This was back when at least some political figures actually gave an answer to the question, instead of sidestepping and evading it with rhetoric that avoids the question being asked.
Nowadays they have paid advisors to help them evade answering questions & scrutiny. If you ever have to encounter a junkie you'll find the behaviour is similar; they'll do anything & say anything to get their way. With politicians it's greed.
Well they actually had to think during this time. Nowadays you can have a vegetable as a president , and they don't even have to be pretty. Literally just any old human that can barely stand and make movements will do.
Nixon's sidestepping the question by leaving out that he invaded Cambodia so that he could later try to make himself look like a hero by getting out. He's 100% BS'ing up there
He didn't explain it, he was clearly lying to the public. Please do your own research. As a result of his decision, how many Cambodian villagers died all those years of his millions and millions of his bombing. Look up/google: "Why did Nixon bomb Cambodia?" See an article done at Yale Univ.
The protesters can be heard - outside - throughout this appearance. At one point, Nixon acknowledged their presence not as a rowdy annoyance, but as a healthy thing necessary in a democracy. That was Nixon.
@@uclajd No offense intended, but if that's what Nixon felt, it doesn't show. There's nothing wrong with him taking this sort of thing in stride. I believe his hosts and audience at Oxford would have thought less of him if he'd thrown a fit and asked for the police to clear the area - or cancelled his appearance. He wasn't afraid or intimidated by protesters. This is the same man who in 1970 - at the height of protests during the Vietnam war - made an impulsive early morning trip to the Lincoln Memorial to talk to protesters in order to try to figure out some sort of common ground. Best wishes from Vermont 🍁
A president would have been derelict of his duties if he did not bomb the enemy hiding in that section of Cambodia. He would have failed his duties, as Commander in Chief ,to the soldiers in harms way
The 1960s were a very difficult time politically, financially, religiously, school agenda wise. It was horrible being a young white man in America at the time. A reasonable question from the young white man in the audience. Nixon did his best to give a reasonable answer. I can not imagine Biden or Kamala Harris giving a sensible answer today concerning: Ukraine, Gaza, or other political hot spots today. The Constitution framers warned us about foreign agreements with other countries. They said, do not make them. Be an isolationist. Let people in their own countries handle their own problems. Vietnam is now totally Communist and united. America has normal trade relations with Vietnam. My neighbor and brother were drafted and sent to Vietnam. My neighbor’s remains came back to America in a plastic bag, contained in a metal box, arriving at McChord Air Force Base.
Jack the Ripper. "But you see, I had to kill them, They were prostitutes". Quite honest, eh? Depraved also. Like Nixon and the war. Jack the Ripper was a great monster. So was Richard Nixon. The fact that he was intelligent often was irrelevant when his deep shadow was driving him.
He didn't explain it, he was clearly lying to the public. Please do your own research. As a result of his decision, how many Cambodian villagers died all those years of his millions and millions of his bombing. Look up/google: "Why did Nixon bomb Cambodia?" See an article done at Yale Univ.
He didn't explain it, he was clearly lying to the public. Please do your own research. As a result of his decision, how many Cambodian villagers died all those years of his millions and millions of his bombing. Look up/google: "Why did Nixon bomb Cambodia?" See an article done at Yale Univ.
On Nixon’s first day as President, the Democrats who ran the White House for the previous eight years and the Democrats who overwhelmingly controlled Congress, already had 550,000 troops in Vietnam.
LBJ was the decision maker on everything Vietnam as he was a major investor on military industry corporations...the congress was just manipulated with his fake stories
Speaking as an American combat Vietnam veteran (US Army 505 PIR 82nd Airborne Division) I am damn glad that we had a great, highly intelligent and articulate President such as Pres. Richard M. Nixon. It was a tremendously difficult task to begin to wind down the War, and finally withdraw from Vietnam. Only a President with a deep knowledge of Foreign Affairs, such as Richard Nixon, could successfully handle such an immensely huge, tough task! As we've all witnessed, a President that is not as adroit, intelligent, and quick thinking such as Nixon was. can create a terrible Fiasco such as our withdrawal from Afghanistan. Our ENEMIES were actually still killing our Troops as we were leaving at the airport! What a shame! How sad! I give total credit to President Nixon for all he did to lessen the pain of Vietnam. Nixon will go down in American History as one of America's finest Presidents. God Rest Pres. Nixon's noble Soul.
How was it in Vietnam??? But the withdrawal from Saigon was probably the ultimate humiliation in American history, less than a year after Nixon resigned... No one cares much about Afghanistan, unfortunately...
With all that has come into the light after all these years I find it hard to believe you would defend this man’s leadership. He literally halted peace talks to help his bid for the presidency. From that point on 10,000 troops died including my uncle. Unbelievable
It's easy for people to exploit the advantage of hindsight with regard to Nixon. I appreciate the insight from a combat veteran that chewed the very dirt he was discussing in this clip. Thank you for your perspective, it is invaluable.
@@danf1862 Its hindsight that can offer a real glimpse of what a man does or thinks. True, he was a intelligent and articulate politician. But since we know so much more 50 years later let not forget what he ultimately did: I mean, making a deal with S. Vietnamese leader to stall peace talks to boost his poll numbers? Then lies about it. Meanwhile, 10,000 more GIs were killed till the actually end of the war. Discussions of the use of nuclear weapons or flooding the Mekong Delta? I mean, these are the markings of a man with serious character flaws! C'mon guys! Stop with the blind political faith already! Jeesh
@@uclajd The question was definitely not a softball, but it was still a valid question. The question was biased, but it was honest. Nixon's answer was quite good. The question would have been dishonest if was phrased something like, _"Do you regret deciding to become a murderer of thousands of innocent peace loving Cambodians?"_
@@uclajd as traitor for china iran taliban criminals/terrorist joe bi dems said, after Elon took over twitter now X, "we still Con trol 98% of the media" AND that is not good.
@@joeyfitz9 Was this over the "tough question" of giving a loaded question about Trump's view of a couple celebrity women? Because if so, that wasn't a tough question in the slightest.
Wow. Nixon's comparison asking if invading Normandy was for the purpose of invading France (because it wasn't) was so well stated. My vivid memories of growing up in the 1960's with sound of Nixon's voice & the daily fear hearing of our neighborhood male teenagers dying in Vietnam always left us kids wondering, man.....who do we trust? Really Tough times, back then.
Love or hate the man, we are privileged to be in a society where our leaders can be inquired and be put on the spot to explain his actions. As a leader of a nation, Nixon had to constantly make difficult choices, choices where the best incomes were nearly impossible given the circumstances. Most people in the world don't have what it takes to be a leader that's just the reality of life.
I agree, but the current leaders hardly reflect on the past or on themselves such that they make self-righteous decisions without thinking about the unintended consequences. Nixon isn't around to fix the negative consequences he brought as a result of the difficult choices he made, but that isn't something that the current politician can just ignore, because the consequences of the decisions by the past leaders will carry on onto the nation far beyond their terms. I'm sure Nixon would have thought twice about floating the dollar if he could somehow see into the future and knew that the future leaders completely lack the sense of critical self-reflection and will abuse the monetary system out of ignorance and for political self-interests.
A lot of people don't understand that about questions. the longer you make the question the more opportunity you give for them to weasel out of giving a proper answer
@@sayno2lolzisbackby the time some people get to the end of their question, throwing in a million caveats, I can only really remember the last thing they said anyway. Keep it simple stupid!
“As a black, Latinx, Mormon woman of color and diverse inclusion LGBTQIA-allied, I was wondering why you invaded the land of Cambodia and why are you a bigot????????”
Nixon is lying here: King Sihanouk never offered his consent to the US bombing of Cambodia. In reality, he severed diplomatic ties with the US in May 1965 after knowing the US bombardment against Cambodia. Sihanouk's left-wing policy eventually led the US to support General Lon Nol to overthrow Sihanouk's regime and forced Sihanouk to seek refuge in China. The establishment of a Junta led by Lon Nol severely destabilized the political situation in Cambodia and directly caused the rise of Pol Pot.
"King Sihanouk never offered his consent to the US bombing of Cambodia" You were listening in that phone call were you? I'm not saying Nixon isn't lying, but none of us have anyway of knowing what was really going on. "he severed diplomatic ties " One thing we do know is that 'diplomatic ties' are a song and dance routine played purely for political purposes. No reality can ever be gleaned from watching that pantomime play out.
@@gooble69 Sihanouk's discontent with US is well documented, so did the role that US played in overthrowing him. Also，historical agnosticism is just a coping mechanism for narcissistic ignorance.
@@pechorin5842 "is well documented" Cool story.. What else other over-simplified versions of history did you read on the Internet then automatically believe? Tell me more about how you know more about the private conversations between Nixon and Sihanouk than Nixon himself, this should be a laugh...
Exactly. The last 2 One because is a clown and has poor vocabulary to articulate coherent arguments, and the other one because it's too old and has trouble articulating coherent arguments
Both Trump and Biden pander for votes like there's no tomorrow. Politicians obviously have to get elected, but gerrymandering and social media echo chambers are driving politicians to leave principles behind in favor of winning shallow popularity contests.
Trump would have answered this with a word salad and gotten the most basic facts about the war wrong, and claimed the civillian casualties were fake news.@@DonaldDucksRevenge
I think he was 65 here. Biden and Trump are nowhere near that age so don't expect them to be as coherent as a 65-year-old would/should be. 70s is too old for president in my opinion.
