The war going on in vietnam and being extended in vietnam really because of the determination of those who are adversaries. The north veet etna meez. I dont think it takes place in South Vietnam because of the protests here. I think if all protests ended and if all of the objections to the war came to an end here in this country that the war in vietnam would continue. Im sure to some extend the fact that there are some protests gives some encouragement to others. But i certainly dont think that is the reason that the war is continuing and why the casualties are going up. I definitely think that the demonstrations are prolonging the war in that they are giving the enemy who i believe must face defeat on relative comparison of the power of the two nations, they are giving him encouragement to continue to hold out on the hope that the division here in america will bring about a peace without defeat for that enemy. Many of the demonstrations taking place in this country could not legally take place if there was a legal declaration of war. So we i think are faced with a choice here. But again im sure the senator agrees with me. America would guard this right of dissent because i think the greatness of our country is based on our thinking that everyone has a right to be wrong. This is town meeting of the world, the latest in an occasional series of confrontations going on ever since communication satellites made them possible. With me here in the studio in london are a group of young people, University Students from, one from the United States but the rest of them from europe, africa and asia. They are all attending universities in great britain. They have ideas, all of them, sometimes provocative ones about the United States, its role and its image. For the next hour via Atlantic Communications satellite they will be participating in a Global Dialogue with senator robert f. Kennedy, democrat of new york and governor ronald reagan, republican of california. This is another in the cbs news series, town meeting of the world. Tonights subject, the image of america and the youth of the world. Well be back in a moment. I believe the war in vietnam is illegal, immoral, politically unjustifiable and economically motivated. Could either of you agree with this . Who wants to start . Senator kennedy . I dont agree with that. I have some reservations as i have stated them before about some aspects of the war. I think that the United States is making every effort to try to make it possible for the people of South Vietnam to determine their own destiny. I think that is all we want no matter how we what reservations we have about the conduct of the war i think we are all agreed in the United States that the war can be settled and the people of South Vietnam can determine their own destiny and their own future gnat we want. That is the stated governmental policy. Certainly what i would like to see and i think that is backed by the vast majority of american people. The fact is that the insurgency against that is taking place in South Vietnam is being supported by North Vietnam. If both of us withdraw and let people of South Vietnam determine and decide what kind of government they want, what kind of future they want, what kind of Economic System they want to establish, i think that is all we are interested in. That is all we are interested in accomplishing. Governor reagan, what about you . I think we are very much in agreement on this that this country of ours has a long history. Nonaggression but also willingness to befriend and go to the aid of those who would want to be free and determine their own destiny. Now, i think all of us are agreed that war is probably mans greatest stupidity. I think peace is a dream that lives in the heart of everyone wherever you may be in the world. Unfortunately, unlike a family quaral it doesnt take two to make a war. It only takes one unless the other is prepared to surrender. I believe that our goal is the right of the people to Self Determination and not have a way of life and government to resist them. Just five minutes ago on this program you said every man has the right of dissent. I believe that every man has the right to be wrong. No doubt you would also support the american ideal of freedom. I want to ask you whether your support for people who are dodging the draft and whether you would go on record as supporting people who claim to be breakers as a means for not joining the war in vietnam . Wait a minute. Thank you for giving me a chance if i have left a wrong impression. We agree of the right of the people to be wrong. Taking advantage of the technicality that we are not legally in a state of war, we have people doing things in which i am in great disagreement. I do not believe in those who are resisting the draft. Now, we draw a line between objector on religious grounds. We have always said to those whose religion specifically prohibits them from taking human life we offer them military service in a noncom bat role. They have a a great and honorable history. People serving in our wars in that capacity. But i believe government is to mean anything at all that all of us have a responsibility once the action has been decided upon and supposedly by the majority will that we then while reserving our right to disagree, we support the collective or unified effort of the nation. Otherwise all law and order and all government breaks down because we might have a citizen who has an objection to paying taxes and if we allow our citizens to quit paying taxes government breaks down or obeying the law or anything else that may come along. We give up certain individual freedoms in the interest of i suppose it comes from our own constitution or idea that every american