Man, Christopher Hitchens was so brilliant!
I remember the first time I saw Hitchens on TV. I remember being unusually impressed. I can't remember what year it was, but it was late 60s or sometime in the 70s. I was young at the time. He just stood out as no talking head had before, someone who was unusually thoughtful. I knew nothing about his religious beliefs, politics, or philosophy. But I took notice, never realizing he would become a lasting influence on society.
My first encounter with Hitch was through his then-regular column in The Nation in the 1980s and 90s, falling in love with his prose even when I disagreed with the ends to which it was deployed. I stand by my assessment of his skill as a writer: in the span of one sentence, you could go from wanting to buy him a drink to wanting to punch him in the nose and back to wanting to buy him a drink again, all before reaching the period.
Didn't know of him until late in his life. Definitely worth listening to. Reminds me of William F Buckley ... every show you would expand your vocabulary.
Two of the best, early Hitchens vs Buckley ... two very articulate guys, for fans of either, from 1984 ... Hitchens enters at 5 mins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeGKcX-JHNE
another from 1990
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUH4RzAofv8
People forget that young Hitchens was a liberal, and got more conservative as he ages. Something I am personally aware of in myself.
I remember William F Buckley Buckley, but for many years, I lived without a TV. Jr. Buckley is news to me.
My political discourse, if not my ideology, grew up on Buckley Jr. I was neither Catholic (at that time), nor Conservative (at that time). I am much more religious now. Notice also, from the first take, that Young Hitchens is the spitting image of our Shirnau ... but old Hitchens (not shown here) was much more like pr126 ... at least in regards to Muslims.
[quote author=Baruch link=topic=12204.msg1201386#msg1201386 date=1513378230
People forget that young Hitchens was a liberal, and got more conservative as he ages. Something I am personally aware of in myself.
[/quote]
Interesting. I find that I did the opposite. I entered college sort of like a conservative liberal. I was for the Vietnam War, for example. And looked down on welfare of any kind--stuff like that. As I have aged I have become more and more liberal.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 15, 2017, 08:42:49 PM
Interesting. I find that I did the opposite. I entered college sort of like a conservative liberal. I was for the Vietnam War, for example. And looked down on welfare of any kind--stuff like that. As I have aged I have become more and more liberal.
I've become more liberal too. I was born to Republicans, so like religion, I identified myself according to what my parents were. By the time I decided to vote, I started considering the issues, and identified with the Democrats, well, at least with the rhetoric. I never supported the Vietnam War, although at first I assumed it was a necessary thing, but eventually came to see it as a grave mistake and a pointless loss of life and money. Since my identification with the Democratic party, I've moved somewhat to the left of the party leadership, but most Democrats I know seem much to the left of the party leadership, partly because the party seems to have abandoned the base and become more willing to cater to the needs of the wealthy where the big money and power is.
Much like you, through HS and into college, I pretty much reflected my parents views on most things. They voted Demo, but had more conservative views that the typical demo. I remember my dad did support the war in Nam and supported Reagan when he fired all the striking air traffic controllers. Part of it was he was an ammo inspector for the Dept. of Army. When I left home for college and then the Army, I started looking at the issues with my own eyes. Irony abounds--while in the Army I came to realize what a total cluster-fuck Nam was and was totally against it. My dad, as an Ammo inspector, had to do a year in Nam--when he came back, he was not for the war, but did not want to talk about it much. His conservative side started to erode. By the end of his life, he and I were pretty much on the same page. And even now, I find I am much more liberal or progressive than I was last year or the year before.
I am so progressive that I think the guaranteed income would be wildly successful. :great:
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 15, 2017, 08:42:49 PM
[quote author=Baruch link=topic=12204.msg1201386#msg1201386 date=1513378230
People forget that young Hitchens was a liberal, and got more conservative as he ages. Something I am personally aware of in myself.
Interesting. I find that I did the opposite. I entered college sort of like a conservative liberal. I was for the Vietnam War, for example. And looked down on welfare of any kind--stuff like that. As I have aged I have become more and more liberal.
That is because you still sleep in gravity boots ;-)
I wasn't ever liberal or conservative. Pragmatic not ideological. But socially, I didn't see any downside to progressivism as it existed in 1975 (hence registered Democrat). Subsequently I can see the problem with anything, is letting humans be involved with it.
