Two pieces, both from the WSJ, hit on a single theme, that our elites have become disconnected from the true costs of war, and are too quick to shoot first, without knowing (or even considering) the ramifications of their actions. First, Robert Gates, then the always interesting Camille Paglia. It also strikes a cord with Aurora thinking we're at a situation close to pre WWI Europe, here the nobles saw war as a civilized, gentlemanly pursuit, unaware of the industrialized horrors that lie just around the corner. Admittedly, there is no outright connection to what these two different people are saying, and I may be creating it in my mind. Does anyone else see it? Also there's some good war on boys stuff in the Paglia piece, sure to get some old knickers in twist.
Well, Robert Gates did write a book recently severely criticizing the Obama Admin. so I give him credit for that. And for those of you on the other side he is the Bush Admin. official largely credited with preventing the U.S. from launching air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in the last year or two of Bush's second term.
The elitists are ALWAYS diconnected from war and conflict. After all, that's what the "unwashed masses" are for. And if there a number lost, well, they'll just have to make more. And they always do.
Well that hasn't always been true. If you look at World War One and lists of people killed in that war you can see that a good number were among the elite themselves. Including Teddy Roosevelts son.
It's pretty much a truism. The phrase "fight to the last drop of someone else's blood" comes to mind.
I was there, and yes I think I saw him and Cheny (riding shotgun of course) on a Dumb and Dumber moped.
Wasn't it Patton who said that you "didn't become a hero by giving your life for your country but by making some other son of a bitch give his life for his"
You'd have to go back to Sparta to find a culture where the elite actually engaged in war themselves rather than paying someone else to do it...
The elites have become disconnected from the true costs of anything, not just wars. If you're at a high enough level in the business world, you'll still get your bonus and your golden parachute no matter how badly the company does, no matter how many low level guys get laid off. If you're at a high enough