Richard Nixon was a real person, with all the goodness and failings of the human character. He never claimed to be anything else. His manner and style of speaking and presentation is the best of any US President, in my humble opinion. 🙏
Pretty convincing answer but these wars have caused so much pain and suffering for the people of those nations as well as the American troops that had to fight in them. Still pretty good answer.
Nixon was treated the same as Trump Republican who the democrats hated because they were actually getting things done Nixon got us out of vietnam and received no credit
@@Ludovicus1769 It was not my intention to contradict or to misrepresent what you said . However, be it good or knowledgeable , it's a lie. My apologies.
@@brucebrand3068 There is no need to apologise, I understand that what Nixon said here was, frankly speaking, bullshit. And as such, my comment was perhaps a bit vague.
He had talked about it in his lifetime. Now I apologize in advance that I don't remember exactly where he said this but he did admit to bombing Cambodia being a regret.
I’m a first generation born American. I thought my dad’s stories was just fear monger bs. Until a US AF major literally cried when my father told him we are Cambodian. They are best friends now. I learned how to shut my mouth after that.
Normally when someone mentions Eisenhower its like who are they to use his name? In this case he was his Vice President for 8 years. He knows him good enough.
And today we know that Nixon was telling the truth about everything. Cambodia, and Laos were full on NVA divisions who would strike South Vietnam and retreat across the border to safety because the US was banned from striking it. The stupid protesters ruined our country. I am a veteran, and I am against war and Vietnam was a mess. However Nixon was winning the war with the unrestrictive bombing of North Vietnam, which was something Johnson would not do. If he would have invaded both Laos and Cambodia, the war would have ended sooner and there would still be a free and independent South Vietnam today not to mention millions more people alive in Cambodia because of the communist revolution after the war. The left has been wrong about everything.
This kind of disregards that the US bombings in Cambodia were a significant part of why the Khmer Rouge were even able to take power in Cambodia to begin with. USA shouldn't have even been in Vietnam in the first place, caused more mess than good by tearing up the Geneva Accords. Let each nation determine its own affairs for itself. National Self-Determination used to be a principle that actually meant something to this country, or at-least we said it did.
Vietnam is thriving under its socialist government. You guys had no business poking into others' affairs. The impunity with which civilians were neutralised and wildlife/flora destroyed shall remain engraved in world history forever. Unforgivable
When President Nixon stepped down from office, and nearly lost his life with the infection, he was still an American patriot. He advised all subsequent presidents until his death. They sought him out earnestly. President Clinton valued and prized the insight President Nixon provided to him, and sorely missed him when he died, feeling he lost a national treasure, which he did. Til the end, President Nixon served America.
Nixon's statement that there were no Cambodians in the area that was bombed is not true. There is evidence that there were significant numbers of Cambodian civilians living in the areas that were targeted by US bombing during the Vietnam War. A 1973 study by the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations found that "at least 100,000 and perhaps 500,000 Cambodian civilians" had been killed in US bombing raids. The study also found that the bombings had caused "massive displacement" of Cambodian civilians, with "hundreds of thousands" of people forced to flee their homes.
One thing I have never heard and will never hear is criticism of the North Vietnamese going into Laos and Cambodia (both separate sovereign countries) in order to transport military assets to attack South Vietnam, which was also a sovereign nation recognized by the United Nations. Obviously that point was completely lost on the long hairs protesting outside.
You can always find "legitimate reasons" for horrific acts during war. If he had pulled out American troops, they wouldn't have died in Vietnam. If he would have used that money saved, to invest in Vietnam as the USA did after the fall of Saigon, things would have been better for everybody, the N-Vietnamese, the S-Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the USA, etc.
@@ANTIStraussianSouth Vietnam became a Republic in 1955, which was when the north began its campaign towards the south. So both instances happened at around the same time.
Uhhh, America was investing in South-Vietnam and there is no guarantee that the South could sustain the invasion of the North as subsequent events proved. For example America compensated the landlords when the South enacted it's land-to-tiller law. Although late, it was arguably better than whatever the North had.
When he referenced WW2, part of me rolled my eyes, as I'm so accustomed to the fantastic and ridiculous comparisons made by the majority of politicians to justify bad policies. Yet the precedent he cited was very relevant and appropriate. Impressive.
The invasion of Cambodia was legal under international law. By the Hague Convention of 1908, if you harbor belligerents in your country, you are a belligerent. That goes for Cambodia and Palestine.
The best part is LBJ stopping Eisenhower from helping the French in 1954, only to have Vietnam come back and destroy his presidency 14 years later (nukes were discussed then too).
@@uclajd was LBJ really involved in influencing that decision? Do you know why he did it? I thought the lackluster support was mainly a decision that came from within the Eisenhower administration?
@@uclajd eisenhower wasn't gonna save the french and LBJ wasn't the cause of that lmfao. plus, it wouldn't have helped. the French demanding America nuke Vietnam over Dien Bien Phu was pure copium and it was insanity. The age of empires was ending, the French had gotten their asses handed to them, and they still refused to fully recognize this fact.
@@icouldntthinkofaname379 I didn't say Eisenhower was going to "save" the French, I said help. And had been helping the French ever since he was president (he gave them a billion a year for Vietnam in 1953). Nukes aren't the only way to help, but Ike did not believe in half measures. How you could construe my words as an endorsement of the French colonial experience or the Vietnam War is your error, not mine. And I said it was ironic that LBJ was against Vietnam involvement in the 1950's when it ruined his presidency, dude. I didn't say the French were going to win. Work on your reading comp skills.
Nixon didnt regret the decision, but I appreciate him telling the audience, the specifics on his line of thinking. I also appreciate the comparison to Eisenhower's invasion of Normandy.
Exactly, the media was the enemy during Vietnam, never reporting fairly on the other side, just like today in a certain middle east conflict. The commies invaded all of southeast Asia and killed millions! Hello, Khmer Rouge?!
@@capoislamort100 Well, it succeeded in what it tried to do. The purpose of the bombing campaign was to cut off North Vietnamese supply lines into China. And that was what it did successfully. However, looking with hindsight now, it is fair to say it maybe wasn’t the smartest thing in the world to do as it lead to further de stabilization of the region and the Khmer Rouge taking power in that nation later in the decade.
It made strategic sense. The United States could have made South Vietnam like South Korea if LBJ hadn't screwed it up. Nixon effectively ended the Vietnam War, but domestic politics made it so that he couldn't assist Vietnam with air power and supplies because Congress said no more. It's a disgrace how we abandoned our Vietnamese ally. You can't analyze the Vietnam War without explaining why it we succeeded in South Korea and why it couldn't have succeeded in South Vietnam.
And there was the threat of China getting involved with large numbers of troops if North Vietnam was taken over by South Vietnam with help from The US and others. That had happened during The Korean War when US troops pushed into North Korea. China send down large numbers of troops and The US troops had to retreat back down south. China didn't want a US Ally to be right on their border. North Vietnam was never going to give up or at least for a very long time. And had the North been taken over and the country ruled from Saigon even if China hadn't sent troops they'd still have been sending supplies to communist fighters in Vietnam. If The US had felt they couldn't allow the dominoes to fall but it was the wrong place to fight. That's putting aside the moral questions and desirability of such a war anyway but if such a war was justified and worth the price America should have only sent in combat troops into countries further away from China or The USSR. Had the war been fought in Thailand, for example, America and others could have provided the support to help defeat communism in Tailand and they wouldn't have had to worry about China sending in troops. It could have happened but it would have been far less likely. As things turned out there was no communist takeover of Tailand anyway but a war there would have been far easier for America than in Vietnam due to the proximity of the Chinese border. Also had China started sending troops into Vietnam what then? America didn't want to start bombing China like they were bombing Cambodia. I think China had nukes by that point. Not a lot but they had some. Even without the nukes America didn't want to risk a war with China.
He illegally bombed and invaded Cambodia and killed thousands of innocents. Then this destabilized Cambodia which lead directly to Pol Pot. Horrible mistake, and it was done secretly and illegally. He says it would have ended the war sooner, but that isn’t true either.
The big crime was Henry Kissinger ordering carpet bombings of the so-called 'sanctuary' areas inside the Cambodian border. When the CIA ops, monitoring the scene, reported back to Kissinger that the bombs were having no effect, Kissinger ordered more bombings. He did this repeatedly and got the same results each time. This was chronicled in one of the books authored by one of those CIA agents. I believe it was Robert Shawcross. This was one of the reasons Kissinger was a wanted war criminal who escaped justice.
What does a "legal bombing" or a "legal invasion" look like? I'm sick to death of this nonsense word being thrown around when discussing international affairs. Like what higher authority out there makes it a "legal" or "illegal" act? Would you say it would be the United Nations Security Council? Because most of the security actions of most countries in the last 70 years weren't authorized by said council.
The issue with that was it was correct until WW2 where the US propped up a communist state with new technologies, geopolitical power, raw materials, and equipment. If the US let the Nazis and soviets annihilate each other in war and stayed out we could’ve kept on our isolationist past but after ww2 we couldn’t just let the people we just propped up go about taking over the world…
@@sofialoppe6255 Are you aware that the Soviet Union defeated the Nazis not America? The Soviet Red Army killed over 85% of the German Wehrmacht Army. You are aware that the British & Americans allowed the Soviet Union to occupy most of Eastern Europe? You are aware that most armed conflicts & violent regime changes since WW2 were committed by the American CIA & American military?