Hitchens is like Wittgenstein (philosopher) ... the early version and the later version, which makes consistency across time, impossible.
Quote from: Baruch on December 16, 2017, 11:05:30 AM
That is because you still sleep in gravity boots ;-)
I wasn't ever liberal or conservative. Pragmatic not ideological. But socially, I didn't see any downside to progressivism as it existed in 1975 (hence registered Democrat). Subsequently I can see the problem with anything, is letting humans be involved with it.
Hitchens is like Wittgenstein (philosopher) ... the early version and the later version, which makes consistency across time, impossible.
Lost me in all of that--except, gravity boots. How'd you know that????
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 16, 2017, 12:38:24 PM
Lost me in all of that--except, gravity boots. How'd you know that????
People of our generation, who think upside-down ... would know that ;-)
Comparison to Wittgenstein is apt on several levels ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ33gAyhg2c&index=1&list=PLrMnZObCE6iwAXXi0-IkiWBLVVxSRdeWy
I agree with early Wittgenstein. And pictures in your head don't mean much, if they are not empirical. So I take early Wittgenstein with a pinch of empirical salt. Also many people will be concerned if the picture also seems to be somehow irrational.
The later Wittgenstein matches the methods (if not the intent) of Hitler. Language as a game (of manipulation). Hitler and Wittgenstein went to the same Austrian grammar school, at nearly the same time. And Wittgenstein was Jewish .. Hitler may have realized this at a young age. Wittgenstein's father was one of the richest men in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He wanted this son to be more "ordinary" ... have a human touch.
I confess I haven't read any of Hitchens' books.
My political beliefs haven't changed much over the years. What wavers is whether taking political action is a waste of my time.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 16, 2017, 02:43:08 PM
I confess I haven't read any of Hitchens' books.
My political beliefs haven't changed much over the years. What wavers is whether taking political action is a waste of my time.
Taking action is never a waste of time. Trying to convince shills and crazy people to do the right thing may or may not be.
I was somewhat conservative in my youth ( AUH2O - Goldwater). But when I realized the US was not trying to win the Vietnam war but merely not lose it and they wanted me as cannon fodder for political reasons, I changed my views. I got involved in demonstrations. I flunked out of college.
In the 90s, I went back.
I was only 3 classes short of my degree in Political Science. The 3 classes I took were all seminars. Aced the seminars and learned what I should have 20 years earlier. Piece of cake. None of the students (even grad students) had a chance against me in seminars. Life experience matters.
I had 20 years experience in government by then and had learned how to argue with the best at my level. Those students never had a chance, LOL!
And it was just for personal satisfaction. The degree never meant anything professionally. But it meant something personally.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 05:55:07 AM
I was somewhat conservative in my youth ( AUH2O - Goldwater). But when I realized the US was not trying to win the Vietnam war but merely not lose it and they wanted me as cannon fodder for political reasons, I changed my views. I got involved in demonstrations. I flunked out of college.
In the 90s, I went back.
I was only 3 classes short of my degree in Political Science. The 3 classes I took were all seminars. Aced the seminars and learned what I should have 20 years earlier. Piece of cake. None of the students (even grad students) had a chance against me in seminars. Life experience matters.
I had 20 years experience in government by then and had learned how to argue with the best at my level. Those students never had a chance, LOL!
And it was just for personal satisfaction. The degree never meant anything professionally. But it meant something personally.
You got me in the feels ... right there! Yes all the good students I knew in the 70s were older men, but they were Vietnam war veterans. But glad you realized early what a CF the Vietnam war was ... it was much worse (we found out later) than "not trying to win". Being a dropout ... lucky you didn't get a draft notice. I was lucky ... next to last year to get a power-ball, but one year past the last time they acted on that power-ball. By the fall of Saigon ... I had gotten pretty cynical about the whole thing. And at least my brother and older cousin weren't hurt (physically) by the experience. War sucks if you get to close to it. You are lucky too you didn't get arrested during demonstrations .. that could have nixed your government employment. I am not against demonstrations, just cynical that they do any good. I am tongue in cheek saying previously, that the whole college population should have been specifically targeted by the draft in 1965 ... on the theory of 1) teaching young boys to be men the hard way and 2) upper and middle class parents calling for an end to the war a lot sooner. And yes, even for personal satisfaction, getting a degree is great (though it was a lot cheaper in the 70s when I did it the first time).
