Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
I think it is good to remember that they were gambling, or to use a more neutral word, calculation with the lives of millions of people during the cold war. The usual reaction to this though, funnily enough, is not to ask "why in the hell can they do this?" but to state that "leaders should deal responsibly with it".
Sitting at a bus stop in Positano, Italy last week I fell into conversation with a man born in Australia, now a Canadian citizen. Talk turned to our careers. I was near the inner circle of the US Cold War establishment. In the late 1980s all my clients were US Sub-Cabinet members, or vice presidents of large "defense" corporations. I participated in programs with our Cold War allies. To the Canadian my summary of the era was "four decades of absolute madness".
On the other hand, teasing, I asked Larisa whether the Soviet Union should have won the Cold War. She lived in the Soviet Union until she was thirteen. She didn't think it was funny. Turning red in the face she practically spit, "No! They were a bunch of evil bastards!"
We were quite aware that we were gambling with human lives. Even more, we were gambling with the end of civilization. The Soviets were just as aware. No one that I knew or ever heard of chose this course. We were faced with a situation that developed beyond our control. We couldn't find a way out until Reagan convinced Gorbachev to trust him. We all breathed an immense sigh of relief when results began to appear.
Many situations in today's world arise from the same characteristics of human nature as the Cold War did. They just don't involve the world's only two super powers, each armed with the capacity to destroy civilization.
We were quite aware that we were gambling with human lives. Even more, we were gambling with the end of civilization. The Soviets were just as aware.
Early in my career, in the mid-1960s, I spent a few years in the U.S. Air Force. I was in an Air Force intelligence unit monitoring the Soviet Bomber Command, tracking Soviet bombers as they were deployed within the Soviet Union and as they flew reconaissance missions just outside U.S. air space, primarily near Alaska. We, of course, did the same thing near Soviet air space. The idea on both sides was to force the activation of air defense radar stations so that each would know the location of the other's air defenses. Later, I became a career Foreign Service Officer in the U.S. Department of State. My whole career has been involved in foreign affairs and national security, and I continue doing such work as a consultant.
Your statement, quoted above, Richard, is very true. The critical point, however, is that both the United States and the Soviet Union were equally aware of the consequences of a misstep or misinterpretation of intentions. Both the U.S. and the USSR were concerned that there not be any action taken by one that would trigger a retaliatory response on its territory by the other. Thus, such measures as the Washington-Moscow Hotline were put into place. Of course, the U.S. and the USSR went belly-to-belly in activities meant to undermine each other's influence in much of the rest of the world, primarily in the so-called Third World. But I actually was convinced that both Washington and Moscow were led by rational leaders and establishments, and I think that history has confirmed this to be true. In my opinion, the most dangerous confrontation was the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the fact that we worked out a solution short of war serves to reinforce my view of the rational approach demonstrated by both the U.S. and the USSR.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH But I actually was convinced that both Washington and Moscow were led by rational leaders and establishments, and I think that history has confirmed this to be true.
I guess it is easy for you to say that since you dont belong to those who died in that conflict.
quote:
We were quite aware that we were gambling with human lives. Even more, we were gambling with the end of civilization. The Soviets were just as aware.
Again, its not "unawareness" that i was complaining about. It is the, to me unbelievable fact, that so many people were willing to support their heavy armed regimes and in the worst case to die for it (and taking the whole world with them). If this is not the peak of irrationality then i dont know. Because in that context it makes no difference whether the leaders were gambling more or less rational.
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH But I actually was convinced that both Washington and Moscow were led by rational leaders and establishments, and I think that history has confirmed this to be true.
I guess it is easy for you to say that since you dont belong to those who died in that conflict.
quote:
We were quite aware that we were gambling with human lives. Even more, we were gambling with the end of civilization. The Soviets were just as aware.
Again, its not "unawareness" that i was complaining about. It is the, to me unbelievable fact, that so many people were willing to support their heavy armed regimes and in the worst case to die for it (and taking the whole world with them). If this is not the peak of irrationality then i dont know. Because in that context it makes no difference whether the leaders were gambling more or less rational.
I repeat, "four decades of absolute madness."
It was a collective madness, where rational people saw no way out. Both the Soviet Union and the USA feared not only sudden annihilation, but also the destruction of values they believed in deeply. Each had faced adversaries in WW II who nearly destroyed the Soviet Union utterly, and who seriously threatened the destruction of the USA. The memories of the fight to the death were still vivid when they faced one another as new adversaries. The leaders, the war veterans and their relatives were still having nightmares. It was ony seven months from the surrender of Japan to Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech.
