Hiroshima-- are we projecting backwards?

On 28 Dec 2003 04:54:52 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

From: "Tarver Engineering"


"B2431" wrote in message

From: "Tarver Engineering"

Kissenger is a wanted criminal.

Bye whom?

Brussels.


Traver, under Belgian law anyone can charge anyone with war crimes. Now please
provide proof a charge has been filed and that a warrant has been issued. If
they don't exist then he's not "wanted."

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
Didn't they restrict that recently? Iseem to recall some change in
the law.

Granted, I lke the idea of some, even U.S. citizens, being called to
account, but the idea of any nation being able to issue such warrents
could lead to a miserable situation.
For the record, I opposed Pinochets extradidtion, not because he
wasn't a prize SOB, but because if that gets started, only a fool
would relinquish power peacefully.

Charles Gray wrote:
On 28 Dec 2003 04:54:52 GMT, (B2431)
wrote:

From: "Tarver Engineering"



"B2431" wrote in message

From: "Tarver Engineering"

Kissenger is a wanted criminal.

Bye whom?

Brussels.


Traver, under Belgian law anyone can charge
anyone with war crimes. Now please
provide proof a charge has been filed and that
a warrant has been issued. If
they don't exist then he's not "wanted."

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
Didn't they restrict that recently? Iseem
to recall some change in
the law.

Granted, I lke the idea of some, even U.S.
citizens, being called to
account, but the idea of any nation being able
to issue such warrents
could lead to a miserable situation.
For the record, I opposed Pinochets extradidtion,
not because he
wasn't a prize SOB, but because if that gets
started, only a fool
would relinquish power peacefully.
I recall about 2-3 months ago that the Belgians changed the war crimes
law under pressure from the U.S. and Britain, due to a number of frivilous
suits being filed. They now have to have Belgian victims or perps to get
a charge filed. Now the far left there is right ****ed, but when both NATO
and the EU threaten to leave Brussels because of such a poorly written law-guess
what? The law got changed mighty fast.All the ones filed against Bush Sr.,
Powell, Schawartzkopf, Cheney, Blair, Thatcher, Sharon, Tommy Franks, etc.
were summarily dismissed as a result. And good riddance to such suits.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:49:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
. ..



As for my "modest proposal", timing is everything. While we had the
emotional support of the world after 9/11/01, a year later, the
sympathy was dissipated. And, I didn't propose "nukeS" but
"nuke"--just one. A statement, a signal, a warning.

We always have that, should these same people hit us again. Consider, Ed,
that 80% of the motivational power of a weapon is the threat of using it;
once done, only 20% of the weapon's political power remains.



Conversely, if there is no doubt that the weapon is "too terrible" to
use, the motivational power is eroded to zero. It's a lot like the
death penalty. Is there no crime so heinous that it merits the
ultimate?

The "too terrible" label on nuclear weaponry is pretty much a popular
belief, not necessarily a technical or procedural one. If the weapons
really were too terrible to be used, why build them to begin with?

If anything, the especially terrible consequences of using nuclear
weaponry, or at least, the widespread belief that such use would be
extremely negative for humanity, in practice helps keep leaders
"rational". It serves your definition of deterrence.

Even the most radical of fundamentalists should think carefully
before flinging these things about. Once use of these weapons
becomes accepted, even for promoting truth and justice, a line is
crossed; a psychological barrier broken. Deterrent value reduced.


SMH

Paul J. Adam wrote:

Wasn't Nixon alleged to use this gambit, of appearing to be irrational
in order to make his actions harder to predict and the consequences of
error potentially worse?

I'm running on very hazy memory and can't find a source, so would
welcome correction or clarification.

Can't say I've ever come across this interpretation of Nixonian
political technique.

I have heard he and Kissinger played the "good cop/bad cop" gambit
a bit. This is alleged to be the case with Bush and Powell as well,
but I think in both cases, this may simply be opponents spinning
interpretation of political figures they don't like.


SMH

Ed Rasimus wrote:

I don't disagree that Nixon's presidency ended in disrepute. And, I
also assert that he had some successes.

I've come to believe Nixon is going to become America's Richard III;
a character forever painted in unflattering strokes, deserved or not.

It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner. My guess is
it will take another 50 years plus for history to pronounce more
balanced judgments on the man, his actions and policies.


SMH

It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner.

I certainly can't!

Thirty years from now, people will likely be saying the same about
Clinton.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Even the most radical of fundamentalists should think carefully
before flinging these things about. Once use of these weapons
becomes accepted, even for promoting truth and justice, a line is
crossed; a psychological barrier broken. Deterrent value reduced.

That might possibly have deterred Saddam, but I doubt very much it
would deter bin Laden or his followers.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner.

I certainly can't!

Thirty years from now, people will likely be saying the same about
Clinton.

The Clinton Presidency will be forgotten in 30 years.

Cub Driver wrote:

It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner.

I certainly can't!

Thirty years from now, people will likely be saying the same about
Clinton.

I think Clinton will be neither "good" nor "bad". He'll be one
of those presidents that no one knows too much about, like an
Arthur or Cleveland.

Nixon on the other hand, is going to be more favorably judged by
history than by his contemporaries IMHO.

People are certainly going to know about him, whatever way
history ultimately decides.


SMH

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:59:44 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

It was Nixon (despite the obvious first association with that name),
who coordinated Vietnamization to shift the burden of SEA to the
locals, who opened the door to a "two China" policy and recognition of
a billion people as the "real" China, who implemented Linebacker I/II
to finally conclude the Vietnam involvement and gain the release of
our POWs, and who when faced with accusations of malfeasance in office
and impeachment took a more honorable course of action and resigned.

