Battle Plan Under Fire

[Athena]

Tuesday on the Public Broadcasting Station will be the Nova show, Battle Plan Under Fire. When we share the same information, will be in agreement or will we disagree with each other?

Personally I think we were very technological smart, and very unwise. I think we made a big mistake as serious the military mistake that united Greek city/states against Athens and lead to its destruction and fall.

[Rider]

Well, sometimes public television surprises me and puts out a straightforward and unbiased report on issues like this, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't imagine that there will be much of an attempt to place wartime miscalculations in context with the history of wars, but I will try to be fair.

[lily]

Thanks for the heads up Athena. Looking forward to discussing it.

[Athena]

Well the opinion of generals was based on past war experience, but Bush and Cheney appeared to be excited about the new war toys they could use, and dismissed the word of experience as something that does not apply to modern warfare with present technology.Â*Â*

They obviously didn't study the nature of the people, nor the political/religious complications, but counted on "Shock and Awe" resulting in an instantaineous surrender. They were so impressed with the military weapons in their hands, they were not prepared for resistance to their take over.

The Project for the New American Century clearly explains Bush and Cheney planned the military domination of the mid east, long before 9/11.Â*Â*Personally I think this group of people was banking on the power they could have with new military weapons, and were thrilled when they thought they had the opportunity to start using their war toys.Â*Â*I think all their decisions were based a thrill of power, and little else.Â*Â*

[Rider]

Did you watch it last night? I swear that I have seen it before. Might be my memory playing tricks on me as I watch a lot of this sort of programming. I thought that it was fairly done, with criticism and praise of the use of new technology.

[lily]

For some odd reason, it's not showing until tomorrow where I live.

[Athena]

For some odd reason, it's not showing until tomorrow where I live.


I am impressed that you cared enough to find out when it is showing in your area. PBS stations are shown over public owned stations, such as Oregon Public Broadcasting, and each area my show Public Broadcasting programs at different times.

As for Rider's questions, yes I watched it, and made my comment that when Bush and Cheney speak of the weapons at their disposal they appear as exicted as children about to open to open Christmass presents. They have powerful weapons and dreams of going down in history as leaders equal to the fame of Alexander the Great. They are very dangerous leaders to have.

I think one might think s/he saw it before, because Bush and Cheney say the same thing over and over again. This is a psychological ploy, designed to end any question about what leadership is doing and accept the leaderships explanation. Education since 1958 prepared us to so rely on "authority". It goes with Bush's very low opinion of us, when he handled objections to private insurance companies taking over medicare drug payments. He said "some people don't like choices" and he believes this. He believes we will not actually seek information on our own but will be comforted by his repeated statements. When I look at the forums I get a sinking feeling that his opinion of the masses is correct. He is following a political philosophy that most of us know nothing about.

[Rider]

Athena wrote- As for Rider's questions, yes I watched it, and made my comment that when Bush and Cheney speak of the weapons at their disposal they appear as exicted as children about to open to open Christmass presents. They have powerful weapons and dreams of going down in history as leaders equal to the fame of Alexander the Great.

I think that maybe you were seeing this through a shaded lens, Athena.

Athena also wrote- I think one might think s/he saw it before, because Bush and Cheney say the same thing over and over again. This is a psychological ploy, designed to end any question about what leadership is doing and accept the leaderships explanation....

Uh...no, I remember the footage.

[Athena]

Athena wrote- As for Rider's questions, yes I watched it, and made my comment that when Bush and Cheney speak of the weapons at their disposal they appear as exicted as children about to open to open Christmass presents. They have powerful weapons and dreams of going down in history as leaders equal to the fame of Alexander the Great.

I think that maybe you were seeing this through a shaded lens, Athena.

Athena also wrote- I think one might think s/he saw it before, because Bush and Cheney say the same thing over and over again. This is a psychological ploy, designed to end any question about what leadership is doing and accept the leaderships explanation....

Uh...no, I remember the footage.




Hum, you didn't notice excitement in Bush and Cheney when they spoke of the weapons that could be used?Â*Â*Do you think they would have engaged in this war if they didn't have these weapons and had to call up a large number of people to fight this war?Â*Â* I don't think they would have, and I don't think the war would have been so popular if everyone believed it would require soldiers instead of high tech weapons.Â*Â*

But agreeable my opinion of Bush is very low.Â*Â*I think he is an ass to think all that is necessary in diplomatic nogiations is to make US demands clear, and be apparently completely ignorant of the need to listen, and to others feel powerful, and acknowledge and heard, and therefore safe.Â*Â*He is prehaps the most narrow visioned, one sided, and intimidating, and dangerous presidents we have ever had, and if he had in office during the Cuban missile crisis, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because he would have made have the first nuclear strike, and our civilization and the USSR would have been destroyed in a nuclear war.Â*Â*

[lily]

Athena

I think one might think s/he saw it before, because Bush and Cheney say the same thing over and over again.

Well.....actually it did say in the begining that it was a repeat from May 4,2004.Â*Â*

I don't know. We all know how Bush is with his "toys". Even when he's told he can't have them ( bunker busters), he keeps on and on, like a spoiled child, until he gets what he wants.

I have to say, the most impressive thing in the entire documentry IMO, was the 2 billion dollar war game they enacted. Even calling a retired general to play Israel's part, when the opposing side thought it was Iraq......but that's funny part........the sad part is, the general did the exact same thing that is being done now, for example not using electronic devices to relay messages, insurgents, ect.......and he won!........yet they adjusted the findings and went to war anyway!

[Rider]

Cobra said- Hum, you didn't notice excitement in Bush and Cheney when they spoke of the weapons that could be used?Â*Â*Do you think they would have engaged in this war if they didn't have these weapons and had to call up a large number of people to fight this war?Â*Â* I don't think they would have, and I don't think the war would have been so popular if everyone believed it would require soldiers instead of high tech weapons.Â*Â*

Honestly, I didn't notice the excitement that you speak of, at least in the sense that they were excited like children etc..
I agree that without these weapons we most likely would not have gone to war.

Cobra said- But agreeable my opinion of Bush is very low.Â*Â*I think he is an ass to think all that is necessary in diplomatic nogiations is to make US demands clear, and be apparently completely ignorant of the need to listen, and to others feel powerful, and acknowledge and heard, and therefore safe.Â*Â*He is prehaps the most narrow visioned, one sided, and intimidating, and dangerous presidents we have ever had, and if he had in office during the Cuban missile crisis, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because he would have made have the first nuclear strike, and our civilization and the USSR would have been destroyed in a nuclear war.
What specifically are you talking about concerning diplomatic negotiations and just how did you disagree with him?

How many presidents have you lived under? The first that I remember was Eisenhower. Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan and now Bush. None of them would have acted any differently during the Cuban Missile crisis IMO.

[Athena]

Yes, Eisenhower was pretty belligerent towards Khrushchev, and I felt ashamed of that, and I sure didn't think it helped matters.Â*Â*But he stopped Israel from engaging in war.Â*Â*That is different from how Bush is handling matters, and we could be spinning into a world war.Â*Â*I sure hope I am wrong about!Â*Â*Sometimes I really want to be wrong.Â*Â*I am extremely nervous because there was an ominous prediction of such a US war president.

Maybe Israel wouldn't have invaded Lebanon if Bush wasn't so pro war.
"Shock and Awe" did not have the intended effect, and this military action is way different from Kennedy's handling of the Cuban missile Cuban crisis and the Bay of Pigs.

The Cuban Missile Crisis, October 18-29, 1962 In October 1996, The John F. Kennedy Library released a set of tape recordings documenting the crisis for the ... The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis Timeline: ...
www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/ - 54k - Cached - Similar pages

Bay of Pigs Invasion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion (also known in Cuba as Playa Girón after the beach ... It is generally presumed by some that during the Bay of Pigs Invasion ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion - 70k - Aug 9, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

I wish everyone would read the Bay of Pigs site, because this one coveres so much, including why we are having so much international trouble, and why so much blood is on our hands.Â*Â*What we have done with our CIA and interference in other governments is wrong.Â*Â* Our CIA was crawling all over Iraq and very involved with stirring up trouble, in Cuba, Iran, Iraq and else where.Â*Â*Also the Bay of Pigs thing was started by Eisenhower, but he backed off it and Nixon promoted it, leaving Kennedy stuck with it, but he wasn't as committed to it as Bush is committed in Iraq.Â*Â*Kennedy was also stuck with Vietnam and I don't think he was strongly infavor of that military action either, and his assination is full of mystry.Â*Â*Like, prehaps we should be questioning who is running the show, as this CIA and military stuff spans several presidencies, and the degree of action of we take, seems to depend on the president in office at the time, but they are acting on what was already started.Â*Â*Without question Bush is more pro war then previous presidents, and I believe this it ego driven mixed with a thrill about having the power of our present military technology.Â*Â*Have you read the Project for the New American Century?Â*Â*

Did any one else watch the show and care to say something about Bush's and Cheney's excitement or lack of it?Â*Â*What do you think of the Project for the New American Century, which got the green light because of 9/11?Â*Â*


PS, thank you for knowing the cobra is associated with goddesses. I do have an affinity with cobras. Come to think of it, it would make an excellent avatar.

[Rider]

Athena,
I wasn't trying to imply that the Cuban missile crisis was anything like Iraq because it was completely different. My point was that he stood steadfast in demanding the removal of the missiles rather than negotiate some lesser deployment.

[Athena]

Athena,
I wasn't trying to imply that the Cuban missile crisis was anything like Iraq because it was completely different. My point was that he stood steadfast in demanding the removal of the missiles rather than negotiate some lesser deployment.




There is a big difference between standing firm and blow a nation to hell to get what one wants.