged in a capitalist system. They were engaged in a pseudo-capitalist system: everything but the risk & w/ gov intervention. As well, your final point has zilch to do with my point.
AllTerroristsMustDie 3 years ago
So the massive state censorship, state ownership of corporations, restrictions on freedom of speech and press, huge prison industrial complex, etc, are 'confucianist' , not 'communist'? The Communist Party is not communist? We won the cold war, because we call communism by a different name?
phdecora 3 years ago
The Chinese government is not Communist anymore.They gave that up.They are very much still totalitarian in their pursuits, however, Communism is an economic ideology and China shed the Marxist-Lenninist concepts of economics. Look at the diff between Mao's Great Leap Forward & China's economy under Deng & beyond and most corporations in China are NOT Chinese owned, most of them are from other nations. We won the Cold War b/c we stopped the spread of Communism & collapsed the USSR & freed Europe.
AllTerroristsMustDie 3 years ago
Yes, but I was always taught that the evil of communism was the political system? Are you saying that is not true? Is it OK to get rid of the economic part of communism, but maintain the political part of it? I have been asking various people this question for about 5 years now, and nobody can explain it to me to my satisfaction. . .
phdecora 3 years ago
Its the overall system.However Communism is primarily an economic movement.Marx believed he had identified what he called the "mechanism of history" being through the economy.Lenin added onto that with believing that a totalitarian political system was the only way to lead a Communist gov until Deng Xiaoping, the PRC practiced this.However,they quickly moved away from Communism when they switched economic model.Their political system is still vile but not traditional communism.Its something new.
AllTerroristsMustDie 3 years ago
i don't think that would be comunism or socalism either not smart is what it is
leftwingnazi666 2 years ago
@AcePilot101 Nixon didn't split the Soviet/China bloc; there's a LOT more underlying history you need to pay attention to besides Nixon going to China. The Chinese and Russians were pretty much set apart by 1962: look up the Sino-Soviet Split.
tbobmccoy 1 year ago
@AcePilot101 He was bad.
catclaw357 1 year ago
@catclaw357 Nixon showed a flair for foreign diplomacy, witnessed the lunar landing of 1969, and brought an end to the U.S. military involvement in Vietnam is matter of fact Nixon dealed with some of the thoughest decision of the nation and I think he turned out better than some other presidencies look at Grant's he had more scandals that probrably any other president during his terms.
1Historygenius 1 year ago
@1Historygenius Nixon did end the Vietnam war, but only after he prolonged it. Nixon had nothing to do with the moon landing. President Grant did have a lot of scandals, but he wasn't involved in them. Grant just had no executive leadership experience. How can you say that of all the presidents? John Adams (term 1796-1800) definitely had more than Grant, not only that, they were all his fault. John Adams had people arrested, because they didn't support him. bottom: line Nixon and Adams were bad.
catclaw357 1 year ago
@catclaw357 Other presidencies such as James Buchanan's was never good from start he was just a pathetic spectator as the country spun into civil war. Then Andrew Johnson's presidency after the civil war was also a disaster he was impeached. But you cannot just call these presidents bad Nixon had good sides. The Vietnam war was prolonged but Nixon did send diplomats such as Henry Kissinger to negotiate but he was just trying to do as much damage before the U.S. left.
1Historygenius 1 year ago
@1Historygenius I disagree with you, I don't believe that Nixon had a "good side". I know about how Buchanan sat and watched America go to Hell and didn't do a thing to stop it, but Nixon and Adams were worse; both violated the Constitution, I still can't decide whether Adams or Nixon is worse. Also, under Nixon's poor leadership we lost the Vietnam war, not only that, but it was an illegal war, because Congress never declared war with Vietnam. John F. Kennedy, now he was a great president!
catclaw357 1 year ago
@catclaw357 That is why the Vietnam War is not an offical war. Originally all the US was doing there was to help the South Vietnamese in "their" against the North Vietnamese then we would grandually leave once things looked good and let the south handle it on its own well we did underestimate the NVA Lyndon Johnson wanted to continue it as a war which was what the American people saw it as. Nixon expanded the "war" as people thought hisd plan was actually just to stop NVA supplies in Cambodia...
1Historygenius 1 year ago
@catclaw357 .... as his diplomats secured a peace with the north. Meanwhile Nixon was ever so slowly attemptin to take out troops and you cannot mention his foreign diplomacy showed good he also had to deal with some tough descision and had lowered the debt. Although he would not be on my gold standard list of presidents I believe that he was not such a bad president.
1Historygenius 1 year ago
@1Historygenius In my opinion he was a very bad president, any president who cheats to get re-elected, bribes the people he hired to do it, and then lies about it is not a good president. I believe that a president must be honest to be a good president. Also, I think that McGovern would have done a better job ending The Vietnam Conflict. Also I think that Ford should not have pardoned him. By the way, who does make your "Gold Standard presidents list"?
catclaw357 1 year ago
@catclaw357 Gold Standard list: 1. Lincoln 2. Washington 3. FDR 4. Jefferson 5. T. Roosevelt 6. Jackson 7. Truman 8. Wilson 9. Eisenhower 10. Reagan. McGovern doing a better job? A man who would cut our military almost in half thats outrageous especially in time when we had rivals such as the USSR and China on us. He was going to put alot of money into welfare that he would be able to finance 47% of the country that is a little to much.
1Historygenius 1 year ago
@1Historygenius Cutting military funding, and using it for welfare would have been good. We did NOT need to attack the Soviet Union, had we done that, it would have been a nuclear war, that we would have lost. Reagan proved that we that negotiation was all we needed to bring Soviet Russia down. In the 1970's the economy was bad, unemployment was high, increasing welfare would have helped people. Part one of two.
catclaw357 1 year ago
@catclaw357 It was more than military funding it was funding from every organization that was diverted to welfare to give 47% of the country welfare that is almost every other person in our nation on welfare system. Yes welfare good in the short term in the long term however welfare is the thing that caused people to become lazy in America in the late 1990s I believe if it was done in the 1970s the abuse of the welfare system could have happened earlier.
1Historygenius 1 year ago
catclaw357 1 year ago
@catclaw357 FDR should be ahead of kennedy
sheldonJones44 7 months ago
@AcePilot101 I agree with you he was a somewhat good president just one thing the Soviet/China was split for some time as Nixon just came in.
1Historygenius 1 year ago
Which artist sings this?
Liir6 4 years ago
kill henry sugar
swezilhauf 4 years ago 3
That's it! Thank you!!!
jph6t 4 years ago
Song is available here:
killhenrysugarDOTcom/3.0/home.html
jph6t 4 years ago
It is not the Rolling Stones version
jackman3294 4 years ago
What song is that?
Letsmakeamovie 4 years ago
Jumpin Jack Flash is the song
jackman3294 4 years ago
More importantly ... whose version of the song is it? This is not the standard Rolling Stones cut ... sounds more bluegrass. Anyone?
jph6t 4 years ago
I know it was on one of the original commercials that it said the artist, but I can't remember.
LabTechX 4 years ago