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2017, 06:49:09 AM
You got me in the feels ... right there! Yes all the good students I knew in the 70s were older men, but they were Vietnam war veterans. But glad you realized early what a CF the Vietnam war was ... it was much worse (we found out later) than "not trying to win". Being a dropout ... lucky you didn't get a draft notice. I was lucky ... next to last year to get a power-ball, but one year past the last time they acted on that power-ball. By the fall of Saigon ... I had gotten pretty cynical about the whole thing. And at least my brother and older cousin weren't hurt (physically) by the experience. War sucks if you get to close to it. You are lucky too you didn't get arrested during demonstrations .. that could have nixed your government employment. I am not against demonstrations, just cynical that they do any good. I am tongue in cheek saying previously, that the whole college population should have been specifically targeted by the draft in 1965 ... on the theory of 1) teaching young boys to be men the hard way and 2) upper and middle class parents calling for an end to the war a lot sooner. And yes, even for personal satisfaction, getting a degree is great (though it was a lot cheaper in the 70s when I did it the first time).
As much as objected to the Vietnam War Debacle, I didn't avoid the possibility of the draft. In 1970, I dropped my college deferment and threw my hat into the ring. No fake medical disabilities or anything like that.
I wasn't drafted, and was forever free. Good thing, too. It would have meant Canada or Ft Levenworth. I don't take orders from idiots. I barely take orders from intelligent people.
The government entrtance exam I took in 1976 was easy. I scored in the top percentile, told them I smoked grass in college but not since then (well there WAS one party in 1974), but they really needed someone like me (rational analyst) and we met in the middle.
I cut off my 18" ponytail (which I still have most of on the wall) and shaved my beard; they gave me a job 2x minimum wage. I never looked back and they never regretted it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 15, 2017, 08:42:49 PM
Quote from: Baruch on December 15, 2017, 05:50:30 PM
People forget that young Hitchens was a liberal, and got more conservative as he ages. Something I am personally aware of in myself.
Interesting. I find that I did the opposite. I entered college sort of like a conservative liberal. I was for the Vietnam War, for example. And looked down on welfare of any kind--stuff like that. As I have aged I have become more and more liberal.
I have always been left of center to one degree or another, dating all the way back to when I was 8, stuffing envelopes for McGovern in the company of a hippie in the little storefront campaign office up the street. No, I won't claim I had at that age a profound understanding of the domestic and global political situations at that age. I'm quite sure I didn't. But I know there was
something about Nixon that I didn't like. I felt quite vindicated two years later, and forty-plus years later, I remain comfortably ensconced on the liberal left. It is possible that I have moved slightly to the right, but not as far as the entire political conversation has in this country -- I've become more liberal simply as a matter of the center being yanked so far to the right. What passes for a mainstream Republican today would have been a dangerous reactionary in the 1970s; what passes for a mainstream Democrat today would have been a conventional moderate Republican then. Fortunately, I am enough of a historian and political scientist to be aware of the cyclical nature of these things, and that it must eventually come back to the center, and even beyond. And eventually back again. It's the nature of the beast.
As for Hitchens, he never repudiated the left, and still considered himself a member of it to the end of his life -- while he agreed on the Iraq war, he wasn't a mindless cheerleader, even submitting to waterboarding (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efh_6_-tHgY) so he could report on the torture allegations with authority (his final analysis: yes, it fucking well
is torture). His support for the Iraq war was born of his opposition to radical (and weaponized) Islam, not his embrace of neoconservatism.
Quote from: trdsf on December 18, 2017, 10:35:03 AM
As for Hitchens, he never repudiated the left, and still considered himself a member of it to the end of his life -- while he agreed on the Iraq war, he wasn't a mindless cheerleader, even submitting to waterboarding (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efh_6_-tHgY) so he could report on the torture allegations with authority (his final analysis: yes, it fucking well is torture). His support for the Iraq war was born of his opposition to radical (and weaponized) Islam, not his embrace of neoconservatism.
That was my impression concerning his support for the war. It may have been the only thing where I believed he was dead wrong.
Quote from: SGOS on December 18, 2017, 10:48:09 AM
That was my impression concerning his support for the war. It may have been the only thing where I believed he was dead wrong.
I knew at a young age that war itself wasn't evil (WWII) but stupid ones were. I grew up with MASH and Star Trek and Vietnam.
