1960 - Nixon talks about Kruschev

[rcarass1]

Oh hai, glorified, Fox News anchor!

[windstorm1000]

And you, King Richard, were ALSO a 'cold hard ruthless man'--if ever words were a self fulfilling prophecy!!

[Omar77W]

What a gay -__-

[SovetskyySoyuzah]

It's Right-Winged propoganda crap like this what stopped the Capitalist world and the Communist world from working together and helping each other co-operatively thrive from one an another. Ah well any haters out there be happy, Communism is no longer what it was.

[GIvanov]

@SovetskyySoyuzah Too bad it never "was."

[SovetskyySoyuzah]

@GIvanov Call yourself a Russian... it's butthurt dickheads like you who have now created the new Russia into a modern day Capitalist cesspit. So curse at Communism all you want traitor, we'll just have to bail your cappy' ass out again with Socialism when it fails.

[GIvanov]

@SovetskyySoyuzah I love people with little to no education proposing their pretend 'knowledge' on the internet as factual. It's especially entertaining to watch those whose brains are so underdeveloped that their only reasonable argument stems from anger and ignorance.

You have no idea what communism is, nor have you ever lived in a communist state. Take off that cap with the red star you bought on eBay, stop faking, and begin the road of healing by being honest with yourself. Thank you.

[SovetskyySoyuzah]

@GIvanov You obviously haven't lived under Capitalism long enough Douchebag. Of course it seem's great to you Russians right now, but it'll be your grave in time to come. You'll wish Gorbachev never came to power.

[GIvanov]

@SovetskyySoyuzah Oh put a sock in it, you're only embarrassing yourself further.

By the way, "seem's" is not a word.

[SovetskyySoyuzah]

@GIvanov I like apostrophes... got a problem then fuck off.

[meronmotors]

@SovetskyySoyuzah I always here russian complain about the collapse of the ussr. They said things were better then......for who? For russian yes. For the other 14 countries of the ussr NO! The money went back to moscow (RUSSIA!) They got the income of 14 other countries. Youll NEVER hear someone who lived in the former ussr at the time of communism in the other countries say they want it back. Only Russian. The brits would love there india back. It was better then! For WHO?

[alexkvaskov]

@meronmotors I've heard Ukrainians and Belorussians expressing longing for the USSR.

[DarkMedievalTimes1]

When Nixon got into power he double talked on that and set up economic ties with Chairman Mao.

[harj2009]

Nixon was a true Republican before the neecons took over

the reporter at the start ' soviets turning the world against us' huh what bullshit

[DarkMedievalTimes1]

@harj2009 Nixon was a hypocrite. His trade agreementswith China during the Vietnam war where the US exported raw materials to them meant that North Vietnam had a steady supply of weapons and textiles. Would you think he was a true republican knowing that the metal that killed GI's came from Pittsburgh?

[openedup09]

Sounds like a little bit of Reagan.Its to bad that Nixon fell into a trap of the other side in which he could have been avoided if he didn`t let the other side get to him.He was the president.You admit fault and you can be let off the hook.Your still the president.Nixon could never do that.That can go in any way in politics.

[DarkMedievalTimes1]

@openedup09 Yeah, you would think that alright in an ideal world. Look, these people do not represent the best interests of the American people, they are employed by the corporations and the banking oligarchy.

[openedup09]

@DarkMedievalTimes1 Thats understandable.I do know that.I did enough reading on the subject and knew alot of people where there interest lie on what they want and people in power are no different.The day you see a complete honest politician or someone in a powerful position they would be either cut down or not takened serious.

[DarkMedievalTimes1]

@openedup09 But sure look at the Watergate scandal, the guy was a crook. I think the last honest real president you had was Kennedy and he got a bullet in the head for that honesty..., unfortunately.

[Petrieno1]

@DarkMedievalTimes1 Sure, he was a paranoid freak, but look at his history. He was bullied by his dad, unloved by his mom, and so dirt poor that his parents couldn't send him transcontinental to receive a full ride to Harvard. He wasn't a bad president, he just had one nasty mistake.

[1mcool]

Khrushchev a cold, hard ruthless man that made me laugh

[fireball897]

@1mcool Especially coming from Nixon.

[Rico8458]

good comment

[worldpeace82]

this is pretty darn scary. i just watched the kitchen debates and kruschev seemed like a fairly normal dude. same with nixon. to think that such men, mere MEN, have the power to destroy the world.

does anyone watch Discovery channel's Life? the world is sooo gorgeous, what a waste it would be if it all went down in nuclear ashes.

[farmerne]

Looking back on this (I was 10 years old during the Cuban Missile Crisis), the belligerant talk of Nixon and others like him really makes me shake my head. The American Right back then--just like it does today---is constantly looking for "enemies" and "evil empires". Back then it was Russia, today it is the Islamic world. The truth came out years later--at the very time Nixon was breathing fire, the Soviets had a miniscule nuclear arsenal.

[RottenPineapples]

@farmerne Oh yes, the world would be a much better place had we not tried to prevent communist expansion and turned a blind eye on the Soviets.