@@sofialoppe6255 The U.S. literally allowed the Soviets and Nazis to kills each other. The vast majority of the casualties during the European theatre took place on the Eastern Front. The U.S. military didn’t even enter the European theatre until late 1944. My goodness your knowledge of WW2 is very very very very very very very very small. If I were you, I’d actually comment less and read more. Word to the wise, pick up some history books and read and comment less. ✌️cheers mate
@@Thunderchild-gz4gc that’s absolute nonsense! They knew that unnecessary foreign wars lead to bankruptcy and only bring death and destruction for the civilian populations
@@ultimatespidybawlz2198 Well, in 1979. But this was in 1978. Hanoi did everyone a favor by toppling Pol Pot, but in 1970 they were violating Cambodian sovereignty to conduct their war of aggression against South Vietnam. They did the same to Laos.
What he was impeached for would not even be considered an impeachable offense in this day and age. He was a good man who got shafted by members of his own campaign committee. Sad
Everyone’s praising him for forming a sentence, but he doesn’t engage the question at all. Responding to if he regrets his decision in light of the consequences, he only justifies his motivations. If I went to the grocery store and got food poisoning from the stuff I bought, I would say that I regret having gone, even though my reasons for going were justified
A Real President. Best President of All Time! Most Productive! Most Caring! & Worked the Hardest! For The Country! & The American People! Not wishy-washy muddled words to appease Special Interests!
If you listen carefully you can hear the 2 million Cambodians being purged in the genocide, which was only ended when the Vietcong liberated the country. "Some scholars, including Michael Ignatieff, Adam Jones and Greg Grandin, have cited the United States intervention and bombing campaign from 1965 to 1973 as a significant factor that led to increased support for the Khmer Rouge among the Cambodian peasantry. According to Ben Kiernan, the Khmer Rouge "would not have won power without U.S. economic and military destabilization of Cambodia. ... It used the bombing's devastation and massacre of civilians as recruitment propaganda and as an excuse for its brutal, radical policies and its purge of moderate communists and Sihanoukists."
Yes exactly, the US essentially turned Cambodia from a neutral state to a violent communist hostile state. Idk what they expected from carpet bombing civilians.
Spot-on. North Vietnam invaded Cambodia and used it as a base. The US would have been defenseless without efforts to cut off the troops and supplies pouring in down the Ho Chi Minh trail. If North Vietnam had not used Cambodia and Laos in this manner, there would not have been US military action in either place.
I don’t understand why your point isn’t made more often? I just continually hear that the US illegally bombed those countries, like they were out to get the water buffaloes or something.
History was cruel to Cambodia due to the destabilizing affect of the Vietnamese presence. The indochina communist party initially consisted of members from now Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The Viets wanted to be in control. It led to the horrors of the Khmer Rouge and unknown situations in Vietnam. Luckily Vietnam chose to invade Cambodia and end the Pol Pot regime, which had started border incursions into Vietnam
@@itsjustme4848 They used the neutral country of Cambodia as a safe conduit and staging area for their invasion of South Vietnam. The Vietnamese communists also wanted to control the Indo Chinese Communist Party. How hard is it to see cause and effect? A bit like the Palestinians refusing 2 state solutions everytime offered and continuing terror attacks and blaming Israel. Americans were not known for their cultural sensitivity back then, not even now, so the end result is evident when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians. The South would have developped like Southern Korea or Taiwan. The supposed corruption, which was such a sellling point for Hanoi back then, is the same now. With exactly the same institutionalized system in place
@@marcblank3036 The South Vietnamese government (particularly under Ngô Đình Diệm) was very, very corrupt. Not to mention, the authoritarianism and abuse of human rights in those regimes fundamentally undermined any foundation for a future South Vietnamese state.
The USA destabilised Cambodia. Why would the USA be so quiet about its bombing campaign if they believed it was only effective at targeting the north Vietnamese? Spoilers: It wasn't. It was indiscriminate and gave greater support to the Khmer Rouge from Cambodians. Your neolib revisionist nonsense is only just that.
Love this man. Has a backbone and isn't apologetic. Gives direct and candid answers. Laos and Cambodia were staging grounds for hundreds of thousands of North Vietnamese troops and Chinese auxiliaries that were in the middle of an illegal invasion of their southern neighbor, and attacking US troops. Nixon didn't start that war, but he's the one that finished it.
If American politics hadn't forced President Nixon into retirement, the Viet commies would not be able to defeat S. Vietnam. At least, not when President Nixon was in the White House. President Ford was a very good president and a kind man but he was reluctant to get back into that losing conflict because the South Vietnamese people didn't want to fight. They also didn't know how bad the commies were going to be. After 1975, Vietnam's economy stagnated or depressed for almost 20 years.
He is the most underrated president. Nobody is perfect, and everything is comparative. In comparison, President Nixon was a far better president than every president that we have had since 1992.
Well some people claim he was the last Liberal President we had. Other People claim Watergate was a Deep State Op to get rid of Nixon because like Trump (and possibly Carter) he didn't; want to go along with the plans of the Deep State. the last sentence I don't agree with, but some people do.
The mistake is promising the American people peace in Vietnam, and then taking years to implement it. Prolonging the conflict for 'peace with honor' lead to more American deaths and unfortunate dilemmas like the Cambodia invasion. To Nixon's credit, this was an excellent answer and there's nothing much to criticize in this specific policy decision.
Thank you, President Nixon! ... it was not an "invasion" of Cambodia ... it was a necessary strategic military action to save American military lives and help end the war.
He killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in order to preemptively protect American soldiers who were illegally fighting nearby in a country that overwhelmingly wanted them gone. He could have protected everyone by simply withdrawing his troops.
It was a cold hearted decision to end thousands of families in order to preserve American pride and hegemony in a region which wanted them gone finally.@@matthewnikitas8905
@@matthewnikitas8905 Yeah, it worked; the Khmer Rouge would eventually come to power because of it... The results are evident. Yeah, it worked; Vietnam eventually won anyway. It also worked when he prolonged the Vietnam war by years by sabotaging peace talks just to become president. Wonder what you have to say about Nixon supporting the Bangladesh genocide and the genocide of millions... He even tried to cover it up and sent weapons to Pakistan (which they used to kill Bengalis) EVEN AFTER CONGRESS SAID NO. Why people still continue to shill for this war criminal is astounding. Just incredible ignorance.
Help end the war? We lost the war. We could have withdrawn from Vietnam when he first took office (He said he had a secret plan to end the war which was BS) ending all the killing and leaving Cambodia stable, with the same results. He broadened and extended the war, and we lost anyway.
As an Army vet who served during the Vietnam war in 70-71, I know that what Nixon says here is true. Our troops over there loved him for it. LBJ got us in that mess and Nixon got us out. He also created the volunteer Army.
I like how you make that distinction. Only war criminals. Almost implies that yes, while older politicians were also war criminals, at least they were smart 😂 Being smart doesn't justify war crimes. It makes it less justifiable, as they should know better.
Nixon and Kissinger were war criminals not only that they didn't even trust the US military system to carry out some of their attacks so they set up back channels to make sure no one would interfere and ask questions that could stop their work.
I guess the option that we had no security interest whatsoever in Vietnam and thus should have never been there to begin with, never occurred to Tricky Dick.
Dude, he is pathetically trying to justify killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people by claiming it was a preemptive strike to defend the troops that had no reason to be there, fighting an illegal war against a population who did not want them there. He's a warmonger and a murderer making really silly excuses. He just is somewhat well spoken so people are acting like he's something special.
In June 1969 Nixon announced the withdrawal of 25,000 U.S. troops from Vietnam. In September he announced further troop withdrawals, and by March 1970 he was announcing the phased withdrawal of 150,000 troops over the next year. Nixon's The One.
And then Cambodia fell into chaos of immensely tragic proportions, and we went on to lose the war in Vietnam anyway. Yup, Nixon’s the one …….who did that.
@@itsjustme4848Uhhhhh.....LBJ??.......Pol Pot?? Democrats love to start wars. Uncle Joe is getting us closer by the day. Come on all you big strong men..........
@itsjustme4848 Cambodia was already deep in chaos in 1970 because North Vietnam had invaded that country (as well as Laos) and was using it as a sanctuary for their supply lines and for military operations (against American troops) to support their insane military aggression against their neighbors ... thankfully, Nixon put an end to that ... and we didn't lose the war ... South Vietnam, North Vietnam, and the United States signed the Paris Peace Accords in January of 1973 ... North Vietnam had basically been defeated on the battlefield, especially after the intense B-52 Christmas bombings of Hanoi and Haiphong and the mining of Haiphong harbor in late 1972 ... virtually all American ground troops were long gone by the time of the peace deal ... but North Vietnam, rearmed with Russian tanks and supplies, violated the provisions of the Paris peace treaty and later re-invaded the South in 1975 and finally toppled the government and took control of the country ... Democrats in Congress had cut off all military aid and assistance to South Vietnam, so the South Vietnamese couldn't defend their country ... again, American troops were long gone at that point ... and, contrary to the main stream media and Walter Cronkite, American troops never lost a major battle in the Vietnam War, including the Tet Offensive in 1968 ... the Viet Cong (the Communist insurgency in South Vietnam) was virtually wiped out after Tet.
Despite his personal and personality problems and the possibility that he may not have been a safe president, Richard Nixon was a smart guy who had plenty to teach. It was probably good that Henry Kissinger was a cabinet member. RS. Canada
Good point about the Normandy invasion of 1944. We weren't invading France but trying to destroy the German forces there. He was right about Red troops in Cambodia. All North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong forces.
