Conversation 626-012

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

What do you think about that?

Let's go through the questions.

We're not used to getting to listen here.

We've got to be considerate.

All right, so go on, go on.

Here, I'm just writing down this sentence.

All right, all right, all right.

Would you like to interrupt on that, please?

He says he's got

32 Republicans and 11 Democrats.

Absolutely hard.

He's counting only the hard 43.

He's got 43.

He's got eight Republicans to beat.

Things he'll lose, but maybe he'll be able to have them out there.

There's something I'm not going to use my influence on this one.

In case you have something.

Do you want me to call someone?

No, I will not do it.

No, he was just trying to say we've got a good optimistic report.

I think you should know that I don't think I want to do this on the floor of the court.

I'm not going to call this meeting.

Okay.

No, and he said the trend is favorable.

There's some softness in the anti-people, and there's 20 undecided still, and he thinks he can do well with them.

So he only needs seven of the undecided, seven to 20, or a shift of one or two of them.

Okay.

The reason he was following us is to say the president might have a little answer to it on the matter.

How's he coming on the other one?

I didn't say anything.

He was coming back and saying he wanted to talk to me about the NLTV thing I was going to talk about.

That's the reason I'm here.

Well, now he says he needs to talk to you for two minutes on the phone right now.

He may be on that.

I talked to him from the hill when he was on his way down and sitting on the seat.

Now he says he's got to talk to you before he ends that meeting.

He realizes that it's not a serious proposal.

What would be next?

There's some serious possibilities to it, apparently.

Well, I mean, we don't know.

Well, we had an NSC Thursday morning after your old folks' speech.

And Bill Rogers is now concerned because he has to.

That was at 11.30.

He's got a 12 o'clock appointment with Golden Bay Air.

So he's going to be able to stay to the meetings.

That's if we can change it.

Well, the only possibility really is

Yeah.

Hello?

Yeah, I guess I got the important part.

Yeah.

if they want to do another open screen time.

Sure.

If we could get it to stop the other one, sir.

Oh, on the other hand, I'll turn it to the other, because we don't know how to do it otherwise.

Yeah.

I would indicate, let me say this, I don't indicate that I'm for this, but for your information, I think it's an intriguing idea to sort of stick them off of some other direction.

Off of our backs, I doubt, I don't think that there'd be time to take that, because that wouldn't handle our deficit.

Well, it's a look at the future, not the past.

Oh, yes, I don't know.

I don't think at all.

Okay, well, that's good.

You go right ahead.

Good luck.

The question is whether you wanted to see me before the...

I don't think so.

You don't believe me, huh?

What's it about?

I don't understand.

I see it now.

I'm not sure.

I think it was Stahl.

Yeah, we had one on Stahl.

Another Stahl on it.

Didn't we, Stahl?

I don't know.

He's got to have one on him, you know.

You're all set on your 4-H things at any time.

Preparation ahead of time.

Well, we need the 125.

We do attend a parking at the same time as an hour.

Only other questions, and we're not doing congressional candidates, but we've got an at-large candidate in Vermont now.

So, question of whether he can come by and get a picture.

That's one I do probably do want to do.

I do want to grab the one.

I think we can accept that.

There's going to be a bunch of them that have to accept, or accept, I mean, out of the, maybe, I don't know, I'm not sure they can start on that road.

You know, you've got a real problem.

You've got another one, for instance, which is Ray Nutter, who will run Kentucky 6th District.

And he's not an incumbent, but it's a death there in John Lawson's seat.

And, uh,

He's got a chance to win.

A pretty good chance to win.

I still think I'll have him.

He should not do it at all.

But I think on this one, which is a little better, in effect we created the vacancy.

Oh, Kentucky is not running against anybody.

Our third rule is he won't do any picture with a candidate running against an incumbent Democrat.

Especially Southern.

If this guy isn't defeated, of course, Vermont is running against an incumbent Democrat.

This guy.

Uh, I don't care.

You can do that.

But let's get it worked out.

If they understand, I'm not going to do it like, what are you going to do with Jack Cutler when he comes in for example?

I'm not going to hand it to him.

That's the real problem.

I'm just not going to hand it to him.

He's got it.

Sure.