On my part, the Cold War led to deep meditation and thought on human nature. I also repeat that the same forces of human nature are at work in the world today, only without the apocalyptic consequences. Consequences for individuals can be just as bad as they were in the Cold War.
Again, its not "unawareness" that i was complaining about. It is the, to me unbelievable fact, that so many people were willing to support their heavy armed regimes and in the worst case to die for it (and taking the whole world with them). If this is not the peak of irrationality then i dont know. Because in that context it makes no difference whether the leaders were gambling more or less rational.
well i would say it depends on the circumstances...each case on its own merit, i am not patriotic by any means...and not for the sake of being patriotic......but if someone convinced you and you believed that your, country, way of life, family and children are at real risk.... wouldn't you ?
..of course you would do something...with everything we have learned from history its so hard not to be suspicious and cynical and not trust the "facts" given to you by your political leaders or media.. its a lot harder to determine whats real risk and whats political agenda and propaganda ........everything we know about history and the way propaganda was used makes us cynical
but...it dosent mean it cant be a real threat
whilst the enemy might not exactly be threatening your family directly from within, they may very well be doing it just the same from another country, in that case invasion is not totally unjust I don't think, when a push of a button can mean total destruction of a country, u don't have the luxury of waiting till they punch first, not when one punch its all it takes ....each instance should be judged on its own merit....and of course politicians can take advantage of this and have in the past....and probably will again
Eg.
Should the US have invaded Iraq ? if they had reasonable proof they had weapons of mass distraction and plans to use them yes, of course ......
Was it wrong to invade under false accusations that Iraq had weapons of mass distraction ...Yes, of course ...if they really didn't
We can all speculate and be suspicious ..but unless we really knew what went on...its impossible to accurately judge it
Unfortunately is not black and white...and even tho i say...I would never die for some fat politician and his plans and ideologies..but if my family faced a real threat and there was no other way, and i believed that...i probably would go to war for them...and most of the time the decisions are as simple as that...its not for the leaders or ideologies...its for those close to you...or for those that don't have the means to defend themselves
This days wars are fought on so many fronts and they are just as dangerous as on a battlefield, which is now pretty much the world, and they are grey and ugly and those charged with fighting them have lost the luxury of being righteous..or even the luxury of always acting as conscience directs....i would hate to do it...i would never do it...but thank god there are some doing it...so we can sleep safe at night and cry about how unjust they are
Truth is we are all full of sh*t ...but more full of sh*t are the righteous in this day and age who claim total innocence and like to play naive and pretend to not understand that ugly actions at times are required for their very existence On the one hand we would all love to be just and fair and good...but would forget all that in a sec if it meant us dying ...
"We must invade Iraq as soon as possible. Anyone who disagrees with this project is a terrorist sympathiser".
Yup and all it will take in the midst of this economic gloom in Europe and America is for Israel to launch an attack on Iranian nuclear processing plants then everyone, including Obama and Cameron will be stuck with their thumbs in their mouths wondering what to do next.
ORIGINAL: Florian but if my family faced a real threat and there was no other way, and i believed that...i probably would go to war for them...and most of the time the decisions are as simple as that...its not for the leaders or ideologies..
"going to war for your family" IS an ideology. Its their way to use you. In the end you dont go to a war to secure your family, because you are given plans by your commander or squad leader on how to operate in a place several thousands of kilometers away from your home. It is well known that most of the armies in the world consist of not so educated and wealthy people. There is a reason why this is.
quote:
but unless we really knew what went on.
no offense Flo, but your reaction is such a good example of how the masses are totally clueless about a war that has started !!!9 years ago !!!...
quote:
It was a collective madness, where rational people saw no way out.
then they werent so rational as you remember them. Again, "human nature", "forces"... these terms kind of ignores as to WHY these two blocks threatened each other. There is no cause & effect determination in human actions. You need to find out the specific REASONS, in this case political ideologies, to come to a conclusion about it. What i write here is of course very basic and could possibly only be the start of a deeper look into things. But if you start with the wrong terms already (ie madness, annihilation) then it can only go wrong from there.
so in the whole history of the wars in the world no family has ever been under threat ? it was all Ideology ? it was all unnecessary fear in their minds ? noone has ever been at risk ? noone has ever had a just cause to take up arms ?