And warmonger. Millions of Vietnamese dead, America defeated, and now we trade goods with Vietnam. It's like Afghanistan: 20 years of fighting to overthrow the Taliban, and today the Taliban is back in power. All those dead Americans and Afghans, for nothing.
When it came to understanding the geopolitical landscape of his time Nixon was a master statesman. You may not like his policies or his character but you cannot deny he knew his craft well.
I don’t mind the terminology of invasion. It’s just that he had to avoid it because these kids are so idiotically and emotionally charged based on associations with words and not their plain practical meaning. Bringing up an invasion of an occupied country they do have a hard time objecting to on an emotional gut level was a better move. Also, EXACTLY. It needs to be plainly stated more and MORE by those who actually know and aren’t still held mentally captive by the narrative in education and pop culture surrounding the Vietnam war. Nixon did not expand the war into Laos and Cambodia. North Vietnam did, and by extension their allies who supplied them massively. Nixon’s response was long overdue. It should’ve happened under LBJ’s but he was too much of a politically minded idiot to run anything correctly. He left us in a horrible position. Just to put it bluntly. And for anybody who brings up the Khmer Rouge (the new darling of leftist academia into around the 80s and early 90s), they were allowed to fester because we didn’t sufficiently help Cambodia earlier. They did not come to power because of bombings on and near North Vietnamese base and operating locations. They were kept going directly due to North Vietnamese support, as well as the supplies they were receiving from outside communist states. Blaming their rise all or even chiefly on the USA is an idiotic false narrative mostly propagated by the same leftist academics and activist once even they could no longer defend the Khmer Rouge in polite society. Thank you for providing at least some of these countering correct facts and perspectives to at least some additional people. My thank you to the Richard Nixon Foundation.
I mean they bombed the hell out of civilians (some say close to 500,000), with 540,000 tons of bombs. That is simply inhumane, in total Indochina bombing was far more than the whole of ww2 by a factor of 3. All in the name of "sphere of influence" (power). It's all past us now but I don't believe much could justify that, not even ISIL being there, especially when the bombing campaign was secret and not approved by congress. The only good thing to come out of it is that America accepts a good chunk of refugees form Indochina, which is more than what can be said about Iraq/
It was because of bombing because many people are dead and homeless. The bombing were dropped weighted near 2.7 million tons more than the allies bombs in WW2 only 2 million tons. Those rural people would hate the Lon Nol government which was an US allies and support Khmer Rouge.
Well from a war point he's correct. The real problem was conducting the war to begin with. It was a extension of a French colonial war and they were sick of all European colonialism and America by extension.
Yes it was fucking dumb to ignore the French experience, but Nixon inherited "Johnson's goddamn war" as RN used to say. He had to play the cards he was dealt, and the north was totally in the ropes after Tet 1968, but they knew the US didn't have the will by the time Nixon took over, so they held out. If only Nixon hadn't been cheated out of that 1960 win, we would have never been there. Kennedy's fault!
I don’t believe it’s correct to say “they were all sick of America”, South Vietnam still had millions of people who supported it. Besides, just because some commies in the north didn’t like it, doesn’t give them the right to invade.
No it was NOT a French colonial war extension, it was a Soviet colonial war extension where they used their North Vietnamese proxies to invade three innocent countries. We helped those countries defend themselves.
@@tedmccarron Back to the Red scare. Regardless what business is it of ours to fight wars half way around the world. And we lost because they were willing to fight on indefinitely. We've lost every Guerilla war we've ever fought in. Because its a never ending war.
Even though I personally disagree with how excessive the bombings of Cambodia were, I at least respect Nixon for standing there and giving a straight and cogent answer instead of evading or dodging the question, like most politicians today would.
For once, his deputy Mike Pence can could coherently answer well read and well informed Oxford students. But Trump's(or even Biden's) current state of mind doesn't even permit him speak to kindergarten students.
This was back when at least some political figures actually gave an answer to the question, instead of sidestepping and evading it with rhetoric that avoids the question being asked.
Nowadays they have paid advisors to help them evade answering questions & scrutiny. If you ever have to encounter a junkie you'll find the behaviour is similar; they'll do anything & say anything to get their way. With politicians it's greed.
Well they actually had to think during this time. Nowadays you can have a vegetable as a president , and they don't even have to be pretty. Literally just any old human that can barely stand and make movements will do.
He is a war criminal. Take your 'answers' and shove it up your $$.
Oh honey, he is sidestepping the question by lying about no one being in that part of the country.
Nixon's sidestepping the question by leaving out that he invaded Cambodia so that he could later try to make himself look like a hero by getting out. He's 100% BS'ing up there
At least Nixon could explain himself clearly.
He didn't explain it, he was clearly lying to the public. Please do your own research. As a result of his decision, how many Cambodian villagers died all those years of his millions and millions of his bombing. Look up/google: "Why did Nixon bomb Cambodia?" See an article done at Yale Univ.
Mass murdering narcissists love to show you how smart they are...
and convincingly
The protesters can be heard - outside - throughout this appearance. At one point, Nixon acknowledged their presence not as a rowdy annoyance, but as a healthy thing necessary in a democracy. That was Nixon.
No, childishly shouting to try to drown out Nixon with a heckler's veto is not healthy.
@@uclajd No offense intended, but if that's what Nixon felt, it doesn't show. There's nothing wrong with him taking this sort of thing in stride.
I believe his hosts and audience at Oxford would have thought less of him if he'd thrown a fit and asked for the police to clear the area - or cancelled his appearance.
He wasn't afraid or intimidated by protesters. This is the same man who in 1970 - at the height of protests during the Vietnam war - made an impulsive early morning trip to the Lincoln Memorial to talk to protesters in order to try to figure out some sort of common ground.
Best wishes from Vermont 🍁
A president would have been derelict of his duties if he did not bomb the enemy hiding in that section of Cambodia. He would have failed his duties, as Commander in Chief ,to the soldiers in harms way
@@TheStockwell absolutely 🎯 ... you must be one of The Green Mountain Boys .
The 1960s were a very difficult time politically, financially, religiously, school agenda wise. It was horrible being a young white man in America at the time. A reasonable question from the young white man in the audience. Nixon did his best to give a reasonable answer. I can not imagine Biden or Kamala Harris giving a sensible answer today concerning: Ukraine, Gaza, or other political hot spots today. The Constitution framers warned us about foreign agreements with other countries. They said, do not make them. Be an isolationist. Let people in their own countries handle their own problems. Vietnam is now totally Communist and united. America has normal trade relations with Vietnam. My neighbor and brother were drafted and sent to Vietnam. My neighbor’s remains came back to America in a plastic bag, contained in a metal box, arriving at McChord Air Force Base.
A President who actually answers questions in great detail!!
Jack the Ripper. "But you see, I had to kill them, They were prostitutes". Quite honest, eh? Depraved also. Like Nixon and the war. Jack the Ripper was a great monster. So was Richard Nixon. The fact that he was intelligent often was irrelevant when his deep shadow was driving him.
He didn't explain it, he was clearly lying to the public. Please do your own research. As a result of his decision, how many Cambodian villagers died all those years of his millions and millions of his bombing. Look up/google: "Why did Nixon bomb Cambodia?" See an article done at Yale Univ.
Brilliant response. I'm thankful he had the courage to back his decision up.
He didn't explain it, he was clearly lying to the public. Please do your own research. As a result of his decision, how many Cambodian villagers died all those years of his millions and millions of his bombing. Look up/google: "Why did Nixon bomb Cambodia?" See an article done at Yale Univ.
Interesting of how the audience was polite and listening.
except outside the building 😂
It's not homogenous room
@lilakscythey are probably in high ranking positions all throughout society what do you mean? Not everyone’s goal is to become a celebrity.
@@maknavickas No they were probably high. And now they're dead.
@@dyslexicbatnam1350 Most are definitly not dead lol, they would be like 70 now.
Nixon despite his many issues always stood his ground and seemed to have inner strength that is lacking severely today!
On Nixon’s first day as President, the Democrats who ran the White House for the previous eight years and the Democrats who overwhelmingly controlled Congress, already had 550,000 troops in Vietnam.
LBJ was the decision maker on everything Vietnam as he was a major investor on military industry corporations...the congress was just manipulated with his fake stories
Speaking as an American combat Vietnam veteran (US Army 505 PIR 82nd Airborne Division) I am damn glad that we had a great, highly intelligent and articulate President such as Pres. Richard M. Nixon. It was a tremendously difficult task to begin to wind down the War, and finally withdraw from Vietnam. Only a President with a deep knowledge of Foreign Affairs, such as Richard Nixon, could successfully handle such an immensely huge, tough task!
As we've all witnessed, a President that is not as adroit, intelligent, and quick thinking such as Nixon was. can create a terrible Fiasco such as our withdrawal from Afghanistan. Our ENEMIES were actually still killing our Troops as we were leaving at the airport! What a shame! How sad! I give total credit to President Nixon for all he did to lessen the pain of Vietnam. Nixon will go down in American History as one of America's finest Presidents. God Rest Pres. Nixon's noble Soul.
Right on great president
How was it in Vietnam??? But the withdrawal from Saigon was probably the ultimate humiliation in American history, less than a year after Nixon resigned... No one cares much about Afghanistan, unfortunately...
With all that has come into the light after all these years I find it hard to believe you would defend this man’s leadership.
He literally halted peace talks to help his bid for the presidency. From that point on 10,000 troops died including my uncle.
Unbelievable
It's easy for people to exploit the advantage of hindsight with regard to Nixon. I appreciate the insight from a combat veteran that chewed the very dirt he was discussing in this clip. Thank you for your perspective, it is invaluable.
@@danf1862 Its hindsight that can offer a real glimpse of what a man does or thinks. True, he was a intelligent and articulate politician.
But since we know so much more 50 years later let not forget what he ultimately did:
I mean, making a deal with S. Vietnamese leader to stall peace talks to boost his poll numbers? Then lies about it. Meanwhile, 10,000 more GIs were killed till the actually end of the war. Discussions of the use of nuclear weapons or flooding the Mekong Delta? I mean, these are the markings of a man with serious character flaws!
C'mon guys! Stop with the blind political faith already! Jeesh
That question was asked by Michael Crick today a well known journalist and author
ah Crick, Newsnight's old enfant terrible....
Apparently about as biased and deranged as most "journalists" were during the Vietnam war.
@@uclajd he was a student at the time and it was 1978
@@uclajd The question was definitely not a softball, but it was still a valid question. The question was biased, but it was honest. Nixon's answer was quite good. The question would have been dishonest if was phrased something like, _"Do you regret deciding to become a murderer of thousands of innocent peace loving Cambodians?"_
@@uclajd as traitor for china iran taliban criminals/terrorist joe bi dems said, after Elon took over twitter now X, "we still Con trol 98% of the media" AND that is not good.
You won’t see regular people asking tough questions to President these days.
Megyn Kelly tried it with Trump and was nearly crucified for it.
@@joeyfitz9well trump isnt the president anymore so
@@joeyfitz9 Was this over the "tough question" of giving a loaded question about Trump's view of a couple celebrity women? Because if so, that wasn't a tough question in the slightest.
What about the man who asked Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to say something nice about each other
“Mr President, what day is it?” would be a tough question for Biden.
Wow. Nixon's comparison asking if invading Normandy was for the purpose of invading France (because it wasn't) was so well stated. My vivid memories of growing up in the 1960's with sound of Nixon's voice & the daily fear hearing of our neighborhood male teenagers dying in Vietnam always left us kids wondering, man.....who do we trust? Really Tough times, back then.
Love or hate the man, we are privileged to be in a society where our leaders can be inquired and be put on the spot to explain his actions. As a leader of a nation, Nixon had to constantly make difficult choices, choices where the best incomes were nearly impossible given the circumstances. Most people in the world don't have what it takes to be a leader that's just the reality of life.
Dude that was as Oxford where there is no First Amendment. Not exactly a privileged society unless you are an LGBT Muslim.
we dont live in that society anymore
You guys have no idea. I wouldn’t even dream of doing something similar in West Asia.
I agree, but the current leaders hardly reflect on the past or on themselves such that they make self-righteous decisions without thinking about the unintended consequences. Nixon isn't around to fix the negative consequences he brought as a result of the difficult choices he made, but that isn't something that the current politician can just ignore, because the consequences of the decisions by the past leaders will carry on onto the nation far beyond their terms.
I'm sure Nixon would have thought twice about floating the dollar if he could somehow see into the future and knew that the future leaders completely lack the sense of critical self-reflection and will abuse the monetary system out of ignorance and for political self-interests.
Hard decisions like Watergate 😅
Did anyone notice how refreshing it was to hear a question which was short and not long and drawn out like today?
Yeah an he even referenced how he didn’t want to filibuster cause that’s just how it was
A lot of people don't understand that about questions. the longer you make the question the more opportunity you give for them to weasel out of giving a proper answer
Definitely
@@sayno2lolzisbackby the time some people get to the end of their question, throwing in a million caveats, I can only really remember the last thing they said anyway. Keep it simple stupid!
“As a black, Latinx, Mormon woman of color and diverse inclusion LGBTQIA-allied, I was wondering why you invaded the land of Cambodia and why are you a bigot????????”
Nixon is lying here: King Sihanouk never offered his consent to the US bombing of Cambodia. In reality, he severed diplomatic ties with the US in May 1965 after knowing the US bombardment against Cambodia. Sihanouk's left-wing policy eventually led the US to support General Lon Nol to overthrow Sihanouk's regime and forced Sihanouk to seek refuge in China. The establishment of a Junta led by Lon Nol severely destabilized the political situation in Cambodia and directly caused the rise of Pol Pot.
Based
"King Sihanouk never offered his consent to the US bombing of Cambodia"
You were listening in that phone call were you?
I'm not saying Nixon isn't lying, but none of us have anyway of knowing what was really going on.
"he severed diplomatic ties "
One thing we do know is that 'diplomatic ties' are a song and dance routine played purely for political purposes. No reality can ever be gleaned from watching that pantomime play out.
@@gooble69 Sihanouk's discontent with US is well documented, so did the role that US played in overthrowing him. Also，historical agnosticism is just a coping mechanism for narcissistic ignorance.
@@pechorin5842 "is well documented"
Cool story.. What else other over-simplified versions of history did you read on the Internet then automatically believe?
Tell me more about how you know more about the private conversations between Nixon and Sihanouk than Nixon himself, this should be a laugh...
Even if Sihanouk said no, Nixzon and Kissenger would have ordered the bombing anyway because Cambodia was too weak to stop it. Shitty justification.
Imagine either of the last two presidents being able to respond like this. The political class has become weaker and weaker
Trump easily responded to questions like this
Exactly. The last 2
One because is a clown and has poor vocabulary to articulate coherent arguments, and the other one because it's too old and has trouble articulating coherent arguments
Both Trump and Biden pander for votes like there's no tomorrow. Politicians obviously have to get elected, but gerrymandering and social media echo chambers are driving politicians to leave principles behind in favor of winning shallow popularity contests.
Trump would have answered this with a word salad and gotten the most basic facts about the war wrong, and claimed the civillian casualties were fake news.@@DonaldDucksRevenge
I think he was 65 here. Biden and Trump are nowhere near that age so don't expect them to be as coherent as a 65-year-old would/should be. 70s is too old for president in my opinion.
Richard Nixon was a real person, with all the goodness and failings of the human character. He never claimed to be anything else. His manner and style of speaking and presentation is the best of any US President, in my humble opinion. 🙏
Speaking Lincoln, Writing: Thomas Jefferson, Presentation: Adams.
A respectful dialogue! Whether you agreed or not. Refreshing.
Pretty convincing answer but these wars have caused so much pain and suffering for the people of those nations as well as the American troops that had to fight in them. Still pretty good answer.
It explains his thinking at the time. The question remains, given the horrors as a consequence to the invasion, was it worth it?
Was D Day worth it?
@@TheBatugan77I dony know if you can compare d-day and Cambodia. The circumstances and results of the two are varied.
At least Nixon faced protesters face to face. He also did this years earlier as president. Blame Vietnam on the psychopath LBJ.
NO!!! Blame Vietnam on Ho Chi Minh and communism.
Nixon was treated the same as Trump
Republican who the democrats hated because they were actually getting things done
Nixon got us out of vietnam and received no credit
@@hyzercreek Don't be ridiculous.
@@ronniecozzi8385 How is that ridiculous?
@@hyzercreekHo chi minh was a hero
He was a great President especially about foreign policy!
He considered us Irish as bunch of violent drunkards lol 😂
That’s a very good answer to the young man’s question, I must say.
It might have come across as being knowledgeable, but it a pathological lie.
@@brucebrand3068 I didn’t say that it was a knowledgable answer, I say that it was a good answer.
@@Ludovicus1769 It was not my intention to contradict or to misrepresent what you said . However, be it good or knowledgeable , it's a lie. My apologies.
@@brucebrand3068 There is no need to apologise, I understand that what Nixon said here was, frankly speaking, bullshit. And as such, my comment was perhaps a bit vague.
Peace, Lord give us peace.
Hmm, maybe someone should ask Henry Kissinger about this.
Oh wait...
He had talked about it in his lifetime. Now I apologize in advance that I don't remember exactly where he said this but he did admit to bombing Cambodia being a regret.
that was awesome. liked and subscribed
See when people listen to each other without trying to yell them down - you get (rightly or wrongly) an answer to the question.
The aviation units on the border were going into Cambodia every day. Because, according to father, “that’s where all the action was”.
I’m a first generation born American. I thought my dad’s stories was just fear monger bs. Until a US AF major literally cried when my father told him we are Cambodian. They are best friends now. I learned how to shut my mouth after that.
Normally when someone mentions Eisenhower its like who are they to use his name? In this case he was his Vice President for 8 years. He knows him good enough.
The more I listen the more I agree with President Nixon
And today we know that Nixon was telling the truth about everything. Cambodia, and Laos were full on NVA divisions who would strike South Vietnam and retreat across the border to safety because the US was banned from striking it. The stupid protesters ruined our country. I am a veteran, and I am against war and Vietnam was a mess. However Nixon was winning the war with the unrestrictive bombing of North Vietnam, which was something Johnson would not do. If he would have invaded both Laos and Cambodia, the war would have ended sooner and there would still be a free and independent South Vietnam today not to mention millions more people alive in Cambodia because of the communist revolution after the war. The left has been wrong about everything.
This kind of disregards that the US bombings in Cambodia were a significant part of why the Khmer Rouge were even able to take power in Cambodia to begin with.