So we will not have another one.

I'm not going to do it.

I'm not going to do that.

We don't want that kind of exposure to be on television.

The other little nickel and dime thing that we would normally turn down, but it's a Mayhom request, so what we probably should do is he wants to bring the president of Texas Tech College in to present an invitation to address the American Association of Engineers thing next June, which he'll understand you probably can't do, but it helps Mayhom to get a picture.

And I assume we do.

I'm sure we'll do.

I didn't, I don't have much of an idea.

The Chinese are going to swamp this book, or possibly it's still a girl, but also it's time.

It's even in the first section, too.

I'll shut it off.

God, this is the last of these things.

We have nothing else to do.

I'm proud.

I don't know.

I assume you're not going to do ASA or AMTA or any of that stuff next year.

I don't think you should.

We should work down the line.

The editor says it's going to change an editor, you know, an endorsement.

We won't watch them.

They have some effect that I don't think.

You're going to get the editorials.

We do well on editorials.

I don't think you need to do this.

Let's be clear.

We all understand.

We're not going to do anything.

The only thing that I would do is if they don't submit questions,

And they had this bad, good answers.

I don't know about that, but if it's substantive answers on issues and stuff, I thought they had a campaign to do it.

But I haven't.

I said, I'm interested in it.

I'm not sure you even want to do that.

I think you ought to think about it.

Because that puts you in the same level with your opponent.

I don't know why that's an issue today.

You've been on the record for four years.

It's going on the record.

It killed them on a negative vote, then they brought it up as a positive vote and killed it there, too.

Why was it?

I don't know.

Didn't want to submit the house.

Specific vote.

On the appeal of 315.

Go to the desk.

Well, there are no House Democrats running.

They didn't see it as a pickup.

Originally, it was going to apply to all offices.

The negative was to have it not apply except to the president, and the positive is to have it apply across the board.

All federal offices.

Here we are.

They're putting the heat on and it's taxing all the conditions that some of our people are in, not just for dying on the internet.

Don't worry about it.

That's, that's one thing.

And the other guy, he's good at that.

He's nervous.

I don't know.

Are you?

Oh, are you?

I don't know.

Yeah, I'll go four or five times.

I just came back from Northern Ireland.

I understand.

We will take a lot more than four minutes at a time.

I think it's much better for you to just stay here.

Well, that's very good.

Because, actually, you start with an empty process.

But you can go on something that's grammatically wrong or unnecessary.

But as far as this stuff is concerned, as far as this stuff is concerned, I take responsibility for that.

As far as this stuff is concerned, as far as this stuff is concerned, I take responsibility for that.

I think the one thing you have to watch for is the way it's going to be.

You've got to be sure of that.

That's what I say before I shoot.

It means a great deal to us.

What?

Yeah, I got a little bit of a cold in California.

I don't know why.

I don't know why I don't know why.

All right.

In fact, it'd be nice to do something with that and go on and on and on.

There's no relationship or form.

There's a little bit of form.

What I think you ought to do is write it in here so your audience will be able to say, this is something, this is something.

You know, feel free to do whatever you want.

That's my answer.

Yes.

Okay.

I thought I would ask a question, Dave, and then all of you can go on.

May I interrupt?

Okay.

Question number one.

Sir, you often said you'd go with your administration's agenda.

But the war is still going on.

You campaigned in 16 on a pledge to end the war.

When's it going to end?

And how are you going to end it?

and their replacement by self-defense means.

That is, self-defense means involving the ability of the men themselves.

Uh, they... Let's see here.

Come on.

The war now, as far as American combat activity is concerned,

as compared with 150 years ago, 250 years before that, and 300 when we came in.

The number of Americans, of course, is now less than 200,000.

And if anyone in the National will know, the number will continue to go down until all Americans are drunk.

And when they saw me in the East,

which we are certain now they can do.

And it's only a question of time.

And our plans are being made on that basis.

Hanging over the problem of ending the war, ending the American involvement, is a problem for our people as long as there is no negotiation.

And as long, therefore, as there will be American prisoners of war in North Vietnam, it will be necessary for the United States to retain a significant residual presence and, of course, to retain a very significant air damage upon them.