"Accusations" of malfeasance in office? Ed, are you kidding? There was no
doubt whatsoever of his guilt (if you doubt that, I suggest you listen to
the tapes that have been released, or read the transcripts; they're
online), he was going to be convicted. Especially the "Smoking Gun" and
"Cancer on the Presidency" ones. Here's a sample from the latter, where
Nixon and Dean discuss paying hush money to the plumbers and others:

I really didn't want to get into a revisitation of Watergate. Let us
agree to disagree on the subject. The fact that I alluded to is that
Nixon was accused in a political forum and that impeachment, while we
can assume that it would have been voted, did not come to a vote
because Nixon resigned.

Sure.

There were no criminal charges made against the President. No
arraignments, no indictment. There might have been, but the
combination of the resignation and the preemptive pardon from Ford
leaves us never knowing.

Without an impeachment, an indictment or formal charges, the assertion
that "he was going to be convicted" is conjecture. Probably true, but
again, something that didn't come to pass.

The Smoking Gun tape clearly shows Nixon (out of his own mouth) engaging in
obstruction of justice; there just ain't no doubt. And it was only because the
Supreme Court ordered him to turn that tape and the others over that he decided
to resign (what, two days afterwards?). Would he have been impeached and
convicted? Certainly. Would he subsequently have been prosecuted for
obstruction of justice, and sent to jail/prison? Doubtful. I suspect he would
have lost his law license, etc., maybe paid a fine.


My implication, which I'll now spell out, is that since 1974 we have
experienced an actual impeachment, actual criminal charges, an actual
Senate trial and more against a sitting President. And, I wanted to
point out that while the Nixon presidency is forever besmirched, there
were positive outcomes from the administration.

I've never denied that there were, as well as many negative ones.

If you consider resigning to avoid definite conviction and thus getting a
free pass from Ford, 'honorable', then we have a very different conception
of the meaning of the word.

I don't think I used the word "honorable" in my statement regarding
Nixon achievements.

You wrote (and I replied to) the following:

"and who when faced with accusations of malfeasance in office and impeachment
took a more honorable course of action and resigned."

Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it appears to me that you think that
his and then getting a free pass, while never admitting any responsibility, is
honorable behavior. I disagree. If he (or more recently, Clinton) had admitted
his guilt and accepted responsibility for his actions and _then_ resigned (with
no pardon), I'd call that honorable. But that's not what either of them did, is
it.

See above regarding "definite conviction" and
please revisit the Clinton inauguration eve pardons of January 2001
regarding the unlimited (and unquestionable) power of the President to
pardon.

I've never argued that the President doesn't have the power; I merely point out
that pardons handed out as political favors, with no admission of guilt, smell
to high heaven.

To imply that someone receiving a presidential pardon is somehow then
tainted with dishonor is disingenous.

I implied no such thing. I implied that a guilty man who had dishonored the
Presidency and who was then given a pre-emptive pardon which absolved him from
ever havoing to admit to his crimes or be tried for them, as part of a political
deal, was not acting honorably. You stated that he was acting honorably.

As a political science teacher and international relations teacher,
I'd certainly be revisionist if I were to introduce major power leader
irrationality as a strategy, particularly in a world that was during
Nixon's tenure governed by the concept of M.A.D.

See Kissinger's books, where he says he ascribed just such behavior to
Nixon to the North Vietnamese. Of course, neither Henry K. or that
paranoid creep Tricky Dick are/were exactly known for their veracity when
they are describing their own behavior, but enough other material is
available to confirm their accounts.

It's been a while since I read "White House Years" and strangely
enough, in scanning the shelves just know, I appear to have discarded
it. A quick Web search disclosed a Brit author (anti-war) named
Shawcross who appears to have applied some home baked psychological
analysis to Nixon and Kissinger in a suspect diatribe and another work
by Jeffrey Kimball that similarly used the description of methodical
irrationality.

I find it a bit difficult, however, to engage in political discussion
when it involves name-calling such as "that paranoid creep Tricky
Dick." Sorry, Guy, I've known you for a long time, but in political
discussion I've found that name calling usually is one of those
terminal refuges of those with more emotion than rationale in their
analysis.

I wasn't name calling, just describing his personality. Actually, it should
have read "insecure, paranoid creep Tricky Dick" etc. Which of the two
adjectives do you disagree with (or was it the noun)? His nickname was
well-earned, but if you wish, I shall avoid adding colloquialisms, add balance
and refer to him in future by my full assessment of the man, viz. that bright,
talented, insecure, paranoid creep, Richard M. Nixon.

I don't disagree that Nixon's presidency ended in disrepute. And, I
also assert that he had some successes.

I agree, he did. In fact, I'd say that Nixon was the closest thing we had in
the last century to the hero in a greek tragedy. Here's a man of tremendous
ability, brains, and political savvy, but crippled (and ultimately brought down)
by his flaws: insecury, paranoia, lack of interpersonal skills and personal
warmth, and ambition. This last is hardly unique to Nixon; indeed, he and
Clinton shared some of the same traits (obviously, not the interpersonal ones;
even if I always found Clinton's 'empathy' about as sincere as the average
televangelist, lots of others apparently found it believable). It's rather odd
that of the three smartest Presidents of the last 50 years or so, two disgraced
themselves and the other was ineffectual. Perhaps it just shows that it's not a
job for really bright people. With the incumbent, at least, I have no worries
on that score;-)

Guy