USA shouldn't have even been in Vietnam in the first place, caused more mess than good by tearing up the Geneva Accords. Let each nation determine its own affairs for itself. National Self-Determination used to be a principle that actually meant something to this country, or at-least we said it did.
Vietnam is thriving under its socialist government. You guys had no business poking into others' affairs. The impunity with which civilians were neutralised and wildlife/flora destroyed shall remain engraved in world history forever. Unforgivable
When President Nixon stepped down from office, and nearly lost his life with the infection, he was still an American patriot. He advised all subsequent presidents until his death. They sought him out earnestly. President Clinton valued and prized the insight President Nixon provided to him, and sorely missed him when he died, feeling he lost a national treasure, which he did. Til the end, President Nixon served America.
Nixon's statement that there were no Cambodians in the area that was bombed is not true. There is evidence that there were significant numbers of Cambodian civilians living in the areas that were targeted by US bombing during the Vietnam War.
A 1973 study by the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations found that "at least 100,000 and perhaps 500,000 Cambodian civilians" had been killed in US bombing raids. The study also found that the bombings had caused "massive displacement" of Cambodian civilians, with "hundreds of thousands" of people forced to flee their homes.
Regardless, it doesn't take away from the fact that what had to be done was done.
Khumar Rouge what helped by U.S goverment when their was a genocide happening to their people by Pol Pot
Those numbers are obviously greatly exaggerated.
@@justmyownpersonalopinionReally?
@@jed4281 what a stupid statement. Cos what was supposed to be done wasn't even done.
One thing I have never heard and will never hear is criticism of the North Vietnamese going into Laos and Cambodia (both separate sovereign countries) in order to transport military assets to attack South Vietnam, which was also a sovereign nation recognized by the United Nations. Obviously that point was completely lost on the long hairs protesting outside.
Telling people what they don't want to hear. At least they let Nixon answer the question they asked.
First generation of elders no one should consult; The Hippies.
He's right
You can always find "legitimate reasons" for horrific acts during war. If he had pulled out American troops, they wouldn't have died in Vietnam. If he would have used that money saved, to invest in Vietnam as the USA did after the fall of Saigon, things would have been better for everybody, the N-Vietnamese, the S-Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the USA, etc.
Was there a south Vietnam before the war?
@@ANTIStraussianSouth Vietnam became a Republic in 1955, which was when the north began its campaign towards the south. So both instances happened at around the same time.
Uhhh, America was investing in South-Vietnam and there is no guarantee that the South could sustain the invasion of the North as subsequent events proved. For example America compensated the landlords when the South enacted it's land-to-tiller law. Although late, it was arguably better than whatever the North had.
And now in 2023, we have president dipper.
When he referenced WW2, part of me rolled my eyes, as I'm so accustomed to the fantastic and ridiculous comparisons made by the majority of politicians to justify bad policies.
Yet the precedent he cited was very relevant and appropriate. Impressive.
The invasion of Cambodia was legal under international law. By the Hague Convention of 1908, if you harbor belligerents in your country, you are a belligerent. That goes for Cambodia and Palestine.
* Those 'belligerents' in Palestine being Israelis, of course
If only he didn’t have watergate. We need men like him. Would have been remembered as the greatest president otherwise
personally i think he was disappointed with himself that he didnt use the nuke. He wanted too some days and was advised against it.
The best part is LBJ stopping Eisenhower from helping the French in 1954, only to have Vietnam come back and destroy his presidency 14 years later (nukes were discussed then too).
@@uclajd was LBJ really involved in influencing that decision? Do you know why he did it? I thought the lackluster support was mainly a decision that came from within the Eisenhower administration?
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 Yeah, but it’s fashionable to bash LBJ so reality doesn’t really matter.
@@uclajd eisenhower wasn't gonna save the french and LBJ wasn't the cause of that lmfao. plus, it wouldn't have helped. the French demanding America nuke Vietnam over Dien Bien Phu was pure copium and it was insanity. The age of empires was ending, the French had gotten their asses handed to them, and they still refused to fully recognize this fact.
@@icouldntthinkofaname379
I didn't say Eisenhower was going to "save" the French, I said help. And had been helping the French ever since he was president (he gave them a billion a year for Vietnam in 1953). Nukes aren't the only way to help, but Ike did not believe in half measures. How you could construe my words as an endorsement of the French colonial experience or the Vietnam War is your error, not mine. And I said it was ironic that LBJ was against Vietnam involvement in the 1950's when it ruined his presidency, dude. I didn't say the French were going to win. Work on your reading comp skills.
A leader who told the truth.
One can hear a big mouse, outside. It's the people who are incapable of hearing and think.
Nixon didnt regret the decision, but I appreciate him telling the audience, the specifics on his line of thinking.
I also appreciate the comparison to Eisenhower's invasion of Normandy.
Exactly, the media was the enemy during Vietnam, never reporting fairly on the other side, just like today in a certain middle east conflict. The commies invaded all of southeast Asia and killed millions! Hello, Khmer Rouge?!
I mean, he was Eisenhower VP
@@bintangwicaksana3689Not just that. It was a fairly equivocal comparison that made what he did seem like the right thing to do. And it was.
@@capoislamort100 Well, it succeeded in what it tried to do. The purpose of the bombing campaign was to cut off North Vietnamese supply lines into China. And that was what it did successfully. However, looking with hindsight now, it is fair to say it maybe wasn’t the smartest thing in the world to do as it lead to further de stabilization of the region and the Khmer Rouge taking power in that nation later in the decade.
The VietCong and North Vietnamese did not occupy and control Cambodia. The comparison to WWII France is just silly.
It made strategic sense. The United States could have made South Vietnam like South Korea if LBJ hadn't screwed it up. Nixon effectively ended the Vietnam War, but domestic politics made it so that he couldn't assist Vietnam with air power and supplies because Congress said no more. It's a disgrace how we abandoned our Vietnamese ally. You can't analyze the Vietnam War without explaining why it we succeeded in South Korea and why it couldn't have succeeded in South Vietnam.
Korea was easier because there was nothing like the Ho Chi Minh Trail running through neighboring countries.
Why do you like to fragment countries? Do you even live in earth or are you the agent of the Devil sent to earth spreading confusion upon the people?
And there was the threat of China getting involved with large numbers of troops if North Vietnam was taken over by South Vietnam with help from The US and others. That had happened during The Korean War when US troops pushed into North Korea. China send down large numbers of troops and The US troops had to retreat back down south. China didn't want a US Ally to be right on their border. North Vietnam was never going to give up or at least for a very long time. And had the North been taken over and the country ruled from Saigon even if China hadn't sent troops they'd still have been sending supplies to communist fighters in Vietnam. If The US had felt they couldn't allow the dominoes to fall but it was the wrong place to fight. That's putting aside the moral questions and desirability of such a war anyway but if such a war was justified and worth the price America should have only sent in combat troops into countries further away from China or The USSR. Had the war been fought in Thailand, for example, America and others could have provided the support to help defeat communism in Tailand and they wouldn't have had to worry about China sending in troops. It could have happened but it would have been far less likely. As things turned out there was no communist takeover of Tailand anyway but a war there would have been far easier for America than in Vietnam due to the proximity of the Chinese border. Also had China started sending troops into Vietnam what then? America didn't want to start bombing China like they were bombing Cambodia. I think China had nukes by that point. Not a lot but they had some. Even without the nukes America didn't want to risk a war with China.
I wish Nixon had won in 1960. No Hart Celler Act
Worst immigration act ever signed, led to the downfall of America
@@DRGWRailfan Yikes, just admit you're an apartheid racist.
He illegally bombed and invaded Cambodia and killed thousands of innocents. Then this destabilized Cambodia which lead directly to Pol Pot. Horrible mistake, and it was done secretly and illegally. He says it would have ended the war sooner, but that isn’t true either.
The big crime was Henry Kissinger ordering carpet bombings of the so-called 'sanctuary' areas inside the Cambodian border. When the CIA ops, monitoring the scene, reported back to Kissinger that the bombs were having no effect, Kissinger ordered more bombings. He did this repeatedly and got the same results each time. This was chronicled in one of the books authored by one of those CIA agents. I believe it was Robert Shawcross. This was one of the reasons Kissinger was a wanted war criminal who escaped justice.
What does a "legal bombing" or a "legal invasion" look like? I'm sick to death of this nonsense word being thrown around when discussing international affairs. Like what higher authority out there makes it a "legal" or "illegal" act? Would you say it would be the United Nations Security Council? Because most of the security actions of most countries in the last 70 years weren't authorized by said council.
Our American founding fathers warned us “beware of getting involved in unnecessary foreign entanglements”
The issue with that was it was correct until WW2 where the US propped up a communist state with new technologies, geopolitical power, raw materials, and equipment. If the US let the Nazis and soviets annihilate each other in war and stayed out we could’ve kept on our isolationist past but after ww2 we couldn’t just let the people we just propped up go about taking over the world…
@@sofialoppe6255 Are you aware that the Soviet Union defeated the Nazis not America? The Soviet Red Army killed over 85% of the German Wehrmacht Army. You are aware that the British & Americans allowed the Soviet Union to occupy most of Eastern Europe? You are aware that most armed conflicts & violent regime changes since WW2 were committed by the American CIA & American military?