That, on the other side, is, of course,

And it's saddening to think that if they want the United States totally to move on, to move on, to negotiate the problem, whether they will or not, it remains to be seen.

This will have to take a long time.

I will not respond as to a specific date for this call.

I will only say that our indefinite time will come out in January 27th.

Another announcement will be made, and that announcement, assuming there's been no progress in the solution,

as far as American involvement is concerned, from a combat standpoint, the war in Vietnam

And I think by that time, too, we will probably announce that there are no grantees to be sent to Vietnam.

There will be around 100,000 of them.

And finally, the end of the American involvement will be very clear to anybody who is excited due to the

I can't more percent.

Oh, that's because it depends on the negotiations.

It depends on the person.

But certainly it was, I think, a reasonable time.

The American following combat is over now.

From 5 to 9, I'll leave.

This is a product of the Postmark 7, a product of the mine, or something of that sort.

America, we, the South, we need to undertake all the search and destroying, all the unspeakable things.

We do air strikes, but the American losses in there are very, very minimal.

The American involvement in the combat is over.

The American involvement as far as the draft was concerned in 2009, but particularly for us, where they're very close, where they haven't had to come back.

Americans on the ground can't go out and build military guns, but I can't emphasize too strongly that as long as those people don't need to be there, then it's going to be enough to strike people.

Now, one other point that she made is that during this sort of thing, we want to emphasize that the use of American air power will be in the last year or so.

We will, of course, continue to give air support over a period of time, as needed by the south end.

Well, it's as clean as we would like, because we would like a negotiation, what we want is to cease fire and to run energy.

What we would like, of course, is the return of all prisoners.

We've got a ceasefire going on in the chairman hall, but then it will be a total affair.

We're all going to be laughing for it.

It's been a great one, the ceasefire.

We have to take a long road, and the longer road must be one that will retain enough strength to mark that encounter for our prisoners, and also

Now, as far as the war in Indochina is concerned, and I can say the same thing about the war between India and Pakistan, the war that has been concluded in Nigeria, when I speak for the generation of peace,

I actually am speaking for a generation of peace for a world that has gold.

However, it has one that isn't true as far as the United States is concerned.

I'm speaking for a generation of peace as far as the United States is concerned.

We cannot assume the responsibility for every brush fire, little war, or bigger war, whether it's in Asia, Africa, Latin America, they're going to continue to be.

There probably will continue to be as long as we live.

On the other hand, the United States and the U.S. have some enormous influence, cool as we're trying to manage that by keeping the production cold, to try and stop the problems we had before with the U.S. And it'll change.

I'll be back to that.

Once the Americans withdraw, then whether the war goes on, as you pointed out, is not our responsibility.

We want to remember that there are 90,000 RPAs in Southeast Asia, there are 40,000 RPAs in the Middle East, and there are 18,000 RPAs in the Middle East alone.

The war after America's involvement is ended, will end, in South Asia, when the conquest seeks their aggression.

We can't guarantee that.

But what we are doing, and what we have achieved by this long and agonizing war, is the ability of the South to defend themselves.

They have that ability now.

Interestingly enough, a rather good chance for the Cambodians

who have never been a warlike people to the heaven and the sun, and still have balance among us, which is one of the best you can hope for.

So this is the... President, what does the United States perceive when there's new policy here for mainland China, and are there dangers to this new policy as well?

the dangers of a purity monster.

The dangers of a monster.

A monster because the fact that, that it causes concern among our other friends in Asia when the United States moves to have a more formal relationship with mainland China.

And you, a mainland China director,

and Indonesia, after that matter, in supporting North Indonesia against the South Indonesia.

Now, under those circumstances, our friends, therefore, when they dealt with the mainland China initiative, began to wonder whether the United States, in making a move toward mainland China, would order all people on the Earth's surface

will do so at the expense of the 300 million people who live on the rimland, and who are not communist countries.

The answer is we're not going to do that, just as the communist Chinese are not going to change their attitudes with regard to their commitments to Korea, for example.

So that's the danger side.

On the other hand, however, on the sake of the dangers of this policy, of acting as we have, the reason that I have moved on this direction, and this move has not been done for some time, I wrote about it for the first time at the Foreign Affairs in 1967, and I started the motion in February of 1969.