or every person has the right and is born with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My pursuit of happiness if it comes from swinging my arm i must stop swinging my arm. Anything you want to add to that . I expect i disagree somewhat with the governor. I dont think that we are automatically correct or automatically right and morality is on our side or god is on our side because we are involved in a war. I dont think that the fact that the United States is involved in the use of force with an adversary makes everything that the United States does absolutely correct. The idea that we are involved in this kind of a struggle, if there are those within the United States that feel the struggle could be ended more rapidly with less loss of life that the terror and the destruction would be less if we took a different course. I think that they should make their views known. I dont think they are less patriotic. I think they would be less patriotic if they didnt state their views and give their ideas just because the United States is involved in this kind of a conflict as we are at the present time not to state any opposition or say we cant state opposition because of the fact that were involved in the struggle i think is an error. This is a difficult period of time. But the mere fact that we are shooting one another across the world doesnt make the United States automatically right. I think it should be examined. Doesnt make the course that we are following at the present time automatically right and correct. I think that those who have a different point of view, no matter what their point of view might be, and whether they are in favor of using increased force or lessening the force or even some pulling out unilaterally i happen to disagree with that. I think they have a responsibility and a right to state those views even though we are in a difficult period of time. Would you draw a line of draft dodging . Again, apparently i havent made myself clear. I want to make it plain. We reserve the right of dissent. When that takes the form of actions that actually aid the enemy, the enemy that is engaged in killing our forces such as avoiding the draft, refusing service, blocking troop trains and shipment of ammunition as we have by some demonstrators, this is going beyond the dissent that is provided in our present governmental system whereby any american can stand up, protest, can convey his feelings to legislature or to the duly organized government in an effort to get the government to change its course. But, again, it must stop short of lending comfort and aid to an enemy that is presently engaged in forceful activities against our country. A moment ago defended the right of self edetermination o people. I was wondering given the assumption that North Vietnam and South Vietnam can be brought could you advocate that the National Liberation front be given a place in the negotiation . Who is that directed at . Why dont you start, senator . I have said before that im in favor of the National Liberation front being represented at the conference table, that they come to the conference table and take a part in the discussion. They have been involved in the struggle for a long period of time. I dont think we can derive at meaningful peace. I dont think we can have negotiations that are going to be very productive unless the National Liberation front providing most troops and most of the effort in the south being represented at the conference table. Here we are in disagreement. I believe if there is any negotiation involving the negotiation of their own because it is in the position of being a rebellious force, illegal force fighting against the authorized government of its own nation. And to sit them down at a negotiating table between the two nations north and South Vietnam engaged in a conflict is tipping the scales. I doubt if we wanted to draw a parallel do you think the United States should be represented then . No. If you are going to have a negotiation between north and South Vietnam if you are going to have negotiations to end the war North Vietnam, South Vietnam will be represented to the United States and National Liberation front. I dont think you can have a rebel force that is engaged in criminal activity having distinction of sitting at the table as one of the representatives. Im sorry, but you say you believe in selfdetermination and this lovely idea of let everybody decide for themselves. Yet in vietnam in 1954 you refused to sign Geneva Convention and refused to allow independent elections in vietnam. You forced the regime on to the people that was hated and put 6 million in prison camps. This was your puppet regime and you supported it. You refused to come to negotiations and you have shown every time you ask for peace talk all you do is escalate the war. This is only one example of vietnam. You have the example of the cia overthrowing the government. You have the example of it giving 104 million pounds, military aid to greece. So many examples of america refusing to allow a people are you talking about a people determining what they will have or are you talking about a faction within a country that wants to take over and dictate the system to a country . I disagree would you say that the regime is a popular one or was it one which you imposed on a people and which the people then rebelled against . I doubt that you can make much of a case. I challenge your history. In 1954because there was a referendum taken in 1954 in which 90 of the people voted in a referendum to take the position that he took. He was subsequently endorsed in two other elections a few years apart in which they elected General Assembly for his government. They reelected him for his position. We