@@sofialoppe6255 The U.S. literally allowed the Soviets and Nazis to kills each other. The vast majority of the casualties during the European theatre took place on the Eastern Front. The U.S. military didn’t even enter the European theatre until late 1944. My goodness your knowledge of WW2 is very very very very very very very very small. If I were you, I’d actually comment less and read more. Word to the wise, pick up some history books and read and comment less. ✌️cheers mate
@@maxsportsman2416they did it to cobble up Europe for themselves but were fortunately stopped.
@@Thunderchild-gz4gc that’s absolute nonsense! They knew that unnecessary foreign wars lead to bankruptcy and only bring death and destruction for the civilian populations
I wonder if the student would ever have asked a North Vietnamese official if they ever regretted their invasion of Cambodia.
Honestly probably not as they liberated Cambodia from the horrible Khmer Rouge communist regime
@@ultimatespidybawlz2198 Well, in 1979. But this was in 1978. Hanoi did everyone a favor by toppling Pol Pot, but in 1970 they were violating Cambodian sovereignty to conduct their war of aggression against South Vietnam. They did the same to Laos.
@@glennhubbard5008this is for real?? violating cambodian sovereignty? You americans are really brain washed
@glennhubbard5008 why would they regretted it? I am sure they are proud of it
@@just4fun607 Oh, the North Vietnamese were vicious, that is true, but the question would reveal whether the student was fair and open-minded.
You were so cruel sir, you invaded my country and killed thousands of people.
The shouters outside are so annoying. Let a speaker speak.
I can’t believe I just watched a video by the Richard Nixon Foundation
😄
History will be kind to President Nixon.
At least, he's not looking nearly so bad in context...
have you... opened a history book?
You haven't read about Nixon, have you?
What he was impeached for would not even be considered an impeachable offense in this day and age. He was a good man who got shafted by members of his own campaign committee. Sad
no they wont
One of the greatest President ever.
Everyone’s praising him for forming a sentence, but he doesn’t engage the question at all. Responding to if he regrets his decision in light of the consequences, he only justifies his motivations.
If I went to the grocery store and got food poisoning from the stuff I bought, I would say that I regret having gone, even though my reasons for going were justified
How could you have possibly come to that conclusion?! He starts by saying that he wishes he had bombed Cambodia sooner!
@@clankb2o5 He says nothing about the upheaval that occurred in Cambodia afterward. Not a damn thing.
Well he wasn't asked, was he?
That's beside the point
He literally answered that he doesn't regret it in his very first sentence...
A Real President. Best President of All Time! Most Productive! Most Caring! & Worked the Hardest! For The Country! & The American People! Not wishy-washy muddled words to appease Special Interests!
If you listen carefully you can hear the 2 million Cambodians being purged in the genocide, which was only ended when the Vietcong liberated the country.
"Some scholars, including Michael Ignatieff, Adam Jones and Greg Grandin, have cited the United States intervention and bombing campaign from 1965 to 1973 as a significant factor that led to increased support for the Khmer Rouge among the Cambodian peasantry. According to Ben Kiernan, the Khmer Rouge "would not have won power without U.S. economic and military destabilization of Cambodia. ... It used the bombing's devastation and massacre of civilians as recruitment propaganda and as an excuse for its brutal, radical policies and its purge of moderate communists and Sihanoukists."
Yes exactly, the US essentially turned Cambodia from a neutral state to a violent communist hostile state. Idk what they expected from carpet bombing civilians.
hmm, I wonder who allied to the vietcong during the American "invasion". Could it have been, gasp, the Khmer Rouge?????
@@bloodyplebs why did the Vietcong liberate Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge?
@@dilutioncreation1317 Why did the Viet Cong allied with the Khmer rouge?
@@dilutioncreation1317because the Khmer Rouge turned on them AFTER the USA left you historical illiterate.
Spot-on. North Vietnam invaded Cambodia and used it as a base. The US would have been defenseless without efforts to cut off the troops and supplies pouring in down the Ho Chi Minh trail. If North Vietnam had not used Cambodia and Laos in this manner, there would not have been US military action in either place.
I don’t understand why your point isn’t made more often? I just continually hear that the US illegally bombed those countries, like they were out to get the water buffaloes or something.
@@robplazzman6049they indiscriminately bombed, how much of enemy they actually killed?
History was cruel to Cambodia due to the destabilizing affect of the Vietnamese presence. The indochina communist party initially consisted of members from now Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The Viets wanted to be in control. It led to the horrors of the Khmer Rouge and unknown situations in Vietnam. Luckily Vietnam chose to invade Cambodia and end the Pol Pot regime, which had started border incursions into Vietnam
So Vietnam caused all the chaos in Cambodia and “luckily” stopped all the chaos in Cambodia????
@@itsjustme4848 They used the neutral country of Cambodia as a safe conduit and staging area for their invasion of South Vietnam. The Vietnamese communists also wanted to control the Indo Chinese Communist Party. How hard is it to see cause and effect? A bit like the Palestinians refusing 2 state solutions everytime offered and continuing terror attacks and blaming Israel. Americans were not known for their cultural sensitivity back then, not even now, so the end result is evident when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians. The South would have developped like Southern Korea or Taiwan. The supposed corruption, which was such a sellling point for Hanoi back then, is the same now. With exactly the same institutionalized system in place
@@marcblank3036 The South Vietnamese government (particularly under Ngô Đình Diệm) was very, very corrupt. Not to mention, the authoritarianism and abuse of human rights in those regimes fundamentally undermined any foundation for a future South Vietnamese state.
The USA destabilised Cambodia. Why would the USA be so quiet about its bombing campaign if they believed it was only effective at targeting the north Vietnamese? Spoilers: It wasn't. It was indiscriminate and gave greater support to the Khmer Rouge from Cambodians. Your neolib revisionist nonsense is only just that.
Agree with him or not, he knew his shit.
Well that’s some interesting timing
Vietnam War is a bad idea, The Kiling Fields are even worse.
What are you trying to say?
Breaking news from 1954.
communism was a bad idea, and it still is.
Love this man. Has a backbone and isn't apologetic. Gives direct and candid answers. Laos and Cambodia were staging grounds for hundreds of thousands of North Vietnamese troops and Chinese auxiliaries that were in the middle of an illegal invasion of their southern neighbor, and attacking US troops. Nixon didn't start that war, but he's the one that finished it.
If American politics hadn't forced President Nixon into retirement, the Viet commies would not be able to defeat S. Vietnam. At least, not when President Nixon was in the White House. President Ford was a very good president and a kind man but he was reluctant to get back into that losing conflict because the South Vietnamese people didn't want to fight. They also didn't know how bad the commies were going to be. After 1975, Vietnam's economy stagnated or depressed for almost 20 years.
What does a legal invasion look like? If it was backed by superpower states?
Today’s politicians aren’t even close to speaking like past presidents. This country has gone to shit
He is the most underrated president.
Nobody is perfect, and everything is comparative. In comparison, President Nixon was a far better president than every president that we have had since 1992.
Well some people claim he was the last Liberal President we had. Other People claim Watergate was a Deep State Op to get rid of Nixon because like Trump (and possibly Carter) he didn't; want to go along with the plans of the Deep State. the last sentence I don't agree with, but some people do.
@@HoldenNY22Interesting. Two big upsets to the establishment. JFK left in a coffin and Nixon in disgrace.
I'd nominate Ike, but yes, the Watergate coup was a travesty.
Except for Donald Trump.
@@robertisham5279
If there's one president who can match Nixon when it comes to morality, it's certainly Trump.
Most important leader in history, through him, we learned to distrust charismatic governors.
Looooooool. Yeah... okay.
Nixon wasn't really charismatic
Haha have we? Trumps got millions loving him for his speeches alone
Looks like Nixon is making yet another comeback. Biden can make any other politician look good
The mistake is promising the American people peace in Vietnam, and then taking years to implement it. Prolonging the conflict for 'peace with honor' lead to more American deaths and unfortunate dilemmas like the Cambodia invasion.
To Nixon's credit, this was an excellent answer and there's nothing much to criticize in this specific policy decision.
Thank you, President Nixon! ... it was not an "invasion" of Cambodia ... it was a necessary strategic military action to save American military lives and help end the war.
He killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in order to preemptively protect American soldiers who were illegally fighting nearby in a country that overwhelmingly wanted them gone. He could have protected everyone by simply withdrawing his troops.
It was a strategic military action to shut off Vietnamese supply lines through China. And it worked.
It was a cold hearted decision to end thousands of families in order to preserve American pride and hegemony in a region which wanted them gone finally.@@matthewnikitas8905
@@matthewnikitas8905 Yeah, it worked; the Khmer Rouge would eventually come to power because of it... The results are evident.
Yeah, it worked; Vietnam eventually won anyway.
It also worked when he prolonged the Vietnam war by years by sabotaging peace talks just to become president.
Wonder what you have to say about Nixon supporting the Bangladesh genocide and the genocide of millions... He even tried to cover it up and sent weapons to Pakistan (which they used to kill Bengalis) EVEN AFTER CONGRESS SAID NO.
Why people still continue to shill for this war criminal is astounding. Just incredible ignorance.
Help end the war? We lost the war. We could have withdrawn from Vietnam when he first took office (He said he had a secret plan to end the war which was BS) ending all the killing and leaving Cambodia stable, with the same results. He broadened and extended the war, and we lost anyway.
As an Army vet who served during the Vietnam war in 70-71, I know that what Nixon says here is true. Our troops over there loved him for it. LBJ got us in that mess and Nixon got us out. He also created the volunteer Army.
What a time it was when politicians were smart enough to even frame sentences! Today's politicians are only war criminals.
