Wednesday, July 28, 2004

The Left Direction

Do you see what I mean about how people answer the poll question "Is the country going in the right direction?"
Uh, no..I'd say it's going in the left direction...

Oh God, I almost forgot...when Janeane Garofalo was on Sean Hannity today, she bestowed these peals of wisdom on the listening audience...I had to write them down ------
I report -you decide...(haha)

"The Soviet Union was collapsing and no threat"
"The Ronald Reagan myth needs to end"
"George Soros was instramental in ending the cold war"

This ties in beautifully with earlier conversations:


~Jen~ said...

Wow. She's even nuttier than I though.

this we'll defend said...

From the left, a few things:

I love your Jane Fonda shirt. I agree. Don't lump people who disagreed with the Vietnam War in with people who actively supported the enemy. I still don't understand why she wasn't prosecuted for treason. Let me say that another way: WHY WASN'T SHE PROSECUTED FOR TREASON?!? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is not the way to show your disagreement with a policy decision.

Janeane Garofalo is not a spokesperson for the DNC. In case you thought she was.

The Soviet Union collapsed due to the combined efforts of all Americans for a period of decades, not due to Reagan's wasteful defense buildup, most of which was wasted on boondoggles such as star wars and the Sgt. York DIVAD. People that say "we spent them into the dirt" ignore that communism's own internal fallacies led to the collapse of the Soviet economy, not an irrational attempt by the Soviet Union to also spend enormous sums on wasteful defense projects that didn't contribute to national defense. Not that the Reagan buildup didn't build our military strength - it was just that it was so wasteful in doing so.

The Soros thing - I don't know where she got that. But she is an actress speaking for herself. So who cares?

Kat said...

Agree with Defends on one and a half aspects.

1) We spent some money on some very stupid golden commodes.

1/2) Yeah, the communist system was crap. Bound to blow up. The question was when? Frankly, since they were spending their blood and treasure in Afghanistan to expand communism, it didn't look like they were giving up the ghost. Yeah, all the little chess moves that came before set up the coup d'grace. The check mate.

What ya'll failed to notice was that the Soviet Union did not know what we were spending our money on or what was or was not as effective. They heard "star wars" and started thinking they were losing the "mutual destruction" ability. So they went into super bankrupt mode. This was speed chess with Bobby Fisher.

Your right, we did a lot of things over 40 years to get to that point. But the king was put in check mate by Ronald Reagan. Any continued denial of that fact just appears to be envy on the part of the libs.

Too bad Jimmy wasn't in charge when it happened. Too bad Jimmy couldn't figure out how to make those moves. He would have been hailed the greatest president of our times.

Too bad.

this we'll defend said...

The "Reagan" build-up started under Carter (B1s, XM1, XM2, etc.). There was bipartisan support for rebuilding the military after NIXON destroyed it following Vietnam. There just wasn't bipartisan support for most of the enormously wasteful programs that Reagan pushed through, and that in hindsight didn't help our security one bit.

The famous Dukakis in the tank commercial listed the programs that Dukakis wanted to kill and then concluded that he was weak on defense. Few of those programs exist today - and the ones that do are mostly useless. More B1 bombers anybody? But hey, what's a few billion dollars among friends?

And the commies claimed they invaded Afghanistan to fight islamic fundamentalism and terrorism - and did quite well at first, eliminating the govt they opposed in a brilliant airborne drop and incredibly competent insertion of combat forces. Only the Afghans didn't give up and ten years (1989) later they pulled out leaving a Pro-soviet govt behind. That govt fell in 1992, and there was complete chaos until the Taliban took over most of the country in 1998.

So the Administration is so proud of our "victory" in Afghanistan (the one where Osama and most of Al Queda got away) but the Taliban is re-emerging. What will Afghanistan look like in 10 years?

The mission isn't accomplished in Afghanistan either.

tescosuicide said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
spaceCADETzoom said...

Hi there. I've no substantial contribution about the Reagan debate.

But the B-1 was *cancelled* by Carter. The B-1B was reactivated by Reagan as one of his "wasteful" spending items, much to the dismay of many (though cheers of plenty as well). The new B-1B was part of the arms buildup. I don't remember exactly what happend to the xm1/xm2 stuff. I don't know anything about tanks in regard to industry (Aren't those what became the Abrams?). But I do know the aviation industry. The B-1 started before Carter, and ended with Carter. Reagan pushed for the revival, and thus the B-1B. The B model had some design changes that are beyond the scope of this comment...The original B-1 was a dead duck. Reagan rammed it through. Make with that as you will.