could hardly have installed a pupt regime at a time when we have less than 700 unarmed military advisers helping to teach the means how to work as an army for protection. Are you saying that you approve of the activities of the regime . What activities . That they put 6 million in false prison camps and that the american advisers did nothing but help them. I challenge your history again. There is absolutely no record that 6 Million People were put in concentration camps. They only have 16 million to begin with. I would also like to challenge Something Else about the supposed evils of the regime. I do approve of the land reform in which he took from the great Mandarin Holdings and began to make land available to the peasants and to the people of vietnam who have never owned land before. I would like to call to your attention that a team from the United Nations was sent to saigon, to vietnam to investigate the charges made against the regime. They did investigate those but as they returned to this country the United Nations report which they declined. There has been Public Access to it. The United Nations report cleared the diem regime of charges brought against it. Lets get senator kennedy in on this. What about your answer to the question . Why doesnt somebody ask me a question and i will answer it. Can i ask you the question. Hands brought up again. Selfdetermination principle of which mr. Reagan made use seems to be violated by americas record in vietnam by its refusal to allow elections by supporting i understand now. I would say that as i said before i think there were mistakes made over the period of the last ten years. There were mistakes in which i was involved do you regard it as a mistake that millions of civilians killed . I would regard it as a mistake. I think the civilians being killed in North Vietnam or South Vietnam, i think the terrorism that existed in North Vietnam is a mistake and killings in hungary were a mistake and some of the actions of president diem in South Vietnam was a mistake. I think the United States has been associated with governments which do not represent the will and wish of the people. I think that is most unfortunate. I dont go on this program, i dont think governor reagan goes on the program with saying we never made a mistake and we never cared because i think we have. If we look at the present time, the fact is the United States is willing to have elections in South Vietnam, willing to abide by the results of those elections and willing to permit an outside group to come in and supervise the elections. It is the North Vietnam that are unwilling to accept that. If you want to criticize president diem i suggest that you can also criticize North Vietnam. When did they last have a free election or any of the countries that are adversaries. I agree our standards might be higher and different and therefore we have a greater responsibility to adhere to it. And at times we have not and our relationshipwise some of the countries of latin america, asia and africa. I would be glad to go into what i think the explanation of that is. I dont say that we are without fault. I dont say that the administration that i was involved with, president kennedy was and our policy towards vietnam nor has North Vietnam. The other important point is which i think you have to accept is the fact that we are willing to abide by elections. We have stated it quite clearly and we are willing to permit an outside group to come in and supervise it. I dont know who you mean by we but president johnson and governor reagan isnt prepared to have realistic negotiations with the vietcong who you agree ought to be at the conference table while they are spending 20 billion a year destroying the country and while your government refuses you are wrong with your figures again. It is about 25 billion. Splendid. Let me say this. It doesnt do good. We are not spending 25 billion to destroy the country. We feel strongly in the United States and you can smile as you wish. Just listen to us for a second. We want the people of South Vietnam. The fact is that we do adpree that we will abide gooby the results of elections in South Vietnam. The people make their own determination. President johnson has said publically that he is willing to abide by the elections and if communists take over the country that the United States will withdraw. If the North Vietnam will abide by the elections and will have elections in 60 days and have supervisory of the elections and we back down then there is more point to your statement. We held out the challenge that we are willing to abide by the election. If that is where you put your emphasis. I think it is much more complicated. Can we take excuse me. If this doesnt happen in 60 days there is a point to my question. Can you deliver to North Vietnam. Senator kennedy, can i ask you something about the elections . What i understand from meeting the American Press is that elections recently held in South Vietnam the government considered in its own opinion was either communist was allowed to stand. There was considerable intimidation. If you accuse us of being consistent and you accuse North Vietnam of not Holding Free Elections then you should conde conde condemn i said at the beginning that mistakes and things done that i would disagree with in South Vietnam. I am just saying and i agree with your criticism of the elections of South Vietnam. I dont think that is the point. The point is that we have said that we would be willing to abide by the result of elections. I dont say the elections held have been free elections. The government of South Vietnam does not permit neutralest to participate in the elections that it has held in the past. We have said the