I mean Nixon was basically a war criminal
Nixon was also a war criminal.
I like how you make that distinction. Only war criminals. Almost implies that yes, while older politicians were also war criminals, at least they were smart 😂
Being smart doesn't justify war crimes. It makes it less justifiable, as they should know better.
Nixon and Kissinger were war criminals not only that they didn't even trust the US military system to carry out some of their attacks so they set up back channels to make sure no one would interfere and ask questions that could stop their work.
Nixon is considered a war criminal by many. So there's that...
I don't think Nixon was a good president, but he was right when he said he wasn't a crook. Look into what actually happened with Watergate.
I suppose we're just going to ignore the tapes... and the testimony of those involved...
He surrounded himself with crooks, including his VP, Spiro Agnew.
Well said Dickie !
Nixon never fails to deliver; he was always right.
?
I guess the option that we had no security interest whatsoever in Vietnam and thus should have never been there to begin with, never occurred to Tricky Dick.
Except he lied… 10’s of 1000’s of Cambodians were killed by American bombings
Dude, he is pathetically trying to justify killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people by claiming it was a preemptive strike to defend the troops that had no reason to be there, fighting an illegal war against a population who did not want them there. He's a warmonger and a murderer making really silly excuses. He just is somewhat well spoken so people are acting like he's something special.
@@danielzak4405 So you like your dominoes painted red, then
Thank you for share
In June 1969 Nixon announced the withdrawal of 25,000 U.S. troops from Vietnam. In September he announced further troop withdrawals, and by March 1970 he was announcing the phased withdrawal of 150,000 troops over the next year.
Nixon's The One.
Why did he orchestrated Sihanouk coup at March 1970? Seem unnecessary and it subsequently caused what happened between 1975 to 1979.
Delusional. He prolonged the war by years just to become president. His support and cover up of the Bangladesh genocide is atrocious.
And then Cambodia fell into chaos of immensely tragic proportions, and we went on to lose the war in Vietnam anyway. Yup, Nixon’s the one …….who did that.
@@itsjustme4848Uhhhhh.....LBJ??.......Pol Pot?? Democrats love to start wars. Uncle Joe is getting us closer by the day. Come on all you big strong men..........
@itsjustme4848 Cambodia was already deep in chaos in 1970 because North Vietnam had invaded that country (as well as Laos) and was using it as a sanctuary for their supply lines and for military operations (against American troops) to support their insane military aggression against their neighbors ... thankfully, Nixon put an end to that ... and we didn't lose the war ... South Vietnam, North Vietnam, and the United States signed the Paris Peace Accords in January of 1973 ... North Vietnam had basically been defeated on the battlefield, especially after the intense B-52 Christmas bombings of Hanoi and Haiphong and the mining of Haiphong harbor in late 1972 ... virtually all American ground troops were long gone by the time of the peace deal ... but North Vietnam, rearmed with Russian tanks and supplies, violated the provisions of the Paris peace treaty and later re-invaded the South in 1975 and finally toppled the government and took control of the country ... Democrats in Congress had cut off all military aid and assistance to South Vietnam, so the South Vietnamese couldn't defend their country ... again, American troops were long gone at that point ... and, contrary to the main stream media and Walter Cronkite, American troops never lost a major battle in the Vietnam War, including the Tet Offensive in 1968 ... the Viet Cong (the Communist insurgency in South Vietnam) was virtually wiped out after Tet.
He didn't mentioned why he kicked out Sihanouk
Nixon for President, 3000!
Futurama?
He was totally right great move
His entire strategy was in reverse, the start should have been all out b52 or no war.
A man for the times! 😊😮
This brought the Khmer Rouge to power.
"You are errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill. - Col. Kurtz
Based
As a South African i regard President Nixon as one of US best President
Bravo.
Despite his personal and personality problems and the possibility that he may not have been a safe president, Richard Nixon was a smart guy who had plenty to teach. It was probably good that Henry Kissinger was a cabinet member.
RS. Canada
LOL Henry was/is the most amoral sociopath ever. Not exactly RN's moral compass!
"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize"
~ Tom Lehrer
Definitely, had a lot to teach in regards to corruption
@@uclajdexpalin why. You are such a simpleton, of which doesnt understand the quandaries of foreign policy.
He’s dead now
Good point about the Normandy invasion of 1944. We weren't invading France but trying to destroy the German forces there. He was right about Red troops in Cambodia. All North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong forces.
The guy who asked the question looks like me lol
A true statesman
And warmonger. Millions of Vietnamese dead, America defeated, and now we trade goods with Vietnam. It's like Afghanistan: 20 years of fighting to overthrow the Taliban, and today the Taliban is back in power. All those dead Americans and Afghans, for nothing.
You besmirch the term “ statesman.”
When it came to understanding the geopolitical landscape of his time Nixon was a master statesman.
You may not like his policies or his character but you cannot deny he knew his craft well.
@@PatricKlein86 He knew his craft, until he bungled it and was only saved by Ford covering his ass.
I don’t mind the terminology of invasion. It’s just that he had to avoid it because these kids are so idiotically and emotionally charged based on associations with words and not their plain practical meaning. Bringing up an invasion of an occupied country they do have a hard time objecting to on an emotional gut level was a better move.
Also, EXACTLY.
It needs to be plainly stated more and MORE by those who actually know and aren’t still held mentally captive by the narrative in education and pop culture surrounding the Vietnam war. Nixon did not expand the war into Laos and Cambodia. North Vietnam did, and by extension their allies who supplied them massively. Nixon’s response was long overdue. It should’ve happened under LBJ’s but he was too much of a politically minded idiot to run anything correctly. He left us in a horrible position. Just to put it bluntly.
And for anybody who brings up the Khmer Rouge (the new darling of leftist academia into around the 80s and early 90s), they were allowed to fester because we didn’t sufficiently help Cambodia earlier. They did not come to power because of bombings on and near North Vietnamese base and operating locations. They were kept going directly due to North Vietnamese support, as well as the supplies they were receiving from outside communist states. Blaming their rise all or even chiefly on the USA is an idiotic false narrative mostly propagated by the same leftist academics and activist once even they could no longer defend the Khmer Rouge in polite society.
Thank you for providing at least some of these countering correct facts and perspectives to at least some additional people. My thank you to the Richard Nixon Foundation.
Great summary! Thank you
I mean they bombed the hell out of civilians (some say close to 500,000), with 540,000 tons of bombs. That is simply inhumane, in total Indochina bombing was far more than the whole of ww2 by a factor of 3. All in the name of "sphere of influence" (power). It's all past us now but I don't believe much could justify that, not even ISIL being there, especially when the bombing campaign was secret and not approved by congress. The only good thing to come out of it is that America accepts a good chunk of refugees form Indochina, which is more than what can be said about Iraq/
And the Chinese have completed the construction of a naval base in Cambodia and are building an airstrip on Triton Island off the coast of Vietnam.
The Khmer Rouge were Commies, period. And BTW, the lefty historians STILL scoff at the domino theory of Ike. Hello, IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!
It was because of bombing because many people are dead and homeless. The bombing were dropped weighted near 2.7 million tons more than the allies bombs in WW2 only 2 million tons.
Those rural people would hate the Lon Nol government which was an US allies and support Khmer Rouge.
Were people protesting in the background or am I just hearing things?
Well from a war point he's correct. The real problem was conducting the war to begin with. It was a extension of a French colonial war and they were sick of all European colonialism and America by extension.
It (war) was already in progress when Nixon was elected.
Yes it was fucking dumb to ignore the French experience, but Nixon inherited "Johnson's goddamn war" as RN used to say. He had to play the cards he was dealt, and the north was totally in the ropes after Tet 1968, but they knew the US didn't have the will by the time Nixon took over, so they held out. If only Nixon hadn't been cheated out of that 1960 win, we would have never been there. Kennedy's fault!
I don’t believe it’s correct to say “they were all sick of America”, South Vietnam still had millions of people who supported it. Besides, just because some commies in the north didn’t like it, doesn’t give them the right to invade.
No it was NOT a French colonial war extension, it was a Soviet colonial war extension where they used their North Vietnamese proxies to invade three innocent countries. We helped those countries defend themselves.
@@tedmccarron Back to the Red scare. Regardless what business is it of ours to fight wars half way around the world. And we lost because they were willing to fight on indefinitely. We've lost every Guerilla war we've ever fought in. Because its a never ending war.
Wow this is really something special. What happened to this America?
Dumbed down by decadence and individualistic materialism.
this isn't in America this is at Oxford in the UK...
Great president.
Even though I personally disagree with how excessive the bombings of Cambodia were, I at least respect Nixon for standing there and giving a straight and cogent answer instead of evading or dodging the question, like most politicians today would.
I would like to see Donald Trump, the statesman, at The Oxford Union.
For once, his deputy Mike Pence can could coherently answer well read and well informed Oxford students.
But Trump's(or even Biden's) current state of mind doesn't even permit him speak to kindergarten students.
Thanks. That was my point.
Its a good answer, to be fair.
why are people commenting acting like *RICHARD FUCKING NIXON* WAS AN HONOURABLE MAN 😭
Bots
He was more honourable than what we have now certainly.
@@johnnotrealname8168 you realise he killed hundreds of thousands of innocent in a neutral zone?
Thankfully, he and Kissinger are in the ground now.
@@johnnotrealname8168 if you mean trump than maybe, but this is literally RICHARD NIXON were talking about 😭