"Why We Fight"

[Vulcan]

This documentary is on CBC on Thur. at 8PM.
This should be a must see for the political junkies here. The premise seems to be that the USA is "a system whose survival depends on a constant state of war". Agree or disagree it should be interesting.

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/whywefight.html

[Flash Walken]

Pretty good documentary. A little apologetic of Eisenhower, even though I regard him as the second best President of the last century.

[Canada 02]

My favourite excerpt from Eisenhower's farewell speech:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst3...ts/indust.html

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

My favourite excerpt from Eisenhower's farewell speech:




http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst3...ts/indust.html

My favourite part is this:

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

It's a real shame military men no longer seem to seek the higher offices of the land.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

My favourite excerpt from Eisenhower's farewell speech:




http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Great quote, but today, thinking along those lines gets you falsely branded a conspiracy theorist. Eisenhower, being a former General, was an obvious member of this 'military industrial complex' and for him to speak out against it in his farewell speech shows truely what side his bread was buttered on. My
few memories of the Eisenhower era were filled with the tension inducing policy of brinkmanship practised by his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

My favourite part is this:


It's a real shame military men no longer seem to seek the higher offices of the land.

You saw what happened to John Kerry, didn't you. Not to mention Jimmy Carter.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You saw what happened to John Kerry, didn't you. Not to mention Jimmy Carter.

When i think of kerry and carter, I don't really think of either of their military service. I know a fair bit about Carter's work with a then burgeoning nuclear submarine program, and maybe because I wasn't around during his campaign, but from what I've researched, I don't remember him even making his military career much of an issue.

Kerry on the other hand was the urn that carried the democratic party. I don't know where to start in describing how terrible he was as a candidate.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

When i think of kerry and carter, I don't really think of either of their military service. I know a fair bit about Carter's work with a then burgeoning nuclear submarine program, and maybe because I wasn't around during his campaign, but from what I've researched, I don't remember him even making his military career much of an issue.

Kerry on the other hand was the urn that carried the democratic party. I don't know where to start in describing how terrible he was as a candidate.

I don't remember that much about Carter except that he was portrayed as indecisive in his handling of Iran. Sometimes I think he was this way because of his military background and had learned the seriousness of war. The closest Ronald Raygun came to war was in a Hollywood studio but his loose gun approach seemed to work.

I mentioned Kerry because by the time Bush got through with him, his war heroism was changed into shooting some kid in the back. His military background was used against him while the AWOL George Bush stood tall. Looking at Bush and his cronies, no one presently has any military experience, yet these are the guys ineptly starting wars. What experience is best depends on the man.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't remember that much about Carter except that he was portrayed as indecisive in his handling of Iran. Sometimes I think he was this way because of his military background and had learned the seriousness of war. The closest Ronald Raygun came to war was in a Hollywood studio but his loose gun approach seemed to work.

I mentioned Kerry because by the time Bush got through with him, his war heroism was changed into shooting some kid in the back. His military background was used against him while the AWOL George Bush stood tall. Looking at Bush and his cronies, no one presently has any military experience, yet these are the guys ineptly starting wars. What experience is best depends on the man.

See, I would say Reagan's loose gun approach was a complete failure, and his presidency one of the worst in american history, the full effects of which are only beginning to be felt.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

See, I would say Reagan's loose gun approach was a complete failure, and his presidency one of the worst in american history, the full effects of which are only beginning to be felt.

His loose canon aproach seemed to work with Iran or he could have just been the reaper of the good work that Carter put in before him. I agree he was one of the worst presidents ever but lots of Americans seem to recall him fondly. I still get in arguments with one of my sisters who lived in the States for many years and she is generally very left wing.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

See, I would say Reagan's loose gun approach was a complete failure, and his presidency one of the worst in american history, the full effects of which are only beginning to be felt.

This thread is far down but I want to reply to this. I'd say Reagan's approach was a complete success and righted the American ship after Carter almost flipped it. I think the effects of ReaganAmerica was beginning to see were positive until Bush's incomptency negated many of them.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

This thread is far down but I want to reply to this. I'd say Reagan's approach was a complete success and righted the American ship after Carter almost flipped it. I think the effects of ReaganAmerica was beginning to see were positive until Bush's incomptency negated many of them.

I would say escalation of assistance to rebel fighters in Afghanistan (carter's war) was a very bad decision, and would haunt america for the next 25 years (with no sign of stopping), both in the form of international 'terrorism' as well as the sharp increase of domestic opiate consumption. I would say American terrorism in Nicaragua is one of the worst overt acts of state sponsored terrorism ever. One could expand on that and simply use Latin America as the worst overt act of state sponsored terrorism that the world has ever seen, and it is of Genocidal proportions. One could similarly point to Africa, Angola specifically, under the same rationale.

I'm sure there are rational reasons as to why reagan's government would stand alone in support of Apartheid south africa.

Missile defense, trickle down economics, there's too much to know where to begin.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's a real shame military men no longer seem to seek the higher offices of the land.