I decided there had to be a better way of solving problems and I've lived my life on that idea. Now, NK is making me doubt that. Insanity has to be stopped. I am logically adrift...
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 11:29:02 AM
I knew at a young age that war itself wasn't evil (WWII) but stupid ones were. I grew up with MASH and Star Trek and Vietnam.
I decided there had to be a better way of solving problems and I've lived my life on that idea. Now, NK is making me doubt that. Insanity has to be stopped. I am logically adrift...
NK worries me also. My biggest worry is that we don't have the leadership to deal with the problem in the best way. I'm not saying I know the best way, but I have zero confidence in any of our leaders and that makes me feel helpless.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 11:29:02 AM
I knew at a young age that war itself wasn't evil (WWII) but stupid ones were. I grew up with MASH and Star Trek and Vietnam.
Likewise. I was on board with the invasion of Afghanistan, since that's where the attacks were planned and masterminded. The Iraq war, on the other hand, was purely a war of aggression and of choice. It never needed to be fought, and it was never about 9/11 or the mythical Iraqi WMD. It was always about two things: the oil, and Cheney's buddies' war profiteering.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 11:29:02 AM
I decided there had to be a better way of solving problems and I've lived my life on that idea. Now, NK is making me doubt that. Insanity has to be stopped. I am logically adrift...
I don't know what to do about North Korea either, but I feel confident in saying that random belligerent tweets are definitely
not what to do.
Quote from: trdsf on December 18, 2017, 01:00:06 PM
Likewise. I was on board with the invasion of Afghanistan, since that's where the attacks were planned and masterminded. The Iraq war, on the other hand, was purely a war of aggression and of choice. It never needed to be fought, and it was never about 9/11 or the mythical Iraqi WMD. It was always about two things: the oil, and Cheney's buddies' war profiteering.
I don't know what to do about North Korea either, but I feel confident in saying that random belligerent tweets are definitely not what to do.
Indeed, sometimes it is very obvious what NOT to do. I wish we had a President that smart...
Quote from: trdsf on December 18, 2017, 01:00:06 PM
Likewise. I was on board with the invasion of Afghanistan, since that's where the attacks were planned and masterminded. The Iraq war, on the other hand, was purely a war of aggression and of choice. It never needed to be fought, and it was never about 9/11 or the mythical Iraqi WMD. It was always about two things: the oil, and Cheney's buddies' war profiteering.
I don't know what to do about North Korea either, but I feel confident in saying that random belligerent tweets are definitely not what to do.
I was OK with Afghanistan too, but I was floored when we decided to go into Iraq. It was a helpless nation, although with an annoying leader, but who was in no way connected to 9-11. Unfortunately, 67% of the nation was buying into the propaganda that Saddam had WMD and was somehow connected to 9-11. I remember a liberal friend who was supporting the invasion. She said, "You know that Saddam had WMD at one time, so you know he has them now," as if 10 years of weapons inspections never happened. That statement was made by an intelligent person, too, but the collective war frenzy at the time prevented her from seeing the logical fallacy of her statement, even when pointed out.
I knew voters would come to their senses once the human and financial costs of the fiasco slowly entered their consciousness, which they eventually always do, and which they did, but only after an enormous loss and a mountain of national debt. The fact is, we study history to avoid the same mistakes in the future, but the other fact is that we keep making the same mistakes, anyway. Each time we perceive a crisis, we perceive it as different from the last crisis, and our "learning" gets tossed out because it's a special crisis in our mind, when most of the time, it's really just a replay of the last crisis, and we fail to see the common denominators.
Quote from: SGOS on December 18, 2017, 02:10:00 PM
I was OK with Afghanistan too, but I was floored when we decided to go into Iraq. It was a helpless nation, although with an annoying leader, but who was in no way connected to 9-11. Unfortunately, 67% of the nation was buying into the propaganda that Saddam had WMD and was somehow connected to 9-11. I remember a liberal friend who was supporting the invasion. She said, "You know that Saddam had WMD at one time, so you know he has them now," as if 10 years of weapons inspections never happened. That statement was made by an intelligent person, too, but the collective war frenzy at the time prevented her from seeing the logical fallacy of her statement, even when pointed out.