We have to weigh the dangers of acting

against the certain danger, long-term, but not active.

Long-term, we have to realize that in China, with now 750 million people, and in 20 years, the population continues to grow, it's respected by 80 billion people.

will be a very significant economic power, which it is not today.

It will be a superpower if it wants to be.

From a little bit of a standpoint, it's not a superpower today, but it has to keep growing.

And it may in time be better in the heart of Asia.

It goes very deep, but all that power,

is isolated from the rest of the world, not in communication with the rest of the world.

It is an unacceptable danger to not only the Sankhurst, but to the rest of the world.

that it is ironic that it is the United States, rather than the Soviet Union, that could make this move.

And we need to do it because, well, there's a gallant difference between

our philosophy and our policies, and those of the People's Republic of China, that for reasons we don't need to go into, there are differences with the Soviet Union, with whom they had a common land border.

Are there any?

So, as I looked at the history down the road,

as I've said, not just for the next election, or even the next 5 or 10 years, but down 15, 20 years, if it seemed to me that everyone sitting in this position, the power of the United States represents, would not be carrying out his obligations in the future unless he tried to mitigate that potential danger that would exist.

Now, what are the benefits?

The benefits are not going to be the dangers of our friends being concerned about our people of China.

But there is not going to be, for example, a massive amount of trade to begin with because other nations have found that there is all that trade that we have with the people of China.

It also would suit a man of China.

It does not mean that a man of China will, as a result of meeting with us, will give up their philosophy and their dedication to their philosophy.

expanding communist power throughout the world.

I didn't think about their policy anymore, I think about ours.

This is why no one should expect that this meeting is going to mean that the United States might be discovered.

The communist government in mainland China has really imposed

Their philosophy is different in terms of foreign policy, and our interests in many areas are going to continue to be irreconcilable.

On the other hand, as is the case all over the world, where you have two great powers like this,

There's a question of, you may find it difficult to live together, but it's impossible to live apart.

And that's the danger down the road.

And here we're in the Trans-Air Corps.

We have to find those areas in which our interests coincide.

And one interest that will coincide, and is very much coincide, is the interest of avoiding the inevitable build-up of nuclear arms and eventually down the road the possibility of confrontation.

that we must avoid.

Second, we must explore, in terms of the future, the possibility of more communication and, who knows, even more trade.

It would be better for them and better for us.

This we want.

Third,

We believe that by talking with them, whether it's in the United Nations, regardless of how rough the reverie gets there, or whether it's in an individual dialogue, a bilateral dialogue, that that

of the United States running together in conflict on the mainland of Asia.

We must remember, for example, that the United States has a treaty with China.

The United States has a treaty with China.

Not really certain chances.

My question is, what do we do about those treatment commitments?

Do we just arm them to the team and make a commitment that if anything happens in their own direction, I think we will come to their aid as we did earlier?

As we did, we did not.

Or do we

where instead of building, in fact, a wall, a wall around

And what we do is to discuss with them, is to discuss with them these differences, these points that are not being made about them.

So I surprised by saying,

There are dangers that are already apparent as a result of our pursuing this policy.

Second, the visit is not going to mean that we are going to see, that it's going to change our philosophies, either of us.

We are going to continue to have a very fundamental emphasis on what the state of the nation should be and should improve.

However, this has always been the case.

Even friendly bombers do disagree.

And the question is starting a dialogue so that where there are disagreements in the future, we reduce to the minimum the possibility of those disagreements escalating into a proper problem.

I'm not serious.

I'll tell you one thing.

I have a question for you.

I want to ask a question.

Go ahead.

of peace depend on some substantial move toward world disarmament?

And specifically, what do you hope will result in disarmament?

The salt flocks are not disarming from this event.

We're going to admit that there's some error in that respect.

The salt flocks are a limitation of our response.

Either side is going to be disarmed.

However, that's the second right direction.

The salt flocks are going to move out.

they have not produced this limitation.

And the reason they haven't is that here, what we are talking about is distinguished from the group we are testing, and that is distinguished from Jacksonville, Oregon, and Tucson.

We are talking about here,

the final interest of both countries.