Isn't the current administration sort of anomalous in that regard, though? If you look back across the last century, most presidents and candidates have had some measure of military service. Clinton didn't, but Gore did--and Kerry, obviously. On the republican side, Bush I was a WWII vet, Carter was a vet, the list goes on. This chickenhawk phenomenon seems to be pretty much a post-Reagan phenomenon, as far as I can tell. (unless you count FDR--and he had a pretty good reason)

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I would say escalation of assistance to rebel fighters in Afghanistan (carter's war) was a very bad decision, and would haunt america for the next 25 years (with no sign of stopping), both in the form of international 'terrorism' as well as the sharp increase of domestic opiate consumption. I would say American terrorism in Nicaragua is one of the worst overt acts of state sponsored terrorism ever. One could expand on that and simply use Latin America as the worst overt act of state sponsored terrorism that the world has ever seen, and it is of Genocidal proportions. One could similarly point to Africa, Angola specifically, under the same rationale.

I'm sure there are rational reasons as to why reagan's government would stand alone in support of Apartheid south africa.

Missile defense, trickle down economics, there's too much to know where to begin.

Agreed. Although some of Reagan's economic policies helped pull the US out of a period of brutal inflation and unemployment. Lots of Reagan's policies sucked, although we in Canada can thank him for free trade.
The guy as a person wasn't all that bright, but as an ideological conservative he stole America from the left. He, along with Thatcher, helped save the West from the welfare state and influenced guys like Clinton and Bush to make some positive changes. Unfortunately, a guy like GW is bringing the US towards a more protectionist stance, which isn't beneficial to anyone, without making the necessary additions to the welfare state in order to make up for the economic degradation that will occur in the next few years.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I would say escalation of assistance to rebel fighters in Afghanistan (carter's war) was a very bad decision, and would haunt america for the next 25 years (with no sign of stopping), both in the form of international 'terrorism' as well as the sharp increase of domestic opiate consumption. I would say American terrorism in Nicaragua is one of the worst overt acts of state sponsored terrorism ever. One could expand on that and simply use Latin America as the worst overt act of state sponsored terrorism that the world has ever seen, and it is of Genocidal proportions. One could similarly point to Africa, Angola specifically, under the same rationale.

I'm sure there are rational reasons as to why reagan's government would stand alone in support of Apartheid south africa.

Missile defense, trickle down economics, there's too much to know where to begin.

AGREE Completely to a tee. These are my thoughts pretty much exactly.

You wonder if he would still have done it back then all for the "prevention of communism" even if he knew that it could blow up to what it is today.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Isn't the current administration sort of anomalous in that regard, though? If you look back across the last century, most presidents and candidates have had some measure of military service. Clinton didn't, but Gore did--and Kerry, obviously. On the republican side, Bush I was a WWII vet, Carter was a vet, the list goes on. This chickenhawk phenomenon seems to be pretty much a post-Reagan phenomenon, as far as I can tell. (unless you count FDR--and he had a pretty good reason)

See, I don't really regard those with military 'experience' to be military men? none of those listed were really 'defined' by their service. Bush was shot down flying sorties, Carter was instrumental in America's submarine program, gore was a military journalist. Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander, the military all but encompassing his entire professional career.

I would've thought Powell to be an excellent presidential candidate, if it weren't for his weak moral character.

Having said that though, Wesley Clarke was a bad candidate aswell.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

One of the best documentaries I've seen, and has a place in my collection. A must see IMO.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

AGREE Completely to a tee. These are my thoughts pretty much exactly.

You wonder if he would still have done it back then all for the "prevention of communism" even if he knew that it could blow up to what it is today.

I think most of that 'prevention' of the 'domino effect' was a whole lot of hooey. I think that's used to absolve people in their own minds of what the realities were on the ground.

To take this back to the original topic of the thread, Chalmers Johnson talks about the term 'blowback' in the movie Why We Fight. He's also written fairly extensively on the subject, and I would recommend his writings to those wanting to openly review their own personal beliefs about the cold war, and specifically, the reagan administration. Essentially, blowback is unintended consequences of foreign manipulation. It is not unexpected, but 'unintended', which is a significant detail often overlooked.

For instance, while the bombing of the Marine Barracks in lebanon might have been unintended, it was not 'unexpected' that there would be retaliatory behaviour exhibited by the local militant population against US interests there.

While the cuban missile crisis may have been unintended, possible military reaction from the Soviet Union and/or Cuba was expected.

So while I believe Reagan may have been too crippled by Alzheimers at the time, the rest of his administration would have forseen future reaction to their policies and disregarded them.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Isn't the current administration sort of anomalous in that regard, though? If you look back across the last century, most presidents and candidates have had some measure of military service. Clinton didn't, but Gore did--and Kerry, obviously. On the republican side, Bush I was a WWII vet, Carter was a vet, the list goes on. This chickenhawk phenomenon seems to be pretty much a post-Reagan phenomenon, as far as I can tell. (unless you count FDR--and he had a pretty good reason)

In my mind, what divides Clinton and FDR from Bush II is that neither of the first two were hawks. Dan Quayle seems to have been the first popularly labeled with this term. I guess Georgie made the right decision in not going to Viet Nam or, with his ineptness, he may have been the victim of a fragging.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

See, I don't really regard those with military 'experience' to be military men? none of those listed were really 'defined' by their service. Bush was shot down flying sorties, Carter was instrumental in America's submarine program, gore was a military journalist. Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander, the military all but encompassing his entire professional career.

I would've thought Powell to be an excellent presidential candidate, if it weren't for his weak moral character.

Having said that though, Wesley Clarke was a bad candidate aswell.

Different times require leaders with different assets. Reading what went on when Kennedy was dealing with the Cuban Missile Crises, his military advisors seemed to be straight out of Dr. Strangelove. Having any of these men advance to being President of the USA would have been down right scary.