United States policy has been if the North Vietnam will agree with it that we will agree to hold elections in which all parties will participate in South Vietnam and let the people themselves determine their own destiny. I said im sure we would be willing to dothat in 60 days if you can get him to participate with us. That is the challenge im offering to you. I think this is very relevant. I think what we want to know is what the americans are doing just now. I think what we want to know is what price has to be there by going there they have breached the u. S. Constitution and agreement. What can you say about that . I dont think i have breached any of those agreements. As a matter of fact, by the geneva agreement two countries were created with 17th parallel dividing them. A Million People fled across the border to South Vietnam. Now the 17 parallel dividing north from South Vietnam. Should not in any way be interpreted as constituting political boundary. The introduction of fallen troops and military personnel, balms and ammunition is prohibited. Just a moment. When i said this im not talking about the fact that geneva set this up but once the demarcation line was set was it not the North Vietnam that closed that border after a million refugees had fled from the regime imposed and fled. Did they not make this a country themselves and did they not create or start the aggression with regard to South Vietnam in violation of that treaty . Lets hear senator kennedy on this. First i think probably i have some differences with governor reagan regarding communism at the moment. My question first. I dont know. Is that necessary . You should feel a right ill come around to it. I dont think that communism is a monolithic political system at the moment. I think there are very major differences between the soviet union and communist china. I think that is recognized in the United States as i think it is recognized in europe and elsewhere around the globe. I agree that i dont think the communist system wishes us well but i think it has recognized that it is a different system than 20 years ago that we are going to make every effort within the United States. Our governments, our people make every effort to try to reach an accommodation particularly with the soviet union, that we recognize the danger from china but that as president johnson has said that we make every effort to try to reach an accommodation also with communist china perhaps out of internal struggles taking place within china at the present time out of that might come a government with which not only the United States but the soviet union and other countries around the globe could deal. I will be glad to answer the question. I asked you already, what are the legal rights for america to be in vietnam . I am going to answer that. I say other people have raised points. I think it is interesting that they have raised them and that we are going to discuss them. Any case, we were invited to come in in 1955 by the government at that time to give help and assistance. It was after 19 during 1959 and 1960, 1961, 1962 when there were indications that North Vietnam was supporting some insurgency within the south and it was to struggle that the United States sent greater numbers of people. We have had the same agreements in western europe. We sent troops to western europe and kept them there with nato after the end of the second waur world war to ensure there wouldnt be overthrowing of the governments of those countries and that the people could determine their own destiny and their own future. Town meeting of the world will be back in a moment. Well, we are having a brisk argument about whether or not the National Liberation front should be represented. Among the students there are all sorts of hands up. Steven marx. First of all, i would like to ask governor reagan how he thinks his attitude towards legitimacy and principle of negotiation with rebels have been applied and how he thinks this country would ever achieve independence . I think we have to be realistic about the supposed wars of liberation. The legitimate uprising of the people who those as did americans a couple hundreds of years ago against tyranny and invasion of rights beginning with the line of the declaration. We must be realistic enough to ask ourselves are these truly wars of liberation and the uprising of a people . Or are these being instigated by someone outside as a part of the great conflict which still seems to be going on in the world today . This is what i get. Negotiate differences that cause the vietcong to rebel. I think we would be surprised to discover that vietcong constitutes an uprising of people. I think it is important that the United States associate itself with those forces within a country who are in favor not just of change for changes sake but for a better life for the people of these nations, not with the prince and his palace or general in his barics but with the peasant in the field and with the student and with those who want to lead a better life and not turn over one tyranny however for another tyranny. Not for one kind of dictatorship to another kind of dictatorship. Would you like to see the United States disassociate itself from the military regime which is now in greece . I think it is unfortunate whenever the military takes over from a democratic system in the country . I think it is particularly unfortunate when it takes place in europe where the other countries look to for some kind of guidance. And i think particularly because democracy began in greece, began in athens that it is particularly unfortunate. I think we make it clear that our relationship with greece is going to continue to be strained unless there are democratic processes. I would be opposed to giving any military aid or assistance to greece until it is made quite clear that people themselves will determine their future and not military. Do you agree with that, governor reagan . This is a pretty cloudy situation over there. Im not sure that i agree completely that im not sure that the military rose up to put down were completely dedicated to greeces welfare or whether they were a part of thisinseigation of uprising and violence on the part of people who have a prior allegiance to an economic and political theory that they believe should dominate the world. Because it is very good system do you believe that another system will be we shouldnt fight against each other. Instead of saying such things as you said you would like to negotiate and you would like to [ inaudible ] if you went to negotiate in vietnamwe know over 50,000 american soldiers are going to vietnam. And you would think that it will create a new world war . Chinese Prime Minister said if americans landed they would like to send their volunteers there. So it might create a new world war. And i think instead of sending american troops to vietnam its better to negotiate and to stop this war in vietnam and to negotiate between the union in america and create a very good atmosphere. This discussion is now sounding like many i have had in oxford and europe. Its one in which discussions of vietnam somehow degenerate into political accusations and disputations of fact. I think there is a basic understanding that must be had in any kind of discussion here. That is that the United States is not out to achieve a position of power in land or Economic Force in the world. I think there are other things that we should debate here. When you talk about negotiations which seem to be the main adverication of everyone here, we have negotiations. We bring in people from North Vietnam and from South Vietnam and the United States, what do we negotiate for . Do we negotiate for a stable asia . What does a stable asia mean . Does this mean the United States should be present in asia or absent and let revolutionary forces take their course . I think these are more important questions that could be asked. Im sure if we ask he from india if the chinese happen to attack india, to whom would he first go for help . Would he go to the soviet union or to the United States . I think that there are certain considerations here about stability that havent been answered. Lets see. I called on recently the presence of the United States in asia. I think the best presence of any country is diplomatic presence. President johnson has mentioned the necessity of normalizing relationship between the United States and china. Governor reagan, do you think this is desirable . The only objection that i have had with some of the building bridges that have been attempted for this country is very frankly we havent been hard nosed enough in getting when i say concessions i dont mean they have to buy their way. But in getting concessions that would also help build the bridge from the other end. For example, i think when we signed the treaty with the soviet union i think there were things that we could have asked in return. I think it would have been admirable if the berlin wall should disappear i think this would be a step towards peace and towards selfdetermination for all people if it were. So i think what you are bringing up here and this ties in with something that bill bradley said and is very significant. Among people of good will in the world today there is too much of a tendency to argue challenging or suspecting the other fellows motive when perhaps what we are challenging is only the method suggested. Lets start with the premise that all people want peace. And not suspect that anything that someone else suggests is a prop. For example, we dont want the berlin wall knocked down so it is easier to get to the throats at the east germans. We think a wall put up to confine people and keep them within their own country has to be somehow wrong. I dont think you are really answering my question. I asked you whether normalization of the relationship between the United States and china was desirable . Well, i thought i had. Maybe i was too general about it. When you say normalization what do you mean . Do you mean the United States should well, all right. The United States will say has wheat and china is undergoing a great famine. Should we stand over here and give that wheat to the government. Choice of the chinese people. Do you think wait a minute. Just a minute before my young english friend smiles there. What if we said in an effort to bring friendship between the two peoples that we be allowed to provide this wheat in such a way that we are assured that the chinese people, those who need it can get it at the same time that we ask in return for the red chinese to sit down with an effort towards giving up some of their hostile utterances which openly announce their aggressive intent . Is this wrong . Governor reagan, one of the things was about extremism and liberty. How do you do you see anything between this and saying to hell with the laws of this country and those things as extreme . And when you talk about red china giving up some of its would you give up i dont think there was anything hostile in what he said. I could have questioned whether that was the time and place to say it. He was paraphrasing a very famous remark that goes back to cicero. He was paraphrasing in that statement the idea of all out defensive virtue, all out defensive liberty and that there was i would think that a soldier who died in world war ii fighting hitlerism had gone all the way out in his defense of what we believe to be right and moral and certainly in defense of freedom. Could you you will see the dead lock which is produced. You think something is good. You want them to give up some of their hostile views. You are not prepared to move wait a minute. Let me ask you one question. I can almost guess the answer. I know what the answer is in my own heart. At the end of world war ii, one nation in the world had unprecedented power, had not suffered any damage to the industrial complex, had the greatest military force the world had ever seen put together. The United States. The rest of the world was more weary. The United States also had the only bomb that had been demonstrated. We had the atomic bomb. Now, the United States disarmed, the United States made no efforts to impose its will on the rest of the nation. Can you honestly say in your heart that had the soviet union been in a comparable position with that bomb and todays red chinese in position with that bomb that the world would not today have been conquered by that force . Which part of the war jaut the soviet union. There is no comparison really. How can you i am saying this as an evidence of the proof. We are talking, we were supposed to be talking about the image of america. I would like to point out how consistent this was with our past of no aggressive intent at a chance when for the first time perhaps in all of worlds history there was a nation with the power to perhaps one day history might that was the time when the United States should have said to everyone lay down your arms and we will lay down ours. We have a representative from soviet union. It seems to me that it is very strange to hear from you that america, the only country who used to and didnt use it against another country. It seems to me that it isnt a very good idea to say so. We are not going to use this against americans or against other countries. It seems to me that america who did take part in the last war and the soviet union did take part in the last war and is an example that america who gave we can speak about that from the point of view. We dont boast about that. Get moment as we continue with meeting of the world. Now, the lovely blonde girl from england. Id like to change the subject to civil rights. I believe that many states have experienced such legislation. Should those candidates like to comment on this and perhaps other countries may learn from americas experience. Senator kennedy, you were attorney general when the civil rights was in a crucial face. Im not familiar with that kind of legislation being proposed within your own country. We passed some major bills in 1964, 1965, 1966 which gave some guarantees to individuals in the field of education, in the field of using public accommodations such as hotels and restaurants and in the field of jobs. Some has been more effective than other parts. But there was an effort by the United States to deal with the problem. If you want to take about a particular piece of legislation, i think it was important we passed the legislation and recognized the problem and began to deal wit. I would say to you quite frankly, we by no means made this very difficult problem that effects the United States disappear, and were going to have a lot of problems, including some of the disorders that have happened in the past over the period of the last six years, were going to continue to have those. Were dealing with a heritage of 150 years weve been unjust to the minority groups. And weve just begun to recognize it and now were starting to deal wit. I think we will have to continue to deal with it. Governor, what do you think as a governor of a great state of the effectiveness . I think with all of the disordered we have lost sight of some of the progress that has been made. There can be no question in this country there is the heritage of those to mistrust those that are different. When you have had a people enslaved you have a much harder time. There is a prejudice that remains. Now, i happen to believe that the greatest part of the problem lies in the hearts of men. I think the bigotry and prejudice is probably the worst of all mans ills, the hardest to correct. And in addition to legislation, which guarantees and enforces our constitution and our constitution and it differs from the constitutions that many of the countries represented there by the young people, many constitutions promise their people the same things that ours does, but there is one settle and yet very great difference. Those constitutions in many other countries say the government grants to the people these rights and our constitution says you are born with these rights by virtue of being a human being and no government can take it from you. We found it necessary to legislate, to make it more possible for government to exert its power to guarantee those constitutional rights. At the same time, we have much more that can be done in the area of just human relationship. I happen to bridge a time span in which i was a radio sports announcer for Major League Sports in our country. At that time the Great American game of baseball had a rule book whose opening line was baseball is a game for caucasian gentlemen. Up until that time, up until world war ii, there had never been a knee grow play in baseball in america. And one man denied that rule on one of the Major League Teams and today baseball is far better off. And our country is far better off because he destroyed that by hand picking one man and putting him on his baseball team, and the rule disappeared. Now, i dont say thats the only answer, but we must use both. And i think the people in positions like ourselves, like the senator, myself, like the president of the United States, can do a great deal of good. Perhaps almost as much as