So, where the United States is talking about its final interest, or its advantage, so they're talking about their final interest, it's going to become hard market.

Neither can afford to allow the other to take advantage or have advantage.

On the other hand, here again we have one of those circumstances where, where we have a very, very anarchist philosophy, where our anarchists have fled many parts of the world.

Where we both, being superpowers in a clear way,

know that if we are drawn into combat, the possibility of guilty suicide is very great.

As I sit at this desk, I know that if I am ordered to pay,

to watch as we are tasked to attack against the Soviet Union, that just to get a number out in the air, and possibly 70 million Russians would be killed, and 70 million Americans.

And the leader of the Soviet Union, on the other side of the coin, knows exactly the same thing.

He should decide to do that.

Now, this is an unacceptable choice for either of you.

So what do we do?

We, of course,

to the summit to reduce the areas where we can have conflict, for example, in Europe, in the Middle East, and the more peripheral areas of the state.

But second, we've got to take this fossil power and see if there is a way that we can stop this escalating arms race and also a prohibiting arms costs.

Now, we, here in America, are concerned about the cost of arms.

We must realize, however, that since this administration has been in, the percentage of RGMP that goes into arms has been steadily reduced, far less than what it was when we came in.

In the first time in 20 years, there are more fires than RGMP goes in.

They, in order to save the United States, there's a broadway error.

they had to do that out of a GNP that is essentially less than ours.

What's that mean?

It means that by continuing to, continuing the arms buildup, it runs to risk.

It runs the risk of buildup continuing and the possibility of the way down the line of some man thinking that he had that advantage.

Well, the other side of the coin is...

What would happen is that the cost in terms of directing resources that could be used to raise the standard of living for the Russian people and the American people is definitely not defensible.

peace, we've got to have our competition, as I said, and also in the interest of our own domestic progress, we've got to have, they want our records, we want our records.

We will have, in my opinion, there is a very good chance that this time the assault agreement will be reaching a limitation on offensive weapons and defensive weapons.

But this is a limitation only.

It's only the first step.

It is not a goal.

I think we can all see that if it succeeds, that the next step further down the road would be reduction in our funds.

And that, of course, is our goal, and that is the goal that we have.

But having said all that,

In order for us to have success in the first step, that means so that the Russians and people have to continue to negotiate and negotiate some.

And in order to have any possibility of making progress in the second phase of the registry protection program, the United States must, as long as

An agreement is not an agreement.

It must maintain its own forces at levels that have credibility as far as the Soviet Union is concerned.

We must not fall behind.

And I can't emphasize too strongly that the American people must never send whoever is in this chair to a conference heading to the second strongest nation in the world.

The reason for that is not because of the populist academy being virtuous.

the American destiny.

Many perhaps would argue that.

But from a practical bargaining standpoint, the interest of any person on the other side of bargaining, the bargaining table of bargaining, is the same as you produce if he thinks he's already very weak.

And so what is going to ensure the success of our game, both on their part and on ours, that we go in respecting each other's strength, knowing that neither is going to be allowed to give us a natural advantage.

And having that in mind, there is a chance we're going to win.

So what I'm saying here is that if we look at Saul, just like with the Chinese, if we look at him with a naive sentimentalism that I've noticed during the rest of the editorials,

I understand this.

I wish the world were like this in the race.

But the fact, the fact that, well, finally, we all get to know each other, that our differences will be solved, and the world will be better.

continue to be dangerous, continue to be competitive, but a pragmatic approach on our part in affairs can lead to the control of these forces of destruction.

And that's our job, and that's the job of Russia.

that you gave to the next person, or another person, about the Middle East.

It seems to any place Vietnam is in trouble spot, couldn't this lead to a military showdown between the United States and Syria?

How do you deal with it?

Well, first, let's recognize that there are various levels of danger for the United States and the Soviet Union to come

Now, first, I remember the kind of gamble in my own loss.

There were many almost hysterical editorials, but even more so statements on television saying that Chinese were going to enter, that the Russians were going to enter.

They were not going to enter.

The war in Southeast Asia is basically peripheral, even for the Chinese.

There was too much to be lost, to be risked on their part.

And as far as the Russians are concerned, Southeast Asia was a long way off.

That doesn't mean that they did not continue and will not continue to support it.

when it came right down to whether or not any United States involvement in Southeast Asia would bring Russia in, or even China in, except in terms of their inculcating material.

That's something that in my view was

I'm not going to say that I understood it.

I know those who wrote it and said it were really concerned that they weren't analyzing the realities that were upon them.

Now let's move to another area.

Another level.

In the Rochette, where we have had the story to bring any conflict there,

runs an extraordinary risk of a conflict involving the United States.

Because it involves our vital interests and their own interests.

That's the highest level of danger, is Berlin.

That's why the Berlin Settlement is so important.

Now, the third level, and this is in between, is the Mid-East.

The Mid-East is infinitely more dangerous in terms of bringing the U.S. and the Soviets into conflict than Vietnam.

but not as dangerous as Berlin.

And the Mideast is more dangerous, of course.

It has enormous resources in terms of oil, et cetera, which both want.

It has the opening of the sea that the Soviets want.

It has the possibilities that whoever dominates them in each of the crossroads of the world could well have Europe in the front.

Now, under these circumstances, therefore, the United States and the Soviet Union both realize that where we come in conflict there, while the inevitability of war, which would have been the case if you came in direct conflict or later, is not...

Nevertheless, the possibility is infinitely greater than it must be now.

And, consequently, we must continue to work to complete the truce.

We must continue to maintain the balance of power, because once the balance shifts, the temptation of one side or the other to take off is the other.

And it is very much interesting to me, and I think the Soviet leader should realize this too, in the interest of the Soviet Union and the United States, that we have to live left-leaning activities because the United States is not going to

We cannot, for a variety of reasons, allow Israel and our English committees to be overrun.

And the Soviet Union, for their reason, are going to stand firm in standing by their new allies, the Egyptians.

Both the United States and the Soviet Union, therefore, are destined to play a role in the Middle East.

We are there, we're not staying six foot first in our major, uh, major weapon.

So what we have to do is to find out a way to stay without allowing the conflicts between those nations, or conflicts which go back over thousands of years of regional labor, drawing us

against our will to combat the German crisis a year ago.

It wasn't any kidding how explosive that situation could be in the 6th lead-in.

The Israelis were poised on the edge of those lines.

come down and the Syrians are going, Russia back to Syria.

And it was only by skill and policy, frankly, on both sides, the Russian side and our side of the story, that we avoided it.

But I think the current crisis brought both the Soviet and the United States to necessity for us to play a sort of third role in the Navy.

Now, all this, of course, is wound up in another problem.

In the United States, the Soviet Union, and today we're in Germany, many disagreements should be settled in a certain way.

There'd be a great question as to whether or not that would be accepted.

We have a stroke on the one side, and they have a stroke on the other side.

But we have a situation in the Mideast which is roughly comparable to the situation in India and Pakistan, where mutual hate overrides even what is assumed to be the

I don't mean to sound as pessimistic as it sounds when I'm pointing out why it is difficult, but I do know that as far as the United States and the Soviet Union are concerned, we would not serve each other in peace, and we have had very strange talks and

to allow ourselves to be drawn into conflict by what happened between Israel and the Saints.

So therefore, it's to our interest to try to cool that conflict, if we exactly can.

And part of it's...

I'm sorry, this is kind of a complaint, but the fact is that it appears to be some of the time it's the first one.

I think we just have time for one or two more questions.

President Manning.

I don't think I would like to ask you, I heard you mention changing power relationships in the last decade, and the China emergency.

I signed a contract with the U.S. and the United States, and we've been discussing how you see all of this.

What kind of policy is this?

I talk about terrorism and things, but I didn't talk about you, I didn't talk about so-and-so.

We all separate goals and try to achieve what we're most responsible about.

My view today is that we are entering a period when the danger of world conflict, world war, is a very, very serious thing.

The back of the United States has now moved to a summit meeting with the Soviet Union.

none of Glassboro, and not practically the kind of a meeting that Eisenhower kind of intended.

We've been around that track.

No spirit of Moscow, spirit of being a spirit of Glassboro, etc., is going to South Palace.

It's a great experience.

The reason of this song, I think, will produce very significant results whereas others have been disappointing.

First, it has been well-known that he could have gone into it in January.

It would have been a beautiful story.

We planned this over two years.

The way that we made progress on the left, progress in our response, we see that as an actual oracle.

Having made that progress, we have had just cold turkey talks with the Soviet leaders.

I, of course,

And I, of course, am in a very extensive correspondence with this question.

Now, we are going into these talks on both sides with our eyes wide open, knowing that, as I possibly emphasize, that we do have differences.

We're not going to stop here.

We respect them for what they believe about the world.

They have to respect us, and neither is going to push each other around.

Neither is going to be able to pressure each other.

I think we are on a step-by-step basis.

We will limit ours first, and down the road, we may be starting to do it.

Remember, we had differences in the mid-east, maybe in places like Cuba and others, that neither will push each other to the brink.

And this means reasonable relations between the two.

In the case of China, the same can be said over and over again.

Now, by this opening to China, the difference is still that China will still be seeking influence

for each other into an angry isolation, and then never be becoming involved in conflict.

Some discussion will take place in the chance of keeping these areas, especially brought together in this part.

This at least is increasing my reason for communication.

Now, that means that we have the possibility of a peace

I don't know if that makes sense.

So even if it is one, the other one, China could be one.

The other two nations could be, but they are not going to have all the resources.

Japan could be one.

Japan, the reasons that we're all aware, cannot.

But if the world becomes less dangerous in terms of the threat of the World War, it becomes, in a way, more challenging and, in a sense, more dangerous, but not in any way, the way that you present it, in terms of America's impediments of the world or the race in that.

That is, as the world opens up, you must compete.

Now, let's look at it around the world.

Look at what we have created.

We have made the actual rewards for the United States and for the entire world space.

Nobody can approach us in terms of making us a non-compatible.

Europe is on its back.

Japan is on its back.

The Soviet people are waiting on you.

China is far, far away.

We urge, and we urge, even though we knew that it would make it a more serious economic event, as opposed to the political future here, we urge, and I urge, and support the idea of the common market.

We're afraid of the common market, but we demand that Europeans be the most powerful people.

China is going to be a very, very serious event.

what Chinese have done in every area of the world where they operate.

Singapore and Taiwan are examples, and the Chinese as a people are one of the most creative people in the world.

Now you talk about Japan.

Japan, at the end of the century, according to Herman Kahn, will have a good capital income higher than the United States, and they better work better.

So what we have now is a situation where instead of the United States being number one, the others all being way below us, we've got five great power centers, economic power centers, terribly dependent.

The United States, the Soviet Union, Europe, and down the road, China.

That means I'll have the intervention of Latin America.

Because Latin America keeps growing, but it will become a more sedentary part for a lot of years to come.

That means I have Africans, probably, looking for an order for 15 years from now.

It could come soon.

They may progress, but before they become sedentary powers, the economy will be the same as it would be.

So we have enough now.

that I think is very effective in order to say that this isn't all bad for us.

As a matter of fact, what I consider to be good for the American spirit is to point out that at the United States, because we see these competitors growing up as cheap labor abroad competing with ourselves, that we ought to build a wall around ourselves and live within ourselves.

This would be the end of the American.

experience uh as a leader of the world was because the history of all great nations as they turn and do not continue to play the role that their people will play

the great vintage track star, Cobble Murphy, who was back in Montana.

He was probably the best miter in the history.

He never broke four minutes.

The reason he never broke four minutes, nobody could ever challenge him.

And he was around with a griffin bunch, and he would tie himself at the end of each line.

He was one of the luckiest men in the world.

The United States was somewhat in that position at the end of World War II.

We were there for five years, maybe ten years, even during the Eisenhower years.

We were running against the clock.

We had nobody that could approach us.

Now, we're no longer running against the clock.

We've got Western Europe breathing right down our backs.

We've got the Soviet government breathing on our backs.

We've got Japan, three of them, and China coming up fast on the turn.

and probably a lap behind, but it's a long race, and they look at the race as a long race.

Now, what does the United States do about all this?

Turn inward with me.

That threat, we let the rest of the world go by, and one of these other great peoples, it could be the Europeans, it could be the Japanese, it could be the Russians, who have bestowed the leadership of the world, because who leads the world, you know, we believe in other ways as well.