Everyone that Nazis invaded ?
Everyone the Roman Empire invaded ?
The Moors, The Mongols, The Japanese, The Huns, The Ottoman Empire, The Tatars etc etc etc
as i said because of advance in weapons this days for your country to be under the exact same threat the enemy dosent necessarily need to be in your backyard....yes if you are lied to it can be wrong but if you arent its survival
ORIGINAL: Florian as i said because of advance in weapons this days for your country to be under threat the enemy dosent necessarily need to be in your backyard
sure terrorists do threaten countries and their population, as a part of the country. but the dont threaten somebody SPECIFIC. it is YOUR interpretation, that you defend your family by killing some guy in Iraq or whereever. But you know very well that you have to proof whatsoever that the guy you killed was threatening your family. Just interpretation. Im pretty sure there was no war in history that only had the aim to annihilate somebody, just for the sake of annihilation. There is always a political will (aim) connected to a war, just like there is always a will connected to any violence.
no offense Flo, but your reaction is such a good example of how the masses are totally clueless about a war that has started !!!9 years ago !!!...
exactly ...that is my point ...but you seem to think to "know" what really what went on.. so i am all ears amigo...the floor is yours...u must have a direct line to the Us president..and of course must have spoken to Saddam as well..
am i clueless for thinking i don't know...or are you for thinking you do ?
It is well known that most of the armies in the world consist of not so educated and wealthy people. There is a reason why this is.
Yes, and the reason why that is is because the highly educated and wealthy are perfectly happy to let the less-educated and less-wealthy fight their wars for them. Do not kid yourself into thinking the educated and wealthy are against wars. They just want others to fight them on their behalf, and they know how to use the system to avoid fighting themselves. George Orwell put it succinctly: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
sure terrorists do threaten countries and their population, as a part of the country. but the dont threaten somebody SPECIFIC. Im pretty sure there was no war in history that only had the aim to annihilate somebody, just for the sake of annihilation. There is always a political will (aim) connected to a war, just like there is always a will connected to any violence.
the reason why they are there is irrelevant..if its your family that's at risk...i am sure they wont take any comfort while they being raped or enslaved or their sons killed... in thinking..."oh but they not here to annihilate us, that's not they major plan"...
ORIGINAL: Florian the reason why they are there is irrelevant..if its your family that's at risk...i am sure they wont take any comfort while they being raped of enslaved in thinking..."oh but they not here to annihilate us, that's not they major plan"...
thats a different case, you are talking about an immediate threat. But yes even then what i said remains true: the threatening of you family is not the purpose of the war. And you will realise this because the war is still not over, even if you managed to secure your family. So you better SHOULD know whats going on...
quote:
u must have a direct line to the Us president..and of course must have spoken to Saddam as well..
because these two are the only people who REALLY know what went on. one of them died already. if the other one dies too, then NOBODY will ever know what happened. The war came and has gone like a nature catastrophy, without any reason, inexplainable to everyone, except those two who hold the holy grail. And i am clueless?
thats a different case, you are talking about an immediate threat. But yes even then what i said remains true: the threatening of you family is not the purpose of the war. And you will realise this because the war is still not over, even if you managed to secure your family. So you better SHOULD know whats going on...
i understand all that man...but what will you do ? will you not try to protect them anyway necessary and by any means ? will you not take up arms ? and what about the weak ones who aren't your family ?
because these two are the only people who REALLY know what went on. one of them died already. if the other one dies too, then NOBODY will ever know what happened. The war came and has gone like a nature catastrophy, without any reason, inexplainable to everyone, except those two who hold the holy grail. And i am clueless?
well that's exactly what i said in different words , read me again...i said that no knows what really went on... only what were the official reasons given to the press...but then u with your somewhat (no offense to you this time:-).. misplaced superior self confidence in your intellect said:
quote:
no offense Flo, but your reaction is such a good example of how the masses are totally clueless about a war that has started !!!9 years ago !!!
which led me to believe that YOU think YOU know more
ORIGINAL: Florian i understand all that man...but what will you do ? will you not try to protect them anyway necessary and by any means ? will you not take up arms ? and what about the weak ones who aren't your family ?
how do you think this works? just take some guns and everything is fine? you are trying to set up scenarios to justify a war. A war that has no other effect than to threaten somebody you are close to, and i say such a war doesnt exist. Lets say there is a robber coming to my house. MAYBE i could deal with that. But anything bigger would be just insane for me to do something against it. And these are the cases we are discussing actually.
Flo, im sorry, i cant tell you what really went on. But you can read it in a few years when i write a book about it. Actually its 2 books, the other will be "WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON 9/11". (jk, but really its kinda late and i dont think it would be suitable to write such things here in detail. It takes serious studying to get rid of all those ideologies, because they are the comfort zone. The truth is not.)
quote:
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
this just shows how different my thinking is. the point that is catching my eye is not the obvious one - accusing the "sleeping" of not fighting - but the fact that people can sleep peaceably when there IS violence going on, no matter who actually does it. Again rather than asking "who" i would ask "why there is fighting".
you are trying to set up scenarios to justify a war
i am using scenarios from our own history...call it a "war" call it whatever you want, in fact you don't even need a name for it...you will try to protect...sometimes protecting means going on attack...
quote:
how do you think this works? just take some guns and everything is fine?
no i think you should stand there with your arms crossed and explain to the invading army this has just been a terrible mistake and that someone is using them....
quote:
Lets say there is a robber coming to my house. MAYBE i could deal with that. But anything bigger would be just insane for me to do something against it. And these are the cases we are discussing actually.
and that's why countries have armies...its like a whole bunch of you fighting a whole bunch of them..no difference only numbers and house changes...instead of fighting for your house alone...because theres more of you...you fight for everyone else s house too...voila theres your WAR...which u are too intelligent to get involved in
well i would say it depends on the circumstances...each case on its own merit, i am not patriotic by any means...and not for the sake of being patriotic......but if your, country, family and children are at real risk....
C´m now, with this ragged "defend family" stereotype.
My brother in law was an upper official in Germany. He used to say: "Should it go off I´ll flout on the patriot baloney. I´ll take my gun and try to get away from the madness as far as I can." That was the only sober view, I think.
Instead of the "defend family"-bull in out of all a conflict fired up for preservation of unbound profiteering premisses.
I find this "my family", "my village", "my ..." crap to be archaic, thoughtless and obsolete. Noone´s family, province or whatever is more valuable than any other decent peoples´. Others have mothers too.
- And BTW: The biggest defenders of own family are often those whose sociological background has been messed up such that they camouflage the trauma under a shiny obelisk.
C´m now, with this ragged "defend family" stereotype.
maybe a stereotype for you...its as real as day for those that have been trough it..
i cant believe i am having to defend the fact that at times thought our history people have had to take up arms to defend ...are you kidding me ? acting like its all ideology ? obviously no one would like it to happen...but it has happened and it will happen again
and noone will give a **** of why and the ideology behind it and the intellect ...all of that is lovely but irrelevant when it comes down to the basics
quote:
I find this "my family", "my village", "my ..." crap to be archaic, thoughtless and obsolete.
no you dont u are making a point in a conversation, a very lovely point ....because "your family" ..."your village" .."your crap" is not really at risk...if it was a real thing...you might rethink it...in fact u might not even think it...just do what any other person would do
Yeah i get it war is wrong ...is bad...is that the point ? genius!, people shouldn't do wars...again genius!!, intelligent people don't fall for that ****...BRILLIANT .......dosent mean it dosent happen
With McCarthy witch hunt you have a similar issue of peer pressure causing fear of standing apart from the group, fear for your life and naming out the innocent to protect self and family etc.
i always thought war is a means of states and communities to force some political decisions upon another states, by destroying its power and humans, but instead it is a very clever designed system to defend families!!! lol (just to make clear... everybody is just defending. there is no state that says: yeah, we will be attacking and bomb the hell out of them just for the sake of it. every war is justified by saying that you would prefer to NOT go to war, but the other side forces you to defend yourself.)
i always thought war is a means of states and communities to force some political decisions upon another states, by destroying its power and humans, but instead it is a very clever designed system to defend families!!! lol
...you got both your question and the answer in your same post amigo..i of course am not as smart as yourself but i think there are a couple of families in the "humans" clan
quote:
just to make clear... everybody is just defending
who said that ? i never said that...i never said EVERY country that's ever been in a war was just defending.....but the were wars where countries have had to defend
quote:
With McCarthy witch hunt you have a similar issue of peer pressure causing fear of standing apart from the group, fear for your life and naming out the innocent to protect self and family etc.
yes...that can be the case, its no guarantee you wont be lied too...but what if its not and its genuine threat ? its really hard to know isn't it unless you judge the situation on its own merits....back to my initial post...its not black and white
[/quote) “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
this just shows how different my thinking is. the point that is catching my eye is not the obvious one - accusing the "sleeping" of not fighting - but the fact that people can sleep peaceably when there IS violence going on, no matter who actually does it. Again rather than asking "who" i would ask "why there is fighting". [/quote]
I may have misunderstood your original statement about the reason the educated and wealthy do not generally join armies. I thought you were suggesting that they did not join armies because they saw the futility of war and were not disposed to believe their leaders' reasons for going to war, whereas the less-educated and less wealthy were ignorant enough to believe their leaders. It was that interpretation that I objected to, because I do not see it in practice. I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement.
Nevertheless, there are perfectly valid reasons for going to war: If one's country is invaded, one has every moral and legal right to fight the invader, regardless of ideology; if there is hard evidence that a foe is preparing for an imminent attack, the same reasons apply as justification for a pre-emptive strike. I generally see war as a valid response only in cases involving vital national interests.
In my opinion, wars fought for reasons of "humanitarian intervention" are much more problematical. There are many people, however, who actually think that wars fought for "humanitarian" reasons are more justified than those fought for vital national interests. I am not convinced. Should we have intervened militarily in Rwanda? Were we justified in waging war against Serbia on behalf of Kosovars? Were we justified in participating in the military action against Libya? None of those cases involved vital national interests. Yet, many who denounced the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were all for those "humanitarian" interventions against targets that did not represent a threat to either the U.S. or Europe. What gives? If one is against war, then one is against all reasons for going to war. If one posits even one reason for waging war, then one must recognize that anyone's justification for war may be just as valid in that person's mind as the humanitarian's is in his. That's why, although my litmus test for war is "vital national interest," I find it hard to criticize those who encourage "humanitarian" military intervention, even though I generally oppose it.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
yes...that can be the case, its no guarantee you wont be lied too...but what if its not and its genuine threat ? its really hard to know isn't it unless you judge the situation on its own merits....
What I meant is that it remains low-life to deliver the lives of others in order to safe one´s own or family´s one.
There have always been people who showed that it can be done without such infamy.
Admittedly, such characters are exceptionally strong and I´m not claiming foresight of myself in a hypothetical case to perform like them under any circumstance, but what I know for sure is that I wouldn´t allow myself to go on and live my life as if everything was idle.
Did you know for an example that many of the KZ survivors made it through by infamously taking advantage of co-prisoners and by delivering fellows to capos and guards?
It made for a miserable selection of low-life. Nothing to be excused by "self-defense".
For the first time, astronomers could observe a black hole eating a sun LIVE (probably a giant red sun)
Sure that's not just a computer simulation vs an OBSERVATION??? If is is an observation where did it occur and when was it observed? Also, what proof is there that the massive object is not something other then a black hole such as nuetron star or white dwarf or other? Far as I know black hole existance is still mathematical model based theory, NOT an observable fact of nature (that is until we observe an event horizon devouring accretion material). Also at the center of ours and other galaxies, the theoretical "super massive black hole" might actually be tons of black holes orbiting a common center of gravity rather then a single object. Because of the incredable distances true observation of these events are technologically a long ways off for us....or so I assumed.
Ricardo
I always enjoyed this thread, so maybe it's wrong to revive it, but I was talking to an astronomer recently. Something about analyzing what happened to a star destroyed by the supposed "supermassive black hole" (not sure if it was same star of this thread) was surprising to astronomers that its destruction occurred as a series of flashes rather than a singular smooth event as would be thought. I proposed my hypothesis that the supposed super massive thing was actually a bunch of smaller massive objects orbiting a central location. The answer I got that rejects my thought was that first of all, over time such objects would have combined at some point in the past anyway (talking of OTHER galaxy centers too rather than only this one, of course, to generalize) and certainly should have by now.
And the second most compelling evidence that it is a single object doing this thing are the radio galaxies that exhibit these huge jets of particles from the pole or poles. Just like when a solar system forms. This could only result from a single object, not a bunch in orbit, and point to the exact location of the 'Monster" at the heart of most galaxies. Radio galaxies are seen edge on, seyfert galaxies pointed with a pole directed towards us, and Quasars being oriented perfectly at us with jet of the feeding monster aimed right into our telescopes.
Printable Version
then they werent so rational as you remember them. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread