babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » a personal debate I had

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: a personal debate I had
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 01 April 2003 12:20 AM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"No matter what arguments the anti-war side provide, the pro-war side has the advantage of being in control of the current situation. So they can throw together some rebuttal like that in the Onion, and it really doesn't matter what the antis say."

-this is something a contact of mine said to me over icq in response to something I said about anti-war protests and their merit; he went on to say that the bigwigs in the pro-war movement could easily brush aside the arguments of the anti-war side in defense of what they see as the common good, and that the protests are therefore useless.
I responded by pointing said contact to the example of the British, e.g. Robin Cook's resignation, among other examples from Britain and abroad. I know there are many other better examples, but that was the first that came to mind
This debate has been going on for days, and will likely continue for days more LOL I don't know what to say anymore


From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 01 April 2003 10:30 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
he went on to say that the bigwigs in the pro-war movement could easily brush aside the arguments of the anti-war side in defense of what they see as the common good, and that the protests are therefore useless.

This is an argument which overvalues power. For sure, those in power cannot be stopped, now, if they wish to bomb a hospital or two in Iraq. Probably Lyndon Johnson thought the protesters had no power...until he resigned. Probably those who ran the Soviet Union didn't care that people opposed it for its undemocratic nature. They were shortsighted.

There is nothing more powerful than an opposition based on principle. If Bush's actions can be shown to be unprincipled, based on lust for oil,or whatever, his presidentcy is finished.

This would be a good thing.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 01 April 2003 10:57 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good point I wish I'd thought of that at the time.
I wonder what Nixon thought about the protestors. At first thought, one might think that like Johnson probably did, he dismissed their concerns, but then again, Nixon was really paranoid in general; I dunno. I'm reading Ted White's Breach of Faith right now; it's shedding light on the whole thing.

I'm not sure how the issue plays out between Nixon and Dubya. I'll look into that.


From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 02 April 2003 02:39 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think Nixon dismissed the protestors. He might not have ever understood the nature of the importance, but I think his instincts told him something important was going on.

There's some poignant old video of Nixon making and impromptu visit to the Lincoln Memorial to talk to protesting youth.

He didn't dismiss them. He just couldn't understand them. In my view, it wasn't a generational thing; or something to do with political principles. Nixon just seemed unable to relate to humans on all but the most cynical levels.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 02 April 2003 03:12 AM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well like I said, he was really paranoid, to the point of mental disorder; he genuinely believed that everyone was out to get him at all times. I heard about the incident at the Lincoln Memorial as well.
From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
lautreamont
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3911

posted 02 April 2003 02:49 PM      Profile for lautreamont     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tapes released a few months ago of conversations between tricky Dick and Kissinger give further insight into the fine old fellow's state of mind. Nixon, speaking to Kissinger about the idea of bombing Cambodia into oblivion (this may not be an exact quote, but the message is accurate):
(say out loud with throaty, gurgly Nixon voice)
"That's the difference between you and me, Henry, you're worried about the civilians, and I just don't give a damn."
No joke, he said that! My advice is, if you're in a conversation with Henry Kissinger, and HE'S the liberal, it's time to find yourself a good psychologist or something.

From: ABSURDISTAN | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 02 April 2003 02:58 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just want you to think big

quote:
President Richard Nixon raised the idea of using a nuclear bomb against North Vietnam in 1972, but Henry Kissinger quickly dismissed the notion.
"I'd rather use the nuclear bomb," Nixon told Kissinger, his national security adviser, a few weeks before he ordered a major escalation of the Vietnam War.

"That, I think, would just be too much," Kissinger replied softly in his baritone voice, in a conversation uncovered among 500 hours of Nixon tapes released yesterday.

Nixon responded matter-of-factly. "The nuclear bomb. Does that bother you?" he asked. Then he closed the subject by telling Kissinger: "I just want you to think big."


We survived these two nutbars, maybe we can get lucky again.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 02 April 2003 03:49 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"The only place where you and I disagree . . . is with regard to the bombing," Nixon said. "You're so goddamned concerned about the civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care."

"I'm concerned about the civilians because I don't want the world to be mobilized against you as a butcher," Kissinger said.


It's important that we place Kissinger's single humanitarian concern in context. Nuking a city would've been bad for PR.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 02 April 2003 04:37 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Kubrick and Southern got it wrong. In their version it's the president who's more concerned with PR:

Muffley:

General, it is the avowed policy of our country never to strike first with nuclear weapons.

Turgidson:

Well, Mr. President, I would say that General Ripper has already invalidated that policy. laughs

Muffley:

That was not an act of national policy and there are still alternatives left open to us.

Turgidson:

Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, the truth is not always a pleasant thing, but it is necessary now make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless, distinguishable post-war environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.

Muffley:

You're talking about mass murder, General, not war.

Turgidson:

Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depending on the breaks.

Muffley:

I will not go down in history as the greatest mass murderer since Adolph Hitler!

Turgidson:

Perhaps it might be better, Mr. President, if you were more concerned with the American people, than with your image in the history books.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 02 April 2003 07:04 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As a person who demonstrated against Nixon and his war, I can tell Babblers that he made a huge deal out of paying them no attention whatsoever. When several hundred thousand protesters came to Washington, his press secretary announced that Nixon was going to be watching a football game all that day. Later, though, Nixon turned up at the Lincoln Monument, drunk, late at night, to talk to a couple of protesters. But the public message was: "Who cares?"

quote:
I'm reading Ted White's Breach of Faith right now; it's shedding light on the whole thing.

Maybe. But White was a big booster of Nixon, and had written highly laudatory things about his Presidency just months before Watergate brought everything crashing down. If you read "The Making of the President, 1972" which was written maybe three months before Breach of Faith, you will see that the wise President and his wise advisors were, according to White, just to smart for Democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern.
Special praise went to Attorney-Generals Mitchell and Kliendienst, both of whom later served prison terms.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 03 April 2003 01:30 AM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I'm getting that impression from reading this book, but it still provides a different perspective. I've read John Dean's Blind Ambition and Haldeman's The Ends of Power, and I'm trying to read any of the others I can find.

I had to look through some of Nixon's own books for a paper about 3 years ago, and I noticed that the only times Nixon ever mentioned Watergate (in the books I looked at), the only times he ever mentioned Watergate were when he said something like, "If Watergate hadn't received so much attention, I would have been able to concentrate more on Vietnam." That alone says volumes, IMHO


From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 03 April 2003 01:37 AM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But as for the debate I was having, the debate has degenerated into a debate about the merits of nationalism vis-a-vis the merits of religious fervour (yes, I know, the two more often than not go together). It's getting irritating, but I'm stubborn
From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 03 April 2003 02:10 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nationalism and religious fervor, seperately and in awful cahoots, are responsible for almost all of the man-made misery on the planet.

Throw in greed and you've pretty well got it all covered.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 03 April 2003 02:45 AM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Exactly. My friend argues that any international conflict that has a religious element is still mainly the fault of nationalism. That might be the case in something such as WWI (where strong elements of both could be found, but it was more an issue of nationalism than religion), but there are countless examples to prove otherwise as well (one can point to many religious-based states as an example).
He's now telling me that he still disagrees, but that it is my prerogative to disagree with him; I'm sure glad I have his permission

From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 03 April 2003 10:41 AM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We survived these two nutbars, maybe we can get lucky again.

Amen.

drg


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 03 April 2003 11:50 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've read John Dean's Blind Ambition and Haldeman's The Ends of Power, and I'm trying to read any of the others I can find.

Reading those is fine, though I think they have a substantial element of apology in them, especially Haldeman.

The one book which cannot be missed is "All the President's Men", by Woodward and Bernstein. It is still one of my favourite books, for drama and excitement, but it is also 100% accurate.

The other book I would recommend is "Abuse of Power, the New Nixon Tapes". A fair amount of the original Watergate commentary cannot be definitive because the number of tapes available were limited. Now, there are substantially more available, though far from all. This book does a good job of contextualizing the tapes, and of showing Nixon to have been more venal than previously thought.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 03 April 2003 04:04 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm also working on Fawn Brodie's "Richard Nixon:" The Shaping of his Character". This provides an interesting look at his background and how that may have shaped his later behavious. Brodie admitted to "despising" Nixon even before beginning the book; the bias shows pretty clearly, from what I can tell.
From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca