"The fog of war" docu....

[Fred Hansen]

He may be left-leaning, but so what.

So he ends up making a documentary outlining 11 "life lessons" of a man who, when faced with the greatest responsibility in his life, failed miserably. Thanks anyway, but I'll take my life lessons from those who succeed.

Given the hundreds of thousands of troops who hate the man for his numerous betrayals, it would have been better to allow him to fade into much deserved (personal, rather than historical) obscurity. Instead I'm left with an hour and a half worth of "documentary" in my head that makes me want to barf.

Mr. McNamara was partially responsible for extending communism's grip on planet Earth for nearly a quarter century, I doubt anyone other than a committed marxist like Mr. Morris would have made such a film. OTOH, since Hollyperv is filled with marxists, perhaps this piece of revisionist propaganda was inevitable.

What's the deal with worshipping Curtis LeMay?

Since when does pointing out the General's success in contrast to Mr. McNamara's abject failure constitute worship?

This guy was a psychopath, wasn't he?

Maybe in your opinion.

Didn't he want to pre-emptively nuke the Soviet Union during the Cold War. If he had his way, how the hell would this world have turned out?

Oh, I don't know... Maybe at this point in history Russia and the pathetic excuses for countries that were ensnared in the same marxist trap would be excellent friends of America as are the Japanese. Nuking the Japanese snapped them out of their Emperor worshiping death-cult psychosis. A few lives lost in order that a country might survive initially, and then practically define what it means to thrive. Nothing is certain, but perhaps if we had shown the marxist idiots of the world how deadly serious we were about stopping communism, they may have decided that 50 years worth of cold war wasn't worth the effort.

Instead we have a significant portion of the world's population scrambling to play catch-up after half a century worth of unnecessary communist insanity complete with internal genocide that left tens of millions dead. Not to mention 58,000 Americans dead, and some several hundred thousand survivors betrayed once on the battlefields of Viet Nam, and daily for the past 40 years by people who refuse to learn the lessons of history.

Yeah, General LeMay is a loon. Your way is much better.

 

[Handy]

Wow

Fred,

Do you ACTUALLY believe that if we attached the USSR with nuclear weapons in the 1960s FEWER than 58,000 Americans would have been killed????

I'm thinking the number would have been closer to ALL Americans. You can't attack an enormous country with bombers, mobile ICBM launchers and missle subs and get away with it free and clear. The fallout from what we dropped alone would have killed more of us than 58,000 of us, even if they didn't get off a shot. And each missile that did launch could have accounted for millions.

 

[Elmo Blatch]

Wow, Fred. According to you, the US made a mistake because we didn't nuke the USSR during the Cold War.

We also failed to bomb Cuba during the missile crisis. I guess we made a mistake there, too. If you listen carefully to the lessons in the documentary, McNamara describes what happened during the missile crisis, and I believe he had some expertly veiled criticism directed squarely against your man, LeMay.

So, because we didn't listen to LeMay and nuke the Soviets pre-emptively, we were FORCED to go to Viet Nam and kill 58,000 of our young people? Makes sense. :barf:

I'm not saying McNamara is not without his faults, but the documentary is interesting nonetheless. He obviously was aware of his many shortcomings, and you could see he needed to clear his conscience during the interview. I'm not sure Morris is a Marxist, I would say he is just an opportunist, like most documentarians.

Do you have any proof that Morris is a Marxist?

 

[Fred Hansen]

Who said anything about bombing the Soviets in the 1960s??? Where do you get this stuff? Do you just type out things at random, while sprinkling in a few words here and there to make it look as if you are trying to pay attention?

Many of the WWII generals suggested nuking the U.S.S.R. not long after they had stolen our technology that would then allow them to successfully deploy weaponry of their own construction, but almost wholly of our design. This idea was shot down in favor of letting the Soviets run riot on the parts of the planet that they subsequently infested with their Bolshevik BS.

The Soviets knew that our technology would hands down kick their ass. So they stole ours. Then, when they had it, they tried to (and to a great degree succeeded in) hold us hostage with it. This transpired in the 40s & 50s, the result of which was an almost (for those of us aware of it) interminable stand-off with a bunch of drunken marxists just seconds away from dropping the hammer on us for nearly 40 years.

Kind of like the idiotic scenes in movies where a bad guy telegraphs to the hero that he is about to pull a gun and start blazing; to which our erstwhile hero replies with witty retorts, and leading man facial expressions. A real hero would simply bust a cap or three into tough guy, and live to tell the tale.

In real life that is how things really work. A threat makes itself apparent, and it is dealt with, or else everything devolves into chaos until someone develops the courage to DEAL WITH THE THREAT!!!. Such was the Cold War - I know, I was there, and to some degree I helped fight it. If not for Ronald Reagan we might still be on the verge of what the blissninnys refered to as Nuclear Winter. We came a couple of peanut butter sandwiches away from losing the Cold War thanks to Jimmuh Cahtuh. The simpleton that I first served under (he was - to our eternal shame - CinC) in my U.S. Naval service. He, like McNamara, thought that one could acheive victory by counting beans in the hope that one's own hill of beans would outweigh the opponent's hill. That's a fine way to run Ford Motor Company, or even Unka Jimmuh's Peanut-O-Rama, but in war, it will get many a fine American dead in a turd world ditch somewhere for no *%^$ing reason right quick.

McNamara never understood that if one chooses to fight, ONE MUST THEN FIGHT TO WIN. Not screw around trying this, that, or the other damn thing. WIN! That's all that matters. There will be time aplenty for egghead mental masturbation after the threat is gone. Hence, he and Mr. Morris can stick Mr. McNamara's 11 life lessons where the sun does not shine. :barf:

 

[Fred Hansen]

We also failed to bomb Cuba during the missile crisis. I guess we made a mistake there, too. If you listen carefully to the lessons in the documentary, McNamara describes what happened during the missile crisis, and I believe he had some expertly veiled criticism directed squarely against your man, LeMay.

As stated clearly above, Cooba wouldn't have ever happened had the right thing been done in the early 50s.

He obviously was aware of his many shortcomings, and you could see he needed to clear his conscience during the interview.

I would say he seems like a haunted man, and it doesn't surprise me a bit. There is justice in this world, and the next.

 

[Elmo Blatch]

Who said anything about bombing the Soviets in the 1960s??? Where do you get this stuff? Do you just type out things at random, while sprinkling in a few words here and there to make it look as if you are trying to pay attention?

Who's the one not paying attention? I never said that anyone officially stated the US should have bombed Cuba in the 1960s. I was being sarcastic, because you don't seem to have a problem with the fact that LeMay wished to nuke the Soviets in the 1950s.


You then said:

If not for Ronald Reagan we might still be on the verge of what the blissninnys refered to as Nuclear Winter.

followed by:

He [Carter], like McNamara, thought that one could acheive victory by counting beans in the hope that one's own hill of beans would outweigh the opponent's hill. That's a fine way to run Ford Motor Company, or even Unka Jimmuh's Peanut-O-Rama,

Isn't that what RR tried to do, and succeeded? Did he not try to create a bigger hill of beans than what the Soviets could create, thereby forcing the commies into virtual bankruptcy?


You didn't answer my question. What proof do you have that Morris is a Marxist? Or is this merely common knowledge?

 

[Fred Hansen]

Who's the one not paying attention?

Apparently you and Handy, since that particular response was directed to him, not you.

Isn't that what RR tried to do, and succeeded? Did he not try to create a bigger hill of beans than what the Soviets could create, thereby forcing the commies into virtual bankruptcy?

The difference, and it's a huge one, is that Reagan fought the Soviets on every front they attempted to create. With him they knew they were screwed. With McNamara, Carter, et al. they knew they were dealing with nancy-boys.

You didn't answer my question. What proof do you have that Morris is a Marxist? Or is this merely common knowledge?

You mean do I have a copy of his Young Pioneers card? No. I don't. Can I listen carefully to the puffball questions he tosses McNamara, and infer from his phrasing and innuendo that he's a pinko? Yep. Sure can. Easy as falling off a log.

 

[Elmo Blatch]

Apparently you and Handy, since that particular response was directed to him, not you.

Well next time, maybe you should label to whom you're directing the question or statement, especially when both parties are involved in the same talking points.

The difference, and it's a huge one, is that Reagan fought the Soviets on every front they attempted to create. With him they knew they were screwed. With McNamara, Carter, et al. they knew they were dealing with nancy-boys.

This might be true, but it wasn't clarified originally. It's just that both statements so close together seemed rather contradicting.

Can I listen carefully to the puffball questions he tosses McNamara, and infer from his phrasing and innuendo that he's a pinko? Yep.

No. You can't. That's not good enough. I'm sure Morris is left-leaning. Anyone who supports moveon.org is a leftie. But he makes worthwhile and fascinating films, something Michael Moore is incapable of doing. After being inundated with Moore's detritus, it's easy, IMO, to fully appreciate someone of Morris' talent. And I doubt he is a full-fledged Marxist.

Actually, anyone who is not a Libertarian is a socialist to some degree, so this whole talking point becomes arbitrary.

Anyways, Fred, I would strongly suspect you and I have
more in common politically than we don't have in common. I hope we can keep it civil as we debate in the future.

My main beef is that I thought LeMay was a psychopath, and that it's fortunate he didn't get his own way.

 

[Fred Hansen]

This might be true, but it wasn't clarified originally.

Well, that's kind of what I'm getting at. Folks who will chime in about history, who then seem to not know much about even recent history. I don't know what to tell you, I wish I did, really I do. The difference between President Carter, and President Reagan are so starkly different that the English language barely contains ways to describe it. And yet, somehow, that is lost in this conversation without my having to point it out.

If I have to flesh out 20 year old history, then why are we talking about anything that happened twice as long ago?

Sorry if my frustration is coming across as anger, but frankly I'm at my wit's end.

 

[Fred Hansen]

No. You can't. That's not good enough. I'm sure Morris is left-leaning. Anyone who supports moveon.org is a leftie. But he makes worthwhile and fascinating films, something Michael Moore is incapable of doing. After being inundated with Moore's detritus, it's easy, IMO, to fully appreciate someone of Morris' talent. And I doubt he is a full-fledged Marxist.

It may not be good enough for you. What can I say? It's good enough for me. I'm tired of the leftist filth that putrify my country. I'm tired of what David Kopel so rightly calls "Hatriotism" and the pukebags like Morris that spew it.

Maybe you think that Morris is just a well-meaning talented lefty. Fair enough I guess. But when he, and Speilberg, and some of the other Hollyperv types spend their time, money, talent, energy, money, (did I forget to say money?), etc. to wreck the country that I love, I get angry. Very, very angry. And I don't much care who doesn't like it.

There are tens of thousands of truly great Americans like Dean Kamen for instance who would make absolutely fascinating subjects for documentary film. But because people like Mr. Kamen exemplify the very nature of the blessings our country is laden with, Mr. Kamen will NEVER be the subject of a documentary film destined for cinematic release. And that's just one of tens of thousands of positive examples.

Instead we get dreck. An old haunted man who very nearly spun our country down the crapper of life, and the dirtbag who chose to exploit him to further his leftist agenda. Grrrrrr!

 

[Running Gunfight]

Fact is....

all I said is that he was still brilliant at 85 and he was. He was very lucid, his memory was sharp and he was very engaging and to the point. I hope my mind is as sharp at 85.

I also said he was a part of U.S. history and he certainly was.

I don't think I said anything else positive or negative about the man other than he had an exit strategy for vietnam in the early days under Kennedy to get the advisors out. LBJ came in and chastised him for that plan.

From what I have read, if LBJ would have followed his plan, there would have been no Vietnam War to speak of. How different might the US be right now?

Also, I find it ironic that the lefties that hated the man during the war now would embrace him. I don't think the docu shows him in a positive light, but it shows a man who has regrets.

As far as the conduct of the war, McNamara (sp?) was not CinC. MacNamara had to conduct the war as LBJ wanted. They split pretty quickly and MacNamara was fired over his wanting the US out of Vietnam. Anything done under LBJ after that or Nixon was w/o MacNamara.

I think the docu just shows McNamaras attempts to come to terms with the hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths (he acknowledges US deaths under LeMay and himself in addition to Japanese and Vietnamese military and civillian-by the firebombing of dozens of Japanese cities with over 100,000 civillian deaths in one raid on Tokyo alone, etc.) and his lessons are, in his opinion, what can be done to as he said, limit the amount of war casualties in the 21st century as opposed to the 100 million who have died in the 20th century due to action conducted during and after, "the war to end all wars."

Re LeMay-One of the most fascinating things MacNamara states is that LeMay came to understand that, had we lost WWII, they would have been tried for war crimes and executed in LeMay's estimation for the heavy firebombing of civilian targets.

I found the film astonishing for insight like this.

 

[johnbt]

"McNamara never understood that if one chooses to fight, ONE MUST THEN FIGHT TO WIN."

Agreed.

I had quite enough of Bob McNamara during the war and don't care what he has to say now.

John

 

[gburner]

Just to tie up some loose ends here...Curtis LeMay was a brilliant tactical air cmmander who embraced the concept of total warfare and applied it using aerial bombardment in a thoroughly merciless fashion. In this regard, he was one of the finest warriors that this nation ever produced. His lasting legacy is the birth and development of the USAF as a peer of the other branches of the military. My father served under him with pride from 1943 to 1963.

LeMay was also a psychotic, racist, megalomaniac who thought that his tactical brilliance transcended the briefing room and the cockpit. He was arrogant to the point of insubordination and like some general officers of his time (Patton and McArthur among them) bristled at the Constitutional stipulation that the military is ultimately under civilian control.

Perhaps there was a short window of opportunity in 45 and 46 where we could have used nuclear weapons to stem communist desires for the world dominance, but we would have found, as the Germans did, that there was too much Russia and too many Russians. Once we opened that Pandora's box, we would have had to continue dropping bombs on Russia and China, perhaps needing more than we had in inventory. The bombers and crews necessary for this task would have suffered tremendous losses and it is debatable whether they would have withstood it without breaking. And to what end? Large portions of the Earth reduced to irradiated wasteland. Fallout of such a tremendous volume that the cancer rate worldwide would have skyrocketed. Economic upheaval which would have made the Great Depression look like a bump in the market. Millions of displaced persons added to the millions of refugees which were still an issue from the fighting in WWII. LeMay was wrong...history has proved him so. Some may not like the place we are in now, but it is a better reality than LeMay's policies would have ultimately left us.

 

[Fred Hansen]

I don't think I said anything else positive or negative about the man other than he had an exit strategy for vietnam in the early days under Kennedy to get the advisors out. LBJ came in and chastised him for that plan.

That's the whole point. When a country decides to fight, they must WIN! Not have an "exit strategy". Herr Clinton and his mob of leftist idiots "fought" the same way, and they managed to give the death-cult psychotics in the middle east the impression that the U.S. would do nothing meaningful in the event of attack. And the death-cult psychotics were 100% right in having that perception of Clinton. If it didn't involve him doling out goodies to his constituants, or him with his pants around his ankles, it didn't get his attention no matter what it might happen to be!

Also, I find it ironic that the lefties that hated the man during the war now would embrace him.

Where is the irony? He helped the idols of the lefties to win, and got what is arguably the maximum number of patriotic Americans killed. That's what leftists do. Where is the irony in that?

Re LeMay-One of the most fascinating things MacNamara states is that LeMay came to understand that, had we lost WWII, they would have been tried for war crimes and executed in LeMay's estimation for the heavy firebombing of civilian targets.

Those "civilian" targets were riddled with cottage industries that were feeding the Imperial Japanese war machine with all of the things neccessary to kill Americans. It was the Japanese who chose to make their little home factories of war indestinguishable from the rest of the houses and hamlets. It was the Japanese that chose death-cult Emperor worship over surrendering after they had no hope of winning. What General LeMay did saved people like my grandfather from dying in the west Pacific in an effort that would have been futile if fought in any other manner. For all of his faults, General LeMay thought it best that the enemy die rather than fellow Americans. Had McNamara been in charge, my grandfather would have been considered expendable.

As far as the losers facing war crimes charges, what else is new? BTW I believe that McNamara is projecting that BS onto Lemay. I don't believe for a moment that those words ever crossed LeMay's lips.

Once we opened that Pandora's box, we would have had to continue dropping bombs on Russia and China, perhaps needing more than we had in inventory.

That's what a lot of people thought would happen with Japan. We only had a couple of bombs, and they thought we might only piss them off. Turns out that we snapped them right out of their 'half a tank of gas, and a one-way map' method of warfare . I think people often underestimate the persuasive power of the atom bomb.

 

[Fred Hansen]

Large portions of the Earth reduced to irradiated wasteland.

The Japanese seem to be doing ok. Maybe we should e-mail them and warn them they're in a wasteland.

Fallout of such a tremendous volume that the cancer rate worldwide would have skyrocketed.

I disagree that it would have taken so many bombs, but then again nothing is certain.

Economic upheaval which would have made the Great Depression look like a bump in the market. Millions of displaced persons added to the millions of refugees which were still an issue from the fighting in WWII.

That's odd, Japan is right near the top of the heap in terms of world economies.

LeMay was wrong...history has proved him so.

Only because the Russians didn't nuke us. And that only by the grace of God. Nothing else.

Some may not like the place we are in now, but it is a better reality than LeMay's policies would have ultimately left us.

Had the U.S.S.R. managed a first strike I doubt many of the folks here would have liked the result -- the wankers over at DU would be doing back handsprings -- but again, it is only because they never did, not because they never could. For decades we had only one thing going for us, and that is this: the Russians and their Soviet Bloc, for all their evil, weren't death-cultists; as were the Imperial Japanese. Nothing short of vaporizing a couple of their cities would stop the Japanese. Take a look sometime at the amount of war material (as expressed in pounds per soldier) that we produced vs. that produced per soldier in Japan. Try to imagine the privation they suffered, and yet they still came in bonzai charge waves, or smashed into our ships in perfectly servicable airplanes as did the kamakazi pilot that maimed my grandfather.

Then give a long hard look at the death-cult psychotics swarming in the middle east who are lucky if they get a dung-beetle sandwich twice a day, and try to figure out what it's going to take to stop them.

In the final analysis the Russians never struck because we were lucky, plus they never managed to catch up, and (and this is the important part) they wanted to go on living. Death was not a sacrament of their philosophy/religion. For a great many of our current enemies it is.

 

[Quartus]

Perhaps there was a short window of opportunity in 45 and 46 where we could have used nuclear weapons to stem communist desires for the world dominance, but we would have found, as the Germans did, that there was too much Russia and too many Russians. Once we opened that Pandora's box, we would have had to continue dropping bombs on Russia and China

How did China get into this? In '45 they were barely able to hold their pants up, let alone work on a nuclear bomb. Nor would it have taken more than one or two to bring the Russian program to a screeching halt - it wasn't exactly a nationwide industry. Given the ususal Communist paranoid drive for control of everything, it's unlikely that any part of their effort was very far from Moscow. Neither LeMay nor Fred suggesting killing all the Russians - the idea was just to stop their development of nuclear weapons. We could have done that easily. Not permanently, but for a good while. Long enough to make a very positive difference.

 

[gburner]

I bring the Chinese into it because Mao had turned the corner on Chaing by this period and was mobilizing a massive land army. At that time they were a client state of Stalin's Russia and would have come to his aid in the event of a western attack. In 45, 46 and into 47 our nuclear strength was growing, but our land forces were being demobilized. Throw as many bombs as you want at Russia and China at that time, but our land forces were still gonna be overrun, especially in Europe. And the initial point was one of containing the Russians, not destroying their nuclear capacity. I believe that an attack such as LeMay envisioned would have brought about an entirely Communist Europe. Hell, we didn't have the troops or the will to push Russia out of Berlin, much less the rest of central and eastern europe.

Now...if ya wanna talk nukes against massed Chinese infantry at the Yalu River border prior to their entry into Korea, I believe that would have been an effective and apprpriate use of tac nukes or perhaps it would have caused the Russians to nuke us in Europe...who knows.
I'm happy that it's being debated theoretically in the comfort of our homes rather than being cursed as we sit around a small fire in a cold cave somewhere.

 

[Fred Hansen]

Throw as many bombs as you want at Russia and China at that time, but our land forces were still gonna be overrun, especially in Europe.

How where they going to get there? I thought you said everyone would have cancer in the desolate wasteland? Where the Chinese going to wait for Nuclear Winter to increase the ice caps in order that they could invade via the Bering land-bridge? What nonsense.

 

[Quartus]

I bring the Chinese into it because Mao had turned the corner on Chaing by this period and was mobilizing a massive land army. At that time they were a client state of Stalin's Russia and would have come to his aid in the event of a western attack.

Mao's forces were in no shape to come to anybody's aid in the 40s. Even in the early 50s, they lacked the ability to do anything significant outside of the environs of China. (You may notice that Korea is fairly close to China.)

Even today, other than the ICBM capabilty that Clinton gave them, they couldn't mount any kind of credible war across an ocean or even as far away as Europe.

And I'll say it again - this isn't relevant. The comments were about using nukes to end the Russian nuke program before it got started. That's a very different thing from using them against massed armies.

 

[Running Gunfight]

Wow.

I can't fathom that anyone would rationalize a nuclear war, especially in light of the subsequent eventual fall of the USSR not to mention the opportunity for the MIC to dominate the US economic landscape during the Cold War, sucking up untold tax $$$ along the way.

Can the amount of evil against mankind perpetrated in a nuclear war, especially a pre-emptive one, be justified by a nation hopefully guided by Christian values?

We are in an era in which there really is no more war between major powers. There can't be. The UK and France will never fight another war, for example. The reason is obvious. The only wars since WWII have been between less powerful nations, civil wars, and/or powerful nations against much less powerful nations. There can't be full engagement of major military powers.

We have had a Cold War, a War on Drugs and now a War on Terror. We always have to have a war, it seems.

IMO, many Americans need to be dissuaded of the myth that the United States is always "right" when engaged in these pursuits and other uses of force. It is not easy to knock the team you are on, but neither is it unpatriotic.

Is Ron Kovic unpatriotic when he says things like, "We're putting all of these millions of dollars into warfare when the disabled of our country, disabled veterans and disabled citizens, are in need. Many of them live below the poverty level," says the man whose life was portrayed onscreen in 1989 by Tom Cruise. "This policy of aggression, this policy of arrogance, of blindness, of recklessness, I don't think this is going to help America. I think that this behavior, which I abhor, this policy, which I strongly disagree with, is leading this country in the wrong direction."

http://www.myhero.com/myhero/hero.asp?hero=kovic_article

Some would say yes he is being unpatriotic. I would say that every American has this right to disagree with any policy and that Kovic has definitely earned this right. It is the US people who make the U.S. what it is, veterans and non-veterans alike. Not politicians, policies, amendments or commanders. They all come and go. The people of the U.S. ARE the U.S. Like it or not, we are in it together.

Politicians, including this current administration, give lip service to vets, but cut services only to try to patch it up as elections loom. They are interested only in USING those who constitute the military, and I mean USE. I am not singling out this administration, but it is the current one.

Blind loyalty to one administration or another without acknowledgement of it's failures disturbs me. If I had voted for Clinton, I would have been more enraged at Mogadishu (if possible), Lewinsky, etc. If I had voted for Bush, I would be pissed at the Iraqi situation. (Please don't think I voted for Gore as I could not cast a ballot in good faith last Presidential election). Enough on that.

My last statement on MacNamara. I know we have to fight a war to win it. However, I also feel that we should pick our wars a little more carefully.

Once we commit to war, mistakes, errors, whatever poor decisions made, end up killing more young americans. The killing of young americans is almost too high a price to bear.

I am also of the opinion that the killing of innocent civilians is also almost too high a price to bear. A baby burned in Tokyo is the same atrocity as one in New York City. We can argue for the killing of babies in Tokyo by saying that the Japanese policy of cottage industries caused it just like the Islamists rationalize 9-11 by pointing to US policy in support of repressive (to say the least) regimes in order to control the oil flow. The evil, at face value, is the same.

War must be completely unavoidable to commit US forces because once the Tiger is out of the cage, it is unpredictable.

I feel that MacNamara obviously felt that escalation in Vietnam, given the totality of the circumstances, was not sensible. He told Kennedy and many feel Kennedy may well have followed his advice and pulled out. LBJ made many poor decisions re Vietnam, the worst of which was to go against MacNamara initially and conduct the war in the first place IMO.

Obviously, the mismanagement of the war that followed is unquestionable and I have not questioned it, nor has MacNamara it appears.

Sorry for the length of this thing if you actually read it all.