proper legislation if we take the lead in saying those who operate their businesses or their lives on a basis of practicing discrimination and prejudice are practicing what is an evil sickness and that we would no p business that did this. Soon we would make those learn that they stand alone, that theyre away. Excuse me, governor. Ill throw this rather irrelevant retoric to my mind. How does mr. Reagan explain the fact that there is a High Percentage of negro soldiers in the American Forces in vietnam than is a percentage of negros in the states. Is it perhaps due to the fact that negro is have more difficult still and will continue to have more difficulty in finding jobs in america . I dont think anyone could deny that because of this heritage of prek djudice that t senator referred to, there has been a greater percentage that did not go on through our educational system, did not qualify themselves for the better jobs. Therefore, there perhaps is a higher percentage who find the army or the military a suitable job and a good job in the face of lack of opportunity and other lines. Senator kennedy, what about that question . I think his point is well taken. The gentleman i think from switzerland. There are a higher degree, higher rate of negros serving in vote yam than the population as a whole and the casualties in vote yam is higher than the population as a whole. I think thats partially due to what he mentioned. Secondly, i think it is also the fact that the draft has been unfair here in this country and it is discriminated against those who were poor and those in the lower economic groups, which were trying to remedy now. But these are some of the problems, and we recognized it and were trying to do something about it. So legislation was passed in the United States senate just this past week which will at least partially rectify the situation. But the negros and the lower economic groups, larger percentage of them as a population as a whole have been drafted, taken into the army and are sur evidencing in vietnam. I think its most unfortunate. Senator, governor and gentlemen and ladies of our university group, im afraid our time has run out. I suspect that the governor and the senator didnt get some answers in that they would have liked. But thank you very much for being with us on this town meeting of the world. Can we say yes, say a word. How much weve enjoyed and im sure governor reagan has. Its extremely important we have a dialogue. We make major mistakes in the United States. Perhaps we dont remedy them as rapidly as you would like to see. But there are people even though governor reagan and i represented different political parties, we recognize the fact that were obviously far from perfect. But the world is so close together now because of technology, because of a lot of Different Things that its so important that we have these kind of exchanges. And particularly as the world belongs to you that what we do and the decisions we make have an effect on your lives that you continue where you see that we make mistakes that you continue to criticize. But as i said earlier that you examine the facts and that all of us examine the facts and try to deal with them. Plato once said that all things are to be questioned and all things are to be examined and brought into question. There is no limit. And i think that has to apply for all of us, particularly those of us that have the advantage of an education. Ill let you second that. Well, i do second it. The very fact that we have discussion and differences, i think brings me to the point. Being the oldest one here i can take the liberty of giving a little advice to the young people. I believe the highest aspiration of man should be individual freedom and the development of the individual, that there is a sacredness to individual rights. And i would like to say to all of the young people as they pursue their way, i think you should weigh everything that is proposed to you, everything in the line of government and law and economic theory, everything of that kind and weigh it on this one scale, that it should at all times not offer you some kind of sanctuary or security in exchange for your right to fly as high and as far as your own strength and ability will take you as an individual with no ceiling put on that effort. Plenty of room for a floor underneath so that no one in this world should live underneath but you reserve the right for yourself to be free. Thank you very much again. This is town meeting of the world. This is charles kohlingwood. Good night. One century ago on april 6, 1917, congress voted to declare war on germany and enter world war i. More than 4 million american men and women served in uniform and more than 100,000 died. Next American History tv marks the 100th anniversary. We travel to the National World war i museum and memorial in kansas city, missouri, to speak to authors and historians to speak about what was then called the great war. We learn about the creation of the memorial to honor those who served and about artifacts in the museums collection. This is about two and a half hours. 100 years ago on april 6, 1917, president Woodrow Wilson signed a declaration of war against germany, entering the United States into world war i. More than 4 million american men and women would eventually serve in uniform and more than 100,000 americans died in the conflict. The influx of u. S. Resources changed the tide of the years long global war bringing it to a close on november 11, 1918. To mark the 100th anniversary of what was then known as the great war, American History tv is live from the National World war i museum and memorial in kansas city, missouri. Well be here for the next two and a half hours and well take