I find the claim that congress wanted to *spend* in defense during the 1970s after Nixon to be dubious as well (especially if you're saying it was bipartisan). Let's face it, no one really much cared for the military in the 70s. It was pretty unpopular on both sides of the aisle...outside the military itself and within. But if you can find me something to the contrary, I'll accept it. Not my area of expertise. Just using what I know about the era and common sense.

spaceCADETzoom said...

This senteence of mine is unclear above: "It was pretty unpopular on both sides of the aisle...outside the military itself and within." what's especially unclear is the "outside the military" part. I meant to say the military *itself* wasn't feeling great about itself. And the people outside it weren't feeling so happy towards it. basically the 1970s wasnt so great to the military all around.

Kat said...

I think the question of the necessity of the B-1 bomber has to be put in the context of the enemy. In retrospect, we didn't have to fly around the world and bomb the USSR, so maybe it seemed useless. or maybe it just seemed useless because we could unleash a hail of nukes and the bomber would be moot.

However, I think the bomber, particularly the stealth bomber that came later, has more than shown it's uses in the high altitudes of Afghanistan.

I think the point of the bomber must also be put in the context of it's potential use and the strategies we were familiar with. Carpet bombing and total war were once considered viable strategies, therefore, the bomber must have been considered viable.

Today, large scale bombers still deliver things like daisy cutters or MOABs so their viability continues. it is only our strategy of close warfare with laser guided weapons that seem to make it useless.

In the larger context of spending, I think that spending must be accompanied by appropriate auditing mechanisms to insure that golden commodes and hammers do not make it through the process.

I did have a discussion with someone with defense budgetary controls and they talked about the problem of availability of products in certain theaters that made some things more expensive than others. For instance, if there are not enough hammers to be bought in the local market, that would normally cost $10, then the hammers must be shipped in. The cost of the shipping and other manufacturer costs increases the cost of the item. Just like in normal business.

What must be controlled is the providers tendency to not spread the costs of delivery and procurement among all of it's products. Thus, you might get a very cheap widget, because it is locally available, but the gadget is priced at 300 times it's true value. Not a smart way to develop a contract. Hopefully, someone learned their lesson.

this we'll defend said...

Good points. My point about the B1 isn't that bombers aren't great, but that the B1 wasn't a way to build up our defense and has since proven useless (which is why it hasn't been used in combat except in very limited PR missions). At the time the prospect of a "nuclear bomber" that cost billions was controversial and most felt the B-52 would suffice for conventional missions while nuclear missions were a bad idea (the B-52 would supposedly be shot down before reaching a target). The argument was also that the B-52 was too old. Long story short - we are still getting quite effective use from the B-52, including quite recently in Afghanistan. There is talk of using them through 2020. The B1 is still useless. It cost us billions upon billions. If we hadn't bought it at all we would be better off because we could have spent the money elsewhere - billions!

The XM1 became the M1, etc. The development began in the 1970s, as well as the modernization efforts that resulted in, by 1985, the most powerful military in the history of the world. We are still using most of the weapons that were developed in the 1970s effort (M1, M2, Hummvee, Blackhawk, Apache, MLRS). But I realize that I am ranting and I am way OT. Am I going to become an old grouchy guy yelling "you kids stay out of my yard!" and writing cranky letters to the editor? Oh damn, I think I am. I think I'll stop here and go take my meds....

ALa said...

I am SO happy! This is the first time you have let some humor shine through (actually you did begrudgingly admit that Ted Kennedy proposing endless toasts was funny).
Don't be the grumpy old guy that used to come out and squirt us with his hose when we were playing stick-ball in the street! As much as we all feel passionate about the issues, at the end of the day what will happen -will happen. Debate is wonderful, but humor is priceless (why do you think ugly comedians always have such hot chicks?)
As for Reagan -regardless of what anyone says now -he is the ONLY President who has won 49 states...and thats gotta mean something!

this we'll defend said...

I've just been so on-edge since my tree dumped me for Lefty.

Although (as Jen would appreciate) there is a nice shrubbery over across the street...

~Jen~ said...


Good one TWD