"Why We Fight"

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

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.

I agree and disagree with this statement.

I don't know if you've seen The Fog of War, which I would suggest, but in it, Robert Macnamara reveals one of the key discussions of Kennedy and his advisors. He talks about how Tommy Thompson, former ambassador to Moscow, told Kennedy (who at the time didn't see a diplomatic way out) that essentially his position was wrong and that 'he didn't agree'.

That's a really interesting time in American history, because of the seeming overwhelming desire by the most important parts of american policy makers to invade Cuba. That it didn't happen is astounding.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

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.

That's a fair distinction. And many great presidents were also career military men. (starting with Washington, I guess!) It's worth noting though that some of the worst presidents in U.S. history were what you'd call "military men" too. U.S. Grant is the first example to pop into my head, but Zachary "Old Rough and Ready" Taylor is another. History shows that it isn't much of a guarantee. Andrew Jackson was a military man too--and though he's not especially well remembered for it, there was a guy who in the twentieth century would be facing a war crimes tribunal.

I guess what skews this is the fact that so many presidents had military backgrounds. It's almost the norm for much of the nation's history.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I agree and disagree with this statement.

I don't know if you've seen The Fog of War, which I would suggest, but in it, Robert Macnamara reveals one of the key discussions of Kennedy and his advisors. He talks about how Tommy Thompson, former ambassador to Moscow, told Kennedy (who at the time didn't see a diplomatic way out) that essentially his position was wrong and that 'he didn't agree'.

That's a really interesting time in American history, because of the seeming overwhelming desire by the most important parts of american policy makers to invade Cuba. That it didn't happen is astounding.

Fog of War was great.

Oct. 27/62
I'm referring to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"General Taylor reports that the JCS wants an airstrike no later than Monday morning unless there is irrefutable evidence that the missiles are being dismantled. RFK responds "Gosh I'm surprised" resulting in a great deal of laughter.

http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/

[HOZ]

I have not seen this documentary and hold my final judgement until I do....

but....

I'd say it's leftleaning anti-American stance is quite evident...

WHY WE FIGHT launches a compelling inquiry into the workings of the military industrial complex and the rise of the American Empire.

I can imagine the directors and producers all wearing their CHE shirts while they film.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's a fair distinction. And many great presidents were also career military men. (starting with Washington, I guess!) It's worth noting though that some of the worst presidents in U.S. history were what you'd call "military men" too. U.S. Grant is the first example to pop into my head, but Zachary "Old Rough and Ready" Taylor is another. History shows that it isn't much of a guarantee. Andrew Jackson was a military man too--and though he's not especially well remembered for it, there was a guy who in the twentieth century would be facing a war crimes tribunal.

I guess what skews this is the fact that so many presidents had military backgrounds. It's almost the norm for much of the nation's history.

Bill Clinton was the first President to have no military background I beleive. So basically all the best and all the worst had military backgrounds.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Bill Clinton was the first President to have no military background I beleive. So basically all the best and all the worst had military backgrounds.

Clinton wasn't anywhere near the first: actually, there've been a bunch. FDR is one, though as I said, he had a pretty good reason. So is Taft. Van Buren, Herbert Hoover, Warren G. Harding, to name a few others. Even some of the "founding fathers"--like John Adams, whose role in the revolution was diplomatic, not military.

(not to split hairs or anything... )

[Flash Walken]

Not to mention the third president of the united states, Thomas Jefferson.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's a fair distinction. And many great presidents were also career military men. (starting with Washington, I guess!) It's worth noting though that some of the worst presidents in U.S. history were what you'd call "military men" too. U.S. Grant is the first example to pop into my head, but Zachary "Old Rough and Ready" Taylor is another. History shows that it isn't much of a guarantee. Andrew Jackson was a military man too--and though he's not especially well remembered for it, there was a guy who in the twentieth century would be facing a war crimes tribunal.

I guess what skews this is the fact that so many presidents had military backgrounds. It's almost the norm for much of the nation's history.

Agreed. It's nice to an american with a good grasp of his country's presidential history. Makes me ashamed of my real lack of knowledge of Canadian political history.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I'd say it's leftleaning anti-American stance is quite evident...

I guess being anti-war is the same as being anti-American in your eyes. So that means if you're pro-war than you're pro-American? What happened to the idea that war is not good or is that too hard for you to grasp? You right wingers have so skewed your ideology that you believe war and killing is good and being anti-war is a dirty word. Give your head a shake.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I can imagine the directors and producers all wearing their CHE shirts while they film.

There are many people in this world who aren't blind followers of Che or Bush, they just believe in doing the right thing and take it as a personal responsibility to speak up.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I have not seen this documentary and hold my final judgement until I do....

Good, now STFU until you do. (wow, you actually MIGHT sit down and watch some "game tape")

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Agreed. It's nice to an american with a good grasp of his country's presidential history. Makes me ashamed of my real lack of knowledge of Canadian political history.

Well, for the record, I'm Canadian. I'm a PhD Student in American Literature though, so we do need some of that knowledge from time to time--so it's not randomly acquired knowledge. Thanks for the props, though!

[Vulcan]

"And, it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for."

Just a reminder, the show is on CBC HD now and soon on CBC Calgary.

[RougeUnderoos]

So did anyone who hasn't seen the movie actually watch it?

I know it's full of leftie scumbags like people named Eisenhower, victims of 9/11, former military and CIA folks, historians, veterans, soldiers et cetera and it does dredge up those tired old clips of George, Dick and Don bald-face lying to everyone, but it's a good show.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So did anyone who hasn't seen the movie actually watch it?

I know it's full of leftie scumbags like people named Eisenhower, victims of 9/11, former military and CIA folks, historians, veterans, soldiers et cetera and it does dredge up those tired old clips of George, Dick and Don bald-face lying to everyone, but it's a good show.

I liked the NY retired police Sarg. who lost his son in 9/11. He was told by the Pres., Iraq was behind the bombing of the World Trade Center so in a memorial to his son he asked and was granted that his son's name be put on a bomb destined for Iraq. When Bush finally came clean and said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, he was pretty bitter and confused whether he regretted the bomb signing.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So did anyone who hasn't seen the movie actually watch it?

I know it's full of leftie scumbags like people named Eisenhower, victims of 9/11, former military and CIA folks, historians, veterans, soldiers et cetera and it does dredge up those tired old clips of George, Dick and Don bald-face lying to everyone, but it's a good show.

I watched it last night, it was great. I liked that they had McCain on throughout the documentary basically bobbing his head in agreement with everything the interviewer was saying. Hard to say its a pure left-wing peice when the (potential) future Republican President is happily concurring with the theme (military-industrial complex/think tanks have hijacked US foreign policy).

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So did anyone who hasn't seen the movie actually watch it?

I did.

"Leftie" info that I knew would be in there - Bush branded as a lier (which he is), the Chaney Haliburton connection (I never thought this was questioned enough by Americans - once the corporate guy, always the corporate guy), "in-the-know" people (the CIA guy and the Lt. Col. Lady) tattle-tailing-ing on the government. That the US installed and armed Saddam - which I think is now common knowlage along with "the US armed and encouraged Osama vs the USSR". That Iraq posed no threat to the US (doesn't a threat against her allies (Saudi Arabia, Israel, India) or her interests (Japan went to war over the oil embargo) count anymore?)


What was news to me - The amount of money involved. Eisenhower pointed out that a 1960's missle cost two schools, a jet cost a state of the art hospital - which resonated, while Chaney quoted billions, but the numbers confused him (IIRC).

- Also that every congressman has an interest in keeping the circle rolling. In each district there is either a military base or military provider thus questioning the complex hurts the congressmen through loss of votes.

- That the US military contracts everything out - from gun manufacturing to catering to laundry. Is there anyone not at this trough? Could you go as far as saying that since a person can get a university education through military service (I assume paid by military funds), that some universities might cater to them?

- The rise of the think tank. Do they really have that much power? Are the right wing ones constantly at the ear of the President? What the hell is their roll exactly?

Of course, now I'm thinking about the Canadian comparison. Our Minister of Defence, though appointed by the PM, is also an elected MP and is somewhat accountable to the people. I do not think the military has interests in all 308 ridings or that an MP would lose their seat due to a military base closure. I am sure that most military hardware is purchased from the US, but does the Canadian military contract out for laundry service?

It was indeed an interesting two hours.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I liked the NY retired police Sarg. who lost his son in 9/11. He was told by the Pres., Iraq was behind the bombing of the World Trade Center so in a memorial to his son he asked and was granted that his son's name be put on a bomb destined for Iraq. When Bush finally came clean and said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, he was pretty bitter and confused whether he regretted the bomb signing.

I thought that he and the kid who joined up protrayed what the world sees as the "typical American".

The retired NYPD guy - 9/11 happend, someone was responsible, the govm't finds out who, ok, now go in there and kick butt! Wild West Cowboys.

The new recruit - the army will give me direction and purpose. I can walk in off the street (did he have more than a high school education?) and be the next super pilot. (in reality doesn't he become the guy who shleps helicopter parts from storage to maitinence?) - not the sharpest tool in the shed.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So did anyone who hasn't seen the movie actually watch it?

I know it's full of leftie scumbags like people named Eisenhower, victims of 9/11, former military and CIA folks, historians, veterans, soldiers et cetera and it does dredge up those tired old clips of George, Dick and Don bald-face lying to everyone, but it's a good show.

I can see by your sarcastic offering that anything I say will likely fall on deaf ears, but I did watch it, and to avoid commenting on it would be a cop out in my mind.

First off ... very well done. A little on the propaganda side that the maker was trying to suggest was wrong in the first place, but that was to be expected.

The retrospective:

Gave me some real pause to the actual inner workings of the US and their conflicts and it does raise some serious concerns I have to admit (any jaws dropping?). They do tie things up with a bow and we all know nothing in life is that simple, but the whole enterprise sure does seem like a runaway train that needs to find some checks and balances. Think tanks with suggestions is a long way from think tanks running the show and I'd like to know where the line is drawn and how much input they actually have. None of us really know, but it would be interesting. The Hallaburton thing was handled fairly in my opinion, they didn't paint Cheney as complicit, but the fact that he's the VP and they are allowed to bid, regardless of how many ties he broke with the company comes across badly, as McCain pointed out. However, how do you not allow them to bid if Cheney has stepped down and removed all financial ties? That's not fair either. System needs to change.

However:

I think it would have been a little more rounded if they included a section on the burdens of being the worlds only superpower with the fall of the USSR, and how they're in a no win situation. They were pleaded to help out in Liberia, the world just finished a plea for Washinton to step in on the Hezbollah Israeli issue, Clinton was feeling pressure to go into Serbia. It's a tough line. There have surely been US interest wars, but there have also been conflicts that have fallen to the US out of pressure from the smaller kids on the block.

Iraq:

I'm in full agreement on the sell job that went into that war, and I'm not surprised that they did the sell to get the US citizens behind it. I'm not as convinced that it was done for industry or blood thirst however, and truly do believe that they had a huge fear that the next 911 was coming from the direction. The attack that day moved Bush from a guy that had no foreign policy to an administration that was quickly looking to make sure they found that next enemy and avoided a similar attack. I think they were as suprised as anyone that WMD were not there, and then made a huge blunder for not just stepping up and admitting they were wrong, but that they had to stay and help Iraq form a new government and get on. Instead they spun other reasons and that was down right rediculous.

Anyway ... hammer away. I've tried to be fair and avoid insults or hyperbole.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I can see by your sarcastic offering that anything I say will likely fall on deaf ears, but I did watch it, and to avoid commenting on it would be a cop out in my mind.

First off ... very well done. A little on the propaganda side that the maker was trying to suggest was wrong in the first place, but that was to be expected.

The retrospective:

Gave me some real pause to the actual inner workings of the US and their conflicts and it does raise some serious concerns I have to admit (any jaws dropping?). They do tie things up with a bow and we all know nothing in life is that simple, but the whole enterprise sure does seem like a runaway train that needs to find some checks and balances. Think tanks with suggestions is a long way from think tanks running the show and I'd like to know where the line is drawn and how much input they actually have. None of us really know, but it would be interesting.

Actually, we do know. The Project for A New American Century is a result of a policy drawn up by Paul Wolfowitz on Behest of his boss Dick Cheney. After Cheney left public life, the Project for a New American Century adopted and expanded that policy paper. Members of that thinktank are now in the most prominent positions of US government, and surprise surprise, that policy is now the foreign policy in use today. I don't know how much clearer it has to be.

The Hallaburton thing was handled fairly in my opinion, they didn't paint Cheney as complicit, but the fact that he's the VP and they are allowed to bid, regardless of how many ties he broke with the company comes across badly, as McCain pointed out. However, how do you not allow them to bid if Cheney has stepped down and removed all financial ties? That's not fair either. System needs to change.

If this was true, maybe you would have a point. But it isn't. Cheney is still receiving defered payments from Halliburton. He is still literally on the payroll. I also don't think it takes a genius to acknowledge that if recommendations are coming from the VP's office that Halliburton be given no-big contracts, that there MAY be some foul play going on.

However:

I think it would have been a little more rounded if they included a section on the burdens of being the worlds only superpower with the fall of the USSR, and how they're in a no win situation. They were pleaded to help out in Liberia, the world just finished a plea for Washinton to step in on the Hezbollah Israeli issue, Clinton was feeling pressure to go into Serbia. It's a tough line. There have surely been US interest wars, but there have also been conflicts that have fallen to the US out of pressure from the smaller kids on the block.

Iraq:

I'm in full agreement on the sell job that went into that war, and I'm not surprised that they did the sell to get the US citizens behind it. I'm not as convinced that it was done for industry or blood thirst however, and truly do believe that they had a huge fear that the next 911 was coming from the direction. The attack that day moved Bush from a guy that had no foreign policy to an administration that was quickly looking to make sure they found that next enemy and avoided a similar attack. I think they were as suprised as anyone that WMD were not there, and then made a huge blunder for not just stepping up and admitting they were wrong, but that they had to stay and help Iraq form a new government and get on. Instead they spun other reasons and that was down right rediculous.

Anyway ... hammer away. I've tried to be fair and avoid insults or hyperbole.

I have to question whether you seriously watched. You think they were surprised as anyone? Did you actually watch the program?