I knew voters would come to their senses once the human and financial costs of the fiasco slowly entered their consciousness, which they eventually always do, and which they did, but only after an enormous loss and a mountain of national debt. The fact is, we study history to avoid the same mistakes in the future, but the other fact is that we keep making the same mistakes, anyway. Each time we perceive a crisis, we perceive it as different from the last crisis, and our "learning" gets tossed out because it's a special crisis in our mind, when most of the time, it's really just a replay of the last crisis, and we fail to see the common denominators.
I remember the day. I doubted the WMD argument, but then Colin Powell said it was real. In front of the UN. And I trusted him... I hung my head and said to myself, "OK".
And I learned later he knowingly LIED. If there was ever an end of innocence and trust, that was it. To this day, I am ashamed of my gullibility.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 02:15:30 PM
I remember the day. I doubted the WMD argument, but then Colin Powell said it was real. In front of the UN. And I trusted him... I hung my head and said to myself, "OK".
And I learned later he knowingly LIED. If there was ever an end of innocence and trust, that was it. To this day, I am ashamed of my gullibility.
I never bought Powell's argument because it was a non sequitur. He began showing blurry satellite images of what might have been mobile chemical labs. All you could see was what looked like they may have been semi trucks with trailers. OK, that could squeak by. Maybe that is exactly what they were, but after asserting these were chem labs without giving any reasons for why they should be, he brought out diagrams of what a chem lab would look like in a semi trailer. The diagrams were well done, and clearly showed pots and vats nicely labeled. The basics of his argument were:
We have these photos of tractor trailers.
They might be chem labs.
I have a diagram of a mobile chem lab.
Therefore, these are mobile chem labs.
I was on the verge of screaming and tearing out my hair. It ended with CNN camera's back in Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room as they called it. Wolf Blitzer and some good look air head co-commentator were both beaming with delight. "Well, there you have it," beamed Blitzer, "Iraq has chemical weapons, and an invasion will surely take place." (And I will surely make a lot of money reporting on it).
Quote from: SGOS on December 18, 2017, 02:34:25 PM
I never bought Powell's argument because it was a non sequitur. He began showing blurry satellite images of what might have been mobile chemical labs. All you could see was what looked like they may have been semi trucks with trailers. OK, that could squeak by. Maybe that is exactly what they were, but after asserting these were chem labs without giving any reasons for why they should be, he brought out diagrams of what a chem lab would look like in a semi trailer. The diagrams were well done, and clearly showed pots and vats nicely labeled. The basics of his argument were:
We have these photos of tractor trailers.
They might be chem labs.
I have a diagram of a mobile chem lab.
Therefore, these are mobile chem labs.
I was on the verge of screaming and tearing out my hair. It ended with CNN camera's back in Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room as they called it. Wolf Blitzer and some good look air head co-commentator were both beaming with delight. "Well, there you have it," beamed Blitzer, "Iraq has chemical weapons, and an invasion will surely take place." (And I will surely make a lot of money reporting on it).
It wasn't what he SHOWED. It was what he SAID. He SAID they were there based on evidence and... I... believed him.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 02:42:30 PM
It wasn't what he SHOWED. It was what he SAID. He SAID they were there based on evidence and... I... believed him.
I never bought it. Maybe it was just lucky skepticism on my part, but he could have asserted more than "we have evidence" with at least a hint of what the evidence was. I can understand them not wanting to admit it came from a cab driver. Hey, cab drivers can be right about things, but it doesn't lend much to an argument. OK, OK, he may have been a cab driver, but he did come from Iraq, and the fact that he wanted Saddam gone so he could be the new president wouldn't sound fishy at all. Well... Oh forget it.
Quote from: SGOS on December 18, 2017, 02:56:06 PM
I never bought it. Maybe it was just lucky skepticism on my part, but he could have asserted more than "we have evidence" with at least a hint of what the evidence was. I can understand them not wanting to admit it came from a cab driver. Hey, cab drivers can be right about things, but it doesn't lend much to an argument. OK, OK, he may have been a cab driver, but he did come from Iraq, and the fact that he wanted Saddam gone so he could be the new president wouldn't sound fishy at all. Well... Oh forget it.
I wish I was like you, then... I guess that's all I can say. Congrats, maybe...
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 02:42:30 PM
It wasn't what he SHOWED. It was what he SAID. He SAID they were there based on evidence and... I... believed him.
So did a lot of people. Powell was kind of the GOP ace in the hole, he was one of their very few people who had the public's trust, so don't beat yourself up about it. Even to this day, I wonder how much he was fooled by the warmongers, and how much he actually knew was bull.