I don't think there would be a good thing for the world.

I don't think that we don't have respect for all these countries for us, but I believe that, to its credit, the United States, with all its failures in foreign policy, is one of those few

powers, it became a world power, without attempting to do so.

And now that it has that power, it has no desire to change it.

We want to use our power for peace.

Others may not have, have not had, at least in the past, that similar attitude.

They may require confusion.

So, what I'm saying is, if the United States does drop those

If we do turn it, if we give it to the forces of isolationism, let's get out of the direct forces now, let's get out of the, let's have a force for everything, let's retain the search army chief and they'll get realigned and so forth.

This would be a big alert because we've been,

that would not bring for ourselves our best efforts.

And when a country or a person ceases to do the best that he can, he doesn't have to win, but he must do the best that he can and fulfill himself.

When the day that day ceases to do that, that nation ceases to be great and ceases to lack potential greatness.

So my feeling is that the United States should, as I've often said,

Let's compete.

Let's welcome this competition.

It's great to see the midlands of this earth, who have nothing but a record status of poverty and misery and hunger and disease, a chance to go out there and have the United States in this game.

Don't drop out of the game.

Stay in the race.

Forget the fact that it was so pleasant to run with the clock.

Remember, we didn't break the record then.

Now, we may run the 350 mile run in the fourth inning.

And I think that how we do this, of course, now almost, I know this is an interesting question, I don't think about most of it, a very good function, some of this will be in our city unit this year, a very good function of the United States Department of Education, more of its resources to the development of

of our technical capabilities.

In other words, we can't expect the highest-paid workers in the world to compete with old machines against newer machines.

Our advantage is always that we give our workers the best technology that they can get on it.

So the whole American planet has to compete with them.

One of the reasons the Japanese determined to do so much better in certain fields is that they didn't have any plan to get a number of workers.

Everything they got now is new.

Much of America's plan is old.

Now, we've got to.

That's why the investment tax credit we've been putting in is one of the majors, not just jobs now.

But it's primarily looking down the road at anything that will encourage more and more investment in new planning equipment that should be encouraged.

That's why going beyond that, that's why also depreciation perhaps is something we have to do.

That is why down the road we may have to consider a substitute of airlines.

other activities where we aren't meeting a subsidized forum.

It's a whole new world, and it's a whole new game.

And the United States, I have every confidence in playing the game of the past, but we've

But we've got to take stock of ourselves to see what our weaknesses are and correct those weaknesses.

And also we've got to have the will and determination that we want to achieve in playing the game.

See the great, the great problem, which is obviously the great, the great, uh, the saddest legacy of the war in England, due to the fact that in Turkey we began all the war interventions and all the work, due to the fact that it was, it was not,

And it dragged on.

It is that the Americans more or became disenchanted with their role in the world.

They said, uh, Korea, what do we get out of that?

Now Vietnam, what do we get out of that?

And the answer is,

made a safer world.

That's what it's all about.

If we hadn't gone into Korea, the communists would have had to stop in Korea.

And Japan would have been seriously in danger.

If we hadn't gone into Vietnam, there aren't Vietnamese that swept through that whole area.

A lot of straights have been put upon Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, they're in danger.

And we would have a very serious situation in other countries in Asia.

Whatever the case may be, though,

The American spirit of this war has been extremely damaged because American self-confidence has changed.

And America's willing to

play a role in the work has been reduced.

And so one of the responsibilities of leadership today is to bring this forward with inclusion in a way that is honorable.

By honorable, we mean in a way that the enemy does not accomplish its goal of imposing its force by aggression, its rule by aggression.

If that is done, we will have succeeded.

America will not have lost this war.

That's the reason we're going in this way, rather than taking peace away, ducking out and saying, well, we've ended the war.

We want everybody to end the war.

The Russians ending it in a way that gives us a better chance to have a peace.

And that's what we're doing on Vietnam.

I wish every man and woman in the United States could do that.

Well, you take what you want.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

Do you want another drink?

Well, of course I'd like to take any.

Thank you, sir.

Oh, get the kids.

Thank you very much.

I'd like to see you.