Robert McNamara

[Eki]

I'm watching a documentary about Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense in 1961 to 1968, on TV. Seems that he learnt a lot during his 93 years on this planet, despite him being a Republican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara

hOCYcgOnWUM

[Bob Riebe]

I'm watching a documentary about Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense in 1961 to 1968, on TV. Seems that he learnt a lot during his 93 years on this planet, despite him being a Republican.


Proof the term Republican has become meaningless.

MacNamara was personally responsible for the preventable deaths or imprisonment of aviators in Vietnam.
He personifies the term- arrogant evil.

[Eki]

Proof the term Republican has become meaningless.

True. In the old days it equaled an idiot, now you just don't know.

[Bob Riebe]

True. In the old days it equaled an idiot, now you just don't know.

Your rhetoric is as obtuse as usual, yet, if you are saying MacNamara is stupid, that is an understatement.

[Eki]

Your rhetoric is as obtuse as usual, yet, if you are saying MacNamara is stupid, that is an understatement.
No, I'm saying McNamara was an intelligent person capable of learning from his own mistakes.

[Bob Riebe]

No, I'm saying McNamara was an intelligent person capable of learning from his own mistakes.

He neither learned nor took responsibility for the misery HE caused, so you have been fooled by a lying fool.

[Hondo]

No, I'm saying McNamara was an intelligent person capable of learning from his own mistakes.

Most everybody learns from their mistakes. The problem is that they don't learn while the mistake is in progress. The other problem is that they don't learn from the offered wisdom of their experienced elders, believing themselves to being a unique human being operating in different times and the lessons of the past will not apply to them.

McNamara's admissions, while perhaps noble, came about long after the damage was done and he was on the threshold of facing his own mortality.

[BDunnell]

Not a man worthy of a great deal of respect, in my view. Nor were his acolytes.

[fandango]

Whatever you think about him, it's simply factually innacurate to say McNamara was stupid. He was an intelligent man, and what I liked about The Fog Of War was how he gave his side of things, based on how he saw the world. It's a good documentary, even if you don't agree with his views.

[Eki]

Whatever you think about him, it's simply factually innacurate to say McNamara was stupid. He was an intelligent man, and what I liked about The Fog Of War was how he gave his side of things, based on how he saw the world. It's a good documentary, even if you don't agree with his views.
True. I wish current and future world leaders would watch it and learn before they themselves repeat the same mistakes.

[Hondo]

Too late. Iraq is proof of that.

[Eki]

Too late. Iraq is proof of that.
There will probably be more Iraqs in the future.

[Bob Riebe]

True. I wish current and future world leaders would watch it and learn before they themselves repeat the same mistakes.
Do you mean cut and running from Vietnam; Obama would cut and run first chance he gets.

...McNamara said that the Domino Theory was the main reason for entering the Vietnam War. In the same interview he stated, "Kennedy hadn't said before he died whether, faced with the loss of Vietnam, he would [completely] withdraw; but I believe today that had he faced that choice, he would have withdrawn....

That is a load of BS, Kennedy was known to be one for whom defeat was not a concept to be accepted.
Johnson had the North at their knees when rg the bombing halt giving them the chance to re-equip.
McNamara is the one who forced the Air Force to fly routes which allowed the North to simply sit and wait for them, as they flew the same routes time, after time, after time, after time, after time....

McNamara asinine concept of how he would decimate the Viet-Cong was incredibly stupid as they were fighting the North Vietnamese, the Cong were a minor concern.

To say he was not stupid is to ignore what he did.

[Eki]

Do you mean cut and running from Vietnam; Obama would cut and run first chance he gets.
The smartest thing would have been staying out from Vietnam (and Iraq) altogether right from the beginning.

[Bob Riebe]

The smartest thing would have been staying out from Vietnam (and Iraq) altogether right from the beginning.Iraq possibly, Vietnam, no.

An interesting, off-topic aside, read about how Siam (Thailand) while assisting the allies during WWII, had to send its Air Force to attack U.S. aircraft so as to not make the Japanese suspicious.
They did manage to shoot down a B-29, and a P-38, but lost their own airmen and aircraft in the attacks.

[Eki]

Iraq possibly, Vietnam, no.


Why do yo think Vietnam was necessary? The North won anyway and it wasn't the end of the world. The North could have won 15 years earlier and 3 million less dead people. I think it would have been a better option.

[Eki]

There are a number of different ways of looking at almost anything. One way would be to say that, given our population today with diminishing resources and fresh water in many places, 3 million dead people is a pretty good thing. The survivors will have a much better standard of living.

(Please send condolences to Eki as he recovers from the stroke he'll have when reading this.) :p
True, but the casualty rates were quite unequal. 1.5 million Vietnamese and 1.5 million Americans dead would have been more fair.

[fandango]

True. I wish current and future world leaders would watch it and learn before they themselves repeat the same mistakes.

Hang on a second. I liked the documentary because I'm a Joe Nobody sitting in my living room, getting an interesting perspective on world events that happened before I was born. Current and future world leaders had better be A LOT better informed than what comes out of a movie like that.

What's interesting above all for me is the humanity element, how priorities change. Bob Riebe sustains that McNamara was stupid based on his actions, a valid argument, but it depends on whether your priorities were winning the war or reducing human loss (a priority usually lacking in war, on all sides).

[BDunnell]

Johnson had the North at their knees when rg the bombing halt giving them the chance to re-equip.
McNamara is the one who forced the Air Force to fly routes which allowed the North to simply sit and wait for them, as they flew the same routes time, after time, after time, after time, after time....

This I largely agree with. However...



That is a load of BS, Kennedy was known to be one for whom defeat was not a concept to be accepted.

My low opinion of Kennedy stems largely from the fact he was in no way the man he was/is made out to be, or made himself out to be. His foreign policy is a major reason for this. I mean, this was a man who was feted for his supposed commitment to Berlin in its time of need after 1961, yet who in reality did not truly care about the plight of the city. I wouldn't class it as an example of his being willing to accept defeat, but he was certainly prepared to acquiesce in the division of Berlin in 1961. Now, I am certain that a more 'hawkish' approach could have brought with it immense dangers, and the stance adopted probably turned out to be the right one. But making the generalisation that Kennedy was in some way a great Cold War warrior strikes me as not painting a true picture.



To say he was not stupid is to ignore what he did.

You do, if I may say so, throw the term around to far too great an extent, as though your opinion is the only one in town and that's an end to it. It's not an attractive trait. Seeing shades of grey, rather than black and white, seems not to be popular on the American right at present.

[glauistean]

This I largely agree with. However...



My low opinion of Kennedy stems largely from the fact he was in no way the man he was/is made out to be, or made himself out to be. His foreign policy is a major reason for this. I mean, this was a man who was feted for his supposed commitment to Berlin in its time of need after 1961, yet who in reality did not truly care about the plight of the city. I wouldn't class it as an example of his being willing to accept defeat, but he was certainly prepared to acquiesce in the division of Berlin in 1961. Now, I am certain that a more 'hawkish' approach could have brought with it immense dangers, and the stance adopted probably turned out to be the right one. But making the generalisation that Kennedy was in some way a great Cold War warrior strikes me as not painting a true picture.



You do, if I may say so, throw the term around to far too great an extent, as though your opinion is the only one in town and that's an end to it. It's not an attractive trait. Seeing shades of grey, rather than black and white, seems not to be popular on the American right at present.

Your last point hit the mark squarely on the proverbial head!!!!

[anthonyvop]

Seeing shades of grey, rather than black and white, seems not to be popular on the American right at present.


That is because there is no Gray.

If you see Gray that just means you are not fully informed.

[Eki]

That is because there is no Gray.

If you see Gray that just means you are not fully informed.
Actually it's the other way around. If you only see black or white, you see just one side of the story, usually from your own point of view. So you are either not fully informed or you ignore the things that favor the opposite side.

[wedge]

My low opinion of Kennedy stems largely from the fact he was in no way the man he was/is made out to be, or made himself out to be.

Arguably the greatest trick Kennedy pulled off was to convince the public he was against Vietnam.

[BDunnell]

That is because there is no Gray.

If you see Gray that just means you are not fully informed.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Oh, and there's no need for a capital letter on 'gray'/'grey' in this case. I hope you appreciate my occasional advice on grammar and spelling. It's all in the interests of the professionalism of your website journalism, you understand.

[fandango]

That is because there is no Gray.

If you see Gray that just means you are not fully informed.

Indeed. I see a lot of grey. I don't know the whole story, and I don't believe you do either. Anyone who claims to is usually wrong.

[BDunnell]

That is because there is no Gray.

If you see Gray that just means you are not fully informed.

A quite serious question — have you ever been wrong, in your eyes, on any issue at all?

[anthonyvop]

A quite serious question — have you ever been wrong, in your eyes, on any issue at all?

I have.
And I have learned from them.

[anthonyvop]

Actually it's the other way around. If you only see black or white, you see just one side of the story, usually from your own point of view. So you are either not fully informed or you ignore the things that favor the opposite side.


Wow. That was a ridiculous statement even by your standards.

[Bob Riebe]

Actually it's the other way around. If you only see black or white, you see just one side of the story, usually from your own point of view. So you are either not fully informed or you ignore the things that favor the opposite side.
Grey is a shade of black so one only sees one side or the other at any time.

[fandango]

Grey is a shade of black so one only sees one side or the other at any time.


There are no shades of black. Black contains no colour, whereas white contains all colours, so would it not be more accurate to say grey is a shade of white.

(This is all getting very abstract and theoretical, but I'll have a go for the laugh)

Anyway, before we get all yin and yang, how can you say "one only sees one side or the other"? Does that not make all debate and discussion pointless?

[BDunnell]

I have.
And I have learned from them.

And what you have learned from them is that your view is always right, and that no discussion thereon is necessary?

[BDunnell]

Wow. That was a ridiculous statement even by your standards.

Is self-awareness one of your self-confessed strong points?

[Bob Riebe]

There are no shades of black. Black contains no colour, whereas white contains all colours, so would it not be more accurate to say grey is a shade of white.

(This is all getting very abstract and theoretical, but I'll have a go for the laugh)

Anyway, before we get all yin and yang, how can you say "one only sees one side or the other"? Does that not make all debate and discussion pointless?
As Jim Hightower once said- "There ain't nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes, and dead armadillos."

You are very incorrect as white is all colors, and black is the lack of color, only in form of energy, i.e. not something solid.
There is no such thing as a grey light-bulb.

In the solid format, black is all colors, and white is lacking and only in that form can man "make" grey.
In my art painting class we added color to white to make shades, or we mixed various colors to make different forms of- black, but if one wanted to make a proper shade of grey, one had to start with black, as blacks made up by mixing colors may not shade out as desired because of its contents.