However, I knew by the time of his presentation that the invasion was a done deal. Recall that in the whole run-up to the Iraq invasion, the US made demands that carried at least an implicit threat of invasion, and in every single case, Iraq caved in. And every single time Iraq caved, the US made another demand "or else", to which Iraq would also cave. So it was pretty clear the Dubya White House was just desperate for any excuse to attack -- I mean, towards the end, the government complaint boiled down to "Well, okay, they gave us everything we asked for, but they were kind of sulky about it."
Ultimately, they were desperate enough to just make up the excuse themselves.
Quote from: trdsf on December 18, 2017, 03:29:31 PM
So did a lot of people. Powell was kind of the GOP ace in the hole, he was one of their very few people who had the public's trust, so don't beat yourself up about it. Even to this day, I wonder how much he was fooled by the warmongers, and how much he actually knew was bull.
Powell was respected. I respect him, but I was disheartened by that one presentation. I had hoped Powell might be the one member of the inner circle that could have a positive effect on the nation, and I do believe he tried to do that, but was just overruled.
In retrospect, I've tried to put together what happened, but it's only in retrospect and guessing what happened. Powell was a military man, and I think loyalty and (maybe) his military training edged him toward supporting his superiors, while opposing them internally. In the end, I think that kind of loyalty caused him to swallow a bitter pill and go along.
He left the administration shortly after and was replaced. I don't know if he was told to leave or if it was of his choosing, and I wouldn't go by anything that was publicly articulated. He must have voiced opposition in private meetings, but he was a team player, but not an ideal fit. He had the potential to be a credit to the nation. But sometimes potential is not enough, and regardless of potential we are often limited by circumstances beyond our control. Had he said publicly that the Bush propaganda wasn't reliable enough to go to war, it would have had no effect. We were going to invade Iraq. It must have been disheartening for him too.
Quote from: SGOS on December 18, 2017, 04:34:52 PM
Powell was respected. I respect him, but I was disheartened by that one presentation. I had hoped Powell might be the one member of the inner circle that could have a positive effect on the nation, and I do believe he tried to do that, but was just overruled.
In retrospect, I've tried to put together what happened, but it's only in retrospect and guessing what happened. Powell was a military man, and I think loyalty and (maybe) his military training edged him toward supporting his superiors, while opposing them internally. In the end, I think that kind of loyalty caused him to swallow a bitter pill and go along.
He left the administration shortly after and was replaced. I don't know if he was told to leave or if it was of his choosing, and I wouldn't go by anything that was publicly articulated. He must have voiced opposition in private meetings, but he was a team player, but not an ideal fit. He had the potential to be a credit to the nation. But sometimes potential is not enough, and regardless of potential we are often limited by circumstances beyond our control. Had he said publicly that the Bush propaganda wasn't reliable enough to go to war, it would have had no effect. We were going to invade Iraq. It must have been disheartening for him too.
I understand NOW that Powell "took one for the team". But I didn't know that then. That's why they used him. To get people like me.
Prior to his UN speech, Powell for me, was the one shinning light of the Bush adm. I had hopes that maybe he'd run for president. Then he made that speech and I knew he was just another politician--maybe worse than average. I knew he knew he was lying. As a high ranking military man, I knew he knew about who had what in the way of arms. He lied and he lied because he wanted to. I have no respect at all for the man.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 07:13:43 AM
As much as objected to the Vietnam War Debacle, I didn't avoid the possibility of the draft. In 1970, I dropped my college deferment and threw my hat into the ring. No fake medical disabilities or anything like that.
I wasn't drafted, and was forever free. Good thing, too. It would have meant Canada or Ft Levenworth. I don't take orders from idiots. I barely take orders from intelligent people.
The government entrtance exam I took in 1976 was easy. I scored in the top percentile, told them I smoked grass in college but not since then (well there WAS one party in 1974), but they really needed someone like me (rational analyst) and we met in the middle.
I cut off my 18" ponytail (which I still have most of on the wall) and shaved my beard; they gave me a job 2x minimum wage. I never looked back and they never regretted it.
Lucky. And I have an independent streak. Would be afraid I would have fragged someone if I had been in combat with an idiot.
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2017, 10:28:23 PM
Lucky. And I have an independent streak. Would be afraid I would have fragged someone if I had been in combat with an idiot.