[Tyrfingr]

@RottenPineapples I dont like Communism any more than you. But America did try to prevent other countries from adopting Communism on the own accord, not every country was invaded by the Soviets prior to them becoming Communist states.

But noone was really at fault, it's like Herodotus a Greek philosopher once said. "Circumstances rule men, men don't rule Circumstances.", and i think nothing is more true than that statement in the world of politics, at least most of the time.

[fireball897]

@Tyrfingr Whine whine whine. Of their own accord? Perhaps if you have a friend who has a gun and tries to shoot themself, you won't take the gun away from them. Look at the effects of Communism on East Germany, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, China (GLF) and so on and so on.

[Tyrfingr]

@fireball897 Only to give them a gun of my own choosing ?

Changes doesnt come from external affects such as invasions or armed conflict, no changes that ever lasts anyway. They lead to decades of civil strife, something that can be seen in a multitude of nations who were changed as you described. The only lasting change, are the ones that comes from within a nation if you look up history, such as American, French or any other that vied for independence and freedom. We changed on our own up here

[fireball897]

@Tyrfingr Give them a gun of your own choosing? Communism is the only gun. Compare its effects with the effects of other forms of government. South Korea, for example, was a military dictatorship for a long time and look at it now. I would hardly call that government a gun when comparing it to North Korea's government.

Tell Germany that the change after World War II, which was wholly from external sources, was not lasting.

[Tyrfingr]

@fireball897 Puppet states in the middle east rings a bell of what im talking about ?

South korea was that way because of the internal conflicts in Asia and it's history needs to be understood. Granted that the North koreans suffer from a corrupt government as well. Communism is bad, but systems can't be blamed for it's outcome only the intentions of the the governing body. Republics, Democracies have all had it's share of the same oligarchs.

[fireball897]

@Tyrfingr You mean like Iraq? Though our attempt at "democracy building" is indeed ineffectual, I would not say that it is impossible.

A system plays some role. For example, if the governing body has power hungry intentions, certain systems will tend to restrain those intentions.

[Tyrfingr]

@fireball897 Exactly, like the wise founding fathers did by drawing up the documents such as the bill of rights, and the most brilliant constitution.

I mean any system can employ the same things, it's just a matter of proper leadership. The French did it as well, the Norwegians modelled their constitution and rights after the American and French. It's just a matter of organization no matter what system is in use. I preffere mixed system, the better parts of the functional ones.

[fireball897]

@Tyrfingr But systems require consistency. What may be a good feature of one government doesn't work in harmony with the good feature of another.

[Tyrfingr]

@fireball897 Politics and systems are not dogmatic. In sweden we have a balance between capitalism and socialism, the former to make money, the latter to ease the maintenance of various parts of society and infrastructure. Most anything is possible to do in politics, just a matter of will. And most peoples will are more in favour of money, more money and even more money. Which leads to crappier and a more degrading society, with loss of values and virtues.

[Tyrfingr]

@fireball897 And the difference with Germany is that the country, was already a unified state with a unified people that wasen't in turmoil like the ones that adapted Communism.My point with external affects, are not when a nation is starting a war and is defeated. But invaded under pretext of being liberated, when the reality is to divide and conquer. As in the middle eastern countries, it is quite obvious when you look at the history, that the lands between the super powers were battlefields

[fireball897]

@Tyrfingr Not in turmoil? Do you mean to say that post-WWII Germany was not in turmoil? I don't see any difference between "liberating" Germany and any Middle Eastern country. Each case is equally deserving of praise or cynicism.

[Tyrfingr]

@fireball897 I meant to say that Germany wasen't suffering from a civil war, they started one. The talks of liberating Germany is a modern conception. One that everyone tells themselves so they will feel noble. It was war, then of course, and naturally the Allied invaded. I dont see much liberation in carpet bombing civilian cities with tens of thousands of dead. Simillar to what happens in the middle east, simillar to what happened in Vietnam. It's all politics, and nothing pretty about it.

[fireball897]

@Tyrfingr I disagree. A problem in one part of the world will eventually drift to other parts. They ought to be dealt with as soon as they pop up.

[Tyrfingr]

@fireball897 Im not against dealing with problems that pops up, the question is by what method. Alot more harm has come out of good intentions than people think. Im just saying. Sometimes you need to let people deal with their own shit.

[brnsimpson]

Worse mistake was the election of JFK over Nixon in 60

[alexkvaskov]

"cold, cruel mean man"? ha, exactly what they were themselves

"turn the entire world against us"? fuck you, that's what the americans were always doing, turning the world against their enemies and dividing everyone else up so no one would have any strength to go up against them

[RUSSIAmiami]

nixon, the worst thing that has ever happened to the while house, well, aside of the whole bush and reagan deal.

[TheVeryLastHippy]

one of the scariest things I've ever heard. My dad told me the story about when he was young his mother spent the night worrying if there would be a tomorrow. why are we no different as an international community in our view of other countries different to us? What peace demands? what peace demands is compramise, sacrifice, NOT nuclear hangman's ropes.

[changoTCL]

GOOGLE GULF OF TONKIN INCIDENT