How Would You Have Done In 1965?

[Eagle43]

Eagle 43: "Resist much. Obey little."

Do you think Edward Abbey would approve of your use of his motto?? Or, are you attributing that saying to someone else??

You are correct. I got it from Edward Abbey. He got it from Walt Whitman. It has a nice ring, don't you think? I have read most of Abbey's books and like him. He died too early, though.

 

[windsurf]

You are correct.  I got it from Edward Abbey.  He got it from Walt Whitman.  It has a nice ring, don't you think?  I have read most of Abbey's books and like him.  He died too early, though.

Yup;  he probably had a good book or two left in him had he survived.  I first read Desert Solitaire and then the Monkey Wrench Gang about twenty years ago and then found everything else he'd written and the newer ones as they came out.  I did not know the Whitman deriviation. 

 

[Cut-Throat]

Carter let the hostages stay in Iran for 444 days. Did you see that in your history books?? I believe they got out when RR was inaugurated 1/20/81.  That would be part of history as well.   It could be reasonably argued that Carter's behavior encouraged  whacko Muslims  to think the U.S. was a paper tiger.  You might check out the interest rate and the inflation rate during Carter's term too.

Eagle,

By your post, you seem to believe that keeping the American hostages for 444 days was much worse than the killing of 288 Americans in Beirut? Maybe Reagan's behavior encouraged the whacko Musilims to think that the U.S.  was even more of a paper tiger than during the  Carter years. - The hostages were not killed! - And further even more of a paper tiger when they took down the WTC buildings on 9/11?  - This is your reasoning - Not mine.

I never disputed that inflation and interest rates were high during the Carter Admin. - Raising interest rates to astronomical levels is finally what tamed inflation. This is what the Fed has done ever since. - This was the bad medicine that Carter doled out and the nation needed and Carter suffered the Political consequences.

I know this is tougher reasoning for a devotee of Fox News and Limbaugh is used to, but you begged me to point it out.

 

[Eagle43]

Eagle,

By your post, you seem to believe that keeping the American hostages for 444 days was much worse than the killing of 288 Americans in Beirut? Maybe Reagan's behavior encouraged the whacko Musilims to think that the U.S. was even more of a paper tiger than during the Carter years. - The hostages were not killed! - And further even more of a paper tiger when they took down the WTC buildings on 9/11? - This is your reasoning - Not mine.

You are correct, re Reagan. He should have nuked them, then and there. That would have been the proper course of action. The military was at fault, I believe, as their security procedures were lackluster, to say the least. You don't think they killed those guys in Beirut because Carter failed to act in 1979, do you? Nah! You wouldn't. Carter wasn't responsible for the inflation/taxes/interest rates during his regime, but Clinton was responsible for all the good years during his. Hmmmm. "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow, yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone!"

I know a devotee of Michael Moore and Move On Dot Org can't seem to see the forest for the trees, but GWB did respond after 9/11. We're still responding, in spite of the M. Moore's of this world.

 

[sgeeeee]

You are correct, re Reagan.  He should have nuked them, then and there. . .

Ahhhemmm.... okay. Reminds me of an old Randy Newman song: Let's drop the big one and see what happens. It's hard to take someone seriously after they've made this kind of statement.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

"Resist much. Obey little" I like it. Could be my motto I suppose.

Michael Moore is a nut job. FOX News and Rush Limbaugh
have their "warts". But, way better than the alternatives IMHO.

JG

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

but GWB did respond after 9/11

He sure did! Good thing that was a short book.

Now that we've killed 100,000+ innocent people by attacking a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, thereby diverting our resources from capturing Bin Laden, poured billions into a homeland security department whose best efforts have been color-coded warning levels, plastic sheeting and duct tape, and done nothing at all to assure that another 9/11 wont occur, I guess we can declare victory and a job well done!

 

[Nords]

You are correct, re Reagan.  He should have nuked them, then and there. That would have been the proper course of action.  The military was at fault, I believe, as their security procedures were lackluster, to say the least.

I was at a speech given by the former U.S. Ambassador to Iran shortly after his release.  He was asked a question:  "When the crowds started to attack the embassy, why didn't you order the Marines to just shoot the first camel jockeys over the wall?"  (You can guess the career of the questioner.)  

The ambassador replied that he didn't want his staff to get killed.  He felt if the military started shooting at the "trespassers" then they'd shoot back, overwhelm the embassy, and avenge their losses by killing Americans.

None of the DC politicians and none of the military had a say in the ambassador's decision.  And the military's security procedures, up to that point, had been focused on evacuating families.  If the situation was recreated today in another country I'm not sure that the result would be any different.

 

[retire@40]

...done nothing at all to assure that another 9/11 wont occur

How can any reasonable person ever assure that another 9/11 will never occur again?  I don't think "nothing at all" was done to help prevent another 9/11.  After all, it's been almost 4 years now and, in fact, another 9/11 has not occured, thank God.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

How can any reasonable person ever assure that another 9/11 will never occur again?  I don't think "nothing at all" was done to help prevent another 9/11.  After all, it's been almost 4 years now and, in fact, another 9/11 has not occured, thank God.

Another 9/11 is inevitable IMHO. Lots of peoiple don't like us and are willing to die to prove it. The next one might not be as spectacular
but there will be a next one. Count on it.

JG

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

How can any reasonable person ever assure that another 9/11 will never occur again? I don't think "nothing at all" was done to help prevent another 9/11. After all, it's been almost 4 years now and, in fact, another 9/11 has not occured, thank God.

Let see, how about the fact that people and 'stuff' get illegally brought into the country all the time, and very little has been done to limit either of those. This is from stats showing that the illegal immigration rate and illegal drug trade volumes have increased almost every year, unchecked by any 'homeland security' efforts.

If that doesnt work, how about the measured stats that show the billion dollar TSA effort at the airports has actually produced a less efficient system for catching 'bad people' and 'bad stuff'. The good news is they've compensated for that by making the air travel experience miserable and more time consuming.

With the above info, it is therefore easy to move to the conclusion that a bad person could bring bad stuff into the country almost undetected - hey, just run across the border from mexico into california, or speedboat into miami. If all else fails, wrap the terrorist and his bomb in cocaine or marijuana and ship in a suitable manner. Once here, getting on the plane appears to not be a problem.

That it hasnt happened in four years is irrelevant. We werent attacked between the old trade center bombing and the one on 9/11. Which I guess means that whatever clinton did worked pretty good as nobody tried anything again while he was still in office :

What we did do is destabilize a region by removing a standing army and the country's police force. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of various ordnance went missing. Miscreants and genuine terrorists have had free reign. We further aggravated a religious culture, giving them easy ammunition for recruiting purposes. We did that by getting rid of murderous, torturing scum and then...uh...murdering and torturing ourselves.

If that didnt cut it, we've spent billions on half-assed efforts that will do nothing to deter terrorism, cut into our own civil rights willingly, and created a rift between nearly equal sized groups of our population the like of which hasnt been seen since the 1860's. Who the hell needs terrorists?

But we're safer now... :

 

[HFWR]

I cannot agree with this comparison:

"We did that by getting rid of murderous, torturing scum and then...uh...murdering and torturing ourselves."

The minute I hear "worse than Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, etc.", the credibility quotient approaches zero.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

You must not be reading the newspapers or watching television. Or using the internet. Which sort of creates a conundrum.

Since you missed it, would you like links to the hundreds of situations where we've killed unarmed people and/or committed some level of torture on prisoners of war, and in some cases with 'suspected enemy combatants'? Since a good number of soldiers have been convicted of these activities or are in the process of being tried for them, I can only presume they might have actually happened.

Or is it possible for you to not dismiss reality by lumping me in with the 'nazi/hitler' principle of online discussions?

By the way, you probably missed the whole discussion we had last year on this. A good number of studies, most notably the well-known 'stanford study', showed that when (especially untrained) people are put in charge of a 'prison', they devolve to mistreatment and various degrees of torture. Some very surprising results in fact.

See the details here http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=812.0

So what happened wasnt surprising, in fact, it was almost predictable.

But if you're of the misperception that the muslim community is pleased as punch about how we've treated people at Guantanamo or places like Abu Ghraib...then you'll be the most surprised at the next major terrorist attack!

 

[HFWR]

I'm most certainly not an apologist for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. and I completely agree that atrocities have happen and will continue to happen. I just don't believe it's systematic, nor do I believe the scale is comparable.

I'd bet that many Iraqi's would like a democratically elected government, and I hope they get it. I'd also wager that most of the insurgents are not "freedom fighters", but terrorists bent on creating havoc, and benefiting from it. I suspect the insurgents are killing Iraqis at a much greater frequency than we are.

I'm fairly certain there will be more terrorists attacks on the US. That's right, we're bad. After all, we used to support Saddam, when it served our "cause". But we should be equally indignant about the regimes in the ME and elsewhere, and about terrorists who indiscriminately kill any and everyone in sight.

BTW, I agreed with most everything in your original post, just not this part.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Perhaps. However I have absolutely no concrete information on what the level of attrocities committed by Saddam were. All I know is that when you invade a country to stop something, committing the same acts, even on a moderate level, is unacceptable. Saying its not as bad as what we have been led to believe was happening before is no comfort.

I also have absolutely no concrete information on what kind of government or political system the Iraqi's prefer. Or think they might prefer. I do know that for a few thousand years many have tried to influence the region with armies and politics and few have succeeded with a kinder, gentler approach.

Your comments on freedom fighters vs terrorists is spot on and that was my point. We created a playground for terrorists with limited controls on them and in many cases entire arsenals of high quality weapons caches there for the taking. Perhaps its better they're engaging our army overseas instead of our citizenry here in the US, but I'll bet the iraqi people arent enjoying our use of their country as a 'neutral battle zone'.

Your comments about our support of 'bad' regimes is also well taken. In the wake of 9/11, I dont remember a lot of people wondering what the terrorists wanted, why they would sacrifice their lives to attack us etc. Of course its easy to say they were garden variety psychopaths, or dismiss them as religious nuts. Both may be true. However the primary reason why a lot of people are mad at us is that we might be overly using our money, political influence and military strength where we have no business, and underusing all of those in places where they have greater need, but sadly no oil. You stomp around in your neighbors back yard, be prepared to deal with the consequences.

So we decided the best way to solve this problem is to stomp more.

 

[HFWR]

We should have focused on Afghanistan militarily, and used our technological superiority to root out terrorists elsewhere by intercepting their communications, and tracing the money. Iraq was not a big fish, and has been/is a very expensive diversion from the "core" mission.

I hope that the situation in Iraq works out in the end, though I'm pessimistic. Bush, as commander-in-chief, cannot afford to bail at every sign of trouble, but we need a better strategy for finding and stopping the insurgents, and getting the country back to something that passes for normal. If we can't/don't do that, then we will have failed.

What will be interesting is what happens if the Palestinian/Israeli situation is resolved. The excuse du jour since 1948.

 

[Cut-Throat]

I type this on Memorial Day. We remember necessary wars and sacrificed lives on this day as opposed to the totally stupid conflict that we are involved in today.

Well no one now, or in the future should ever doubt that this was Bush Jr.'s war (Iraq).

This war will go down as one of the biggest disasters of the U.S. - It's too bad that Bush Jr. Dodged the draft in the late 60's. With a little experience under his belt, he would have spared over a thousand Amercian lives and countless wounded. Not to mention Billions of dollars and the fall of American currency.

Yes, he is a buffoon. And the 50% of Americans that voted for him, will beg to be forgiven by the year 2010.

 

[HFWR]

Back to topic, in 1965 I invested heavily in Western Auto bicycle parts: banana seat with sissy bar, hi-rise handle bars, racing slick...

A lot of lawn mowing dollars went into that old Schwinn.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I type this on Memorial Day. We remember necessary wars and sacrificed lives on this day as opposed to the totally stupid conflict that we are involved in today.

Well no one now, or in the future should ever doubt that this was Bush Jr.'s war (Iraq).

This war will go down as one of the biggest disasters of the U.S. - It's too bad that Bush Jr. Dodged the draft in the late 60's. With a little experience under his belt, he would have spared over a thousand Amercian lives and countless wounded. Not to mention Billions of dollars and the fall of American currency.

Yes, he is a buffoon. And the 50% of Americans that voted for him, will beg to be forgiven by the year 2010.

Lighten up man!   If Bush wasn't in there someone else would be screwing it up.

JG

 

[HFWR]

You got that right.............

 

[Nords]

We should have focused on Afghanistan militarily, and used our technological superiority to root out terrorists elsewhere by intercepting their communications, and tracing the money.

Speaking as a submariner, what the ^&#*! do you think we've been doing for the last 15 years?

TH, I happen to agree with you that the liberators can and do quickly turn into the oppressors. But I thought the Stanford Study had been generally discredited, as has its money-grubbing head researcher.

 

[laurence]

My work (defense contractor) sponsored a company of Marines (you know, care packages etc.) in Iraq, and recently they came home and visited our place of business. I happened to be near the podium (to make sure there were no technical glitches) and I overheard our HR director say how he was going to open with a big thank you etc. The CC said, "yeah, we're going to want to skip right over that, o.k.?" the director, confused, complied.

Later on I was speaking with two Marines about why the CC would say that. They replied, "If you saw what we had to do over there, you wouldn't be cheering and thanking us, either." They said it was very discordent, going through hell over there with no clear end game and then coming back here with everyone rah-rah-ing and waving the flag around.

So now I try to talk to the servicemen and women I meet about sports, weather, the Jackson trial, anything but the war. They've got enough on them as it is to then have to come back here and live up to our expectations as superheroes.

 

[Nords]

They replied, "If you saw what we had to do over there, you wouldn't be cheering and thanking us, either."  They said it was very discordent, going through hell over there with no clear end game and then coming back here with everyone rah-rah-ing and waving the flag around. 

Bummer. My nephew enlisted in the Rangers, did two tours in Afghanistan and a behind-the-lines gig in Iraq (a couple months before the war started), and he's happy to hear people tell him thanks.

But he's even happier at West Point.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

My work (defense contractor) sponsored a company of Marines (you know, care packages etc.) in Iraq, and recently they came home and visited our place of business.  I happened to be near the podium (to make sure there were no technical glitches) and I overheard our HR director say how he was going to open with a big thank you etc.  The CC said, "yeah, we're going to want to skip right over that, o.k.?" the director, confused, complied. 

Later on I was speaking with two Marines about why the CC would say that.  They replied, "If you saw what we had to do over there, you wouldn't be cheering and thanking us, either."  They said it was very discordent, going through hell over there with no clear end game and then coming back here with everyone rah-rah-ing and waving the flag around. 

So now I try to talk to the servicemen and women I meet about sports, weather, the Jackson trial, anything but the war.  They've got enough on them as it is to then have to come back here and live up to our expectations as superheroes.   

I love to listen to my buddies Viet Nam stories. Trouble is not one of them seems at all
interested in discussing it. I am quite sure I would never stop talking and writing about it had I served. But, anyone coming up on 5000 posts here is obviously
naturally loquacious.

JG

 

[unclemick]

I suspect the intensity of personal experience - makes it difficult to communicate. My late Father would tell tales of Shore Patrol in New Orleans BUT not Kamikazee's in the South Pacific,- one of my doughnut shop buddies(three tours) will talk Germany BUT not details of being one of 17 left out out of his company, - nor is it worthwhile to probe why one of my in laws spent last Thanksgiving away from family at Arlington last year(more than one ceremony).

Grateful to be a civilian and grateful for their service. As for the two still in - may their take offs equal their landings.