I could actually picture you shooting someone in the back. Only because you suggested you would.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 06:00:18 AM
I could actually picture you shooting someone in the back. Only because you suggested you would.
I didn't serve in Nam. But I know people who did. And yes, some 90-day wonders needed eliminating. Just to ensure one's own survival. But I was just pointing out that I am temperamental when I am in physical danger. This is why you don't give me the nuclear football.
Quote from: Baruch on December 23, 2017, 06:58:57 AM
I didn't serve in Nam. But I know people who did. And yes, some 90-day wonders needed eliminating. Just to ensure one's own survival. But I was just pointing out that I am temperamental when I am in physical danger. This is why you don't give me the nuclear football.
I heard a quote from Robert McNamara from a few years after Vietnam War ended. He said, as best I can recall "We fought 10% to stop the North Vietnamese, 20% to stop the Chinese, and 70% to save face".
And I KNEW that in 1970. Which was why *I* refused to be Nixon's cannon fodder.
And I respect those who served bravely; never criticized them. It just wasn't my cup of tea.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 10:22:31 AM
I heard a quote from Robert McNamara from a few years after Vietnam War ended. He said, as best I can recall "We fought 10% to stop the North Vietnamese, 20% to stop the Chinese, and 70% to save face".
And I KNEW that in 1970. Which was why *I* refused to be Nixon's cannon fodder.
And I respect those who served bravely; never criticized them. It just wasn't my cup of tea.
Had I been one year older, I don't know what I would have done. My mother would have sent me to Canada, since she had already contributed my older brother.
The Pentagon Papers only told the half of it. I blame LBJ primarily.
Quote from: Baruch on December 23, 2017, 11:25:12 AM
Had I been one year older, I don't know what I would have done. My mother would have sent me to Canada, since she had already contributed my older brother.
The Pentagon Papers only told the half of it. I blame LBJ primarily.
I served in the Army during Nam, but not in Nam. I was simply fucking fucking lucky! But my father and a brother went. My brother came back with a blown up gut and fucked up head--but then, he was already fucked in the head before he left, so no foul, no crime. My dad made it back much the same, only much more liberal in his political outlook; no more defending the govt. no matter what.
Quote from: Baruch on December 23, 2017, 11:25:12 AM
Had I been one year older, I don't know what I would have done. My mother would have sent me to Canada, since she had already contributed my older brother.
The Pentagon Papers only told the half of it. I blame LBJ primarily.
It goes so much farther back than LBJ. After WWII, we were very supportive of our French allies, so when they couldn't hold on the Indochina, we stepped in slowly. They left, and we stayed.
Eisonhower disliked it, but sent "teachers" to South Vietnam. Kennedy disliked it, but felt pressured to maintain the "teachers" and increased them. LBJ was stuck with the dog-vomit situation. He expanded. That's where it impacted MY life. I said NO WAY, LBJ.
Looking back, I shouldn't have blamed him so much. But he did expand the military work, and Nixon followed. It was a bad job all around.
When I went back to college in 1992, it was history to most of the students in the class. But not to me. And the professor said there was always one student in the class who was comtemporary. I was that one that class.
When she showed a picture of anti=war demonstrators, I realized that I was there in that picture somewhere. No, I never put a flower in a soldier's gun. And I never overturned a car on Rt One. But I recognized the picture and I was in there.
I had to leave the room. The next class, the professor asked me to speak of the demonstrations. It wasn't easy. But it got through to the younger students in the class.
I felt better afterwards.
True about our entanglement, but you are giving the government in general, and LBJ in particular, too much credit. LBJ was a stupid baby killer, even if the grunts weren't. If by "babes" I mean young men 18-20 in all armed forces involved. The US has generally ignored, starting with Jefferson in the Tripolitanian War ... Washington's suggestion that we stay uninvolved. McKinley and Wilson really ratcheted that up. Without Wilson, the Kaiser would have won, and there would be no Hitler. Law of unintended consequences writ large.
Quote from: Baruch on December 23, 2017, 01:19:54 PM
True about our entanglement, but you are giving the government in general, and LBJ in particular, too much credit. LBJ was a stupid baby killer, even if the grunts weren't. If by "babes" I mean young men 18-20 in all armed forces involved. The US has generally ignored, starting with Jefferson in the Tripolitanian War ... Washington's suggestion that we stay uninvolved. McKinley and Wilson really ratcheted that up. Without Wilson, the Kaiser would have won, and there would be no Hitler. Law of unintended consequences writ large.
I appreciate the opportunity for an alternate history lesson. Seriously, if Hitler's mustache hadn't caused him to suffer that gas attack in WWI, would there have been a WWII?
Yes. The last shot of WWI was the 1st shot of WWII. I forget who said (something like) We have bought a generation of peace and a new WW after.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 01:29:24 PM
I appreciate the opportunity for an alternate history lesson. Seriously, if Hitler's mustache hadn't caused him to suffer that gas attack in WWI, would there have been a WWII?
Yes. The last shot of WWI was the 1st shot of WWII. I forget who said (something like) We have bought a generation of peace and a new WW after.
The US was negative on how Versailles worked out. But we still made out like bandits on loans to Germans (see Walker-Bush).
Hitler was nearly shot ... while retreating unarmed. The Tommy who could have shot him, felt pity. And I think Hitler was crazy, even without the effects of the gas attack. It was his psych doctor (who helped him want to continue living while recovering from the gas injury) who told him that he had an imperishable destiny.
My feelings on McKinley are negative, and on Wilson, split. We nearly went to war with the British Empire, over the boundary between British Guyana and Venezuela in the 1890s. Also with the German Empire over Samoa. Good thing Spain was a push over.
Quote from: Baruch on December 23, 2017, 01:35:34 PM
The US was negative on how Versailles worked out. But we still made out like bandits on loans to Germans (see Walker-Bush).
Hitler was nearly shot ... while retreating unarmed. The Tommy who could have shot him, felt pity. And I think Hitler was crazy, even without the effects of the gas attack. It was his psych doctor (who helped him want to continue living while recovering from the gas injury) who told him that he had an imperishable destiny.
My feelings on McKinley are negative, and on Wilson, split. We nearly went to war with the British Empire, over the boundary between British Guyana and Venezuela in the 1890s. Also with the German Empire over Samoa. Good thing Spain was a push over.
Sort of a pity about Spain. We could have saved the annoyance over The Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rica, etc. We nearly went to war with Great Britain every decade. What's a small war among friends? Keeps the troops trained.
Joke.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 12:33:06 PM
It goes so much farther back than LBJ. After WWII, we were very supportive of our French allies, so when they couldn't hold on the Indochina, we stepped in slowly. They left, and we stayed.
It's also worth noting that Ho Chi Minh came to the West first in his quest for Vietnamese independence. Wilson and the West refused to see him at Versailles after World War I, and as late as World War II by which time he was already involved in the Communist International, he was working with the OSS against both Vichy France and Japan in French Indochina, and after the war tried repeatedly to contact Truman regarding Vietnamese independence -- who essentially ignored him. Viet Nam was very much a war that did not need to happen.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 11:29:02 AM
I knew at a young age that war itself wasn't evil (WWII) but stupid ones were. I grew up with MASH and Star Trek and Vietnam.
I decided there had to be a better way of solving problems and I've lived my life on that idea. Now, NK is making me doubt that. Insanity has to be stopped. I am logically adrift...
I believe that if war becomes necessary we've already lost, whether or not we "win" the war.
Quote from: SGOS on December 18, 2017, 12:28:07 PM
NK worries me also. My biggest worry is that we don't have the leadership to deal with the problem in the best way. I'm not saying I know the best way, but I have zero confidence in any of our leaders and that makes me feel helpless.
America - and it's weapons makers -
need NK; we always need a boogyman to make the people scared enough to keep supporting the war mongers, since their sacred shareholders always need more money..
Quote from: SGOS on December 18, 2017, 02:10:00 PM
I was OK with Afghanistan too, but I was floored when we decided to go into Iraq.
Afghanistan didn't need to be attacked to get Bin Laden - they offered to turn him over to us through a third party nation, but the Bush regime wouldn't have that - they needed a war, so they made damned sure they got one - or two, as it turned out.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 26, 2017, 04:19:56 PM
Afghanistan didn't need to be attacked to get Bin Laden - they offered to turn him over to us through a third party nation, but the Bush regime wouldn't have that - they needed a war, so they made damned sure they got one - or two, as it turned out.
Bin Laden shou;d have been "gotten" through Interpol as a criminal, not a terrorist. The US govt blew it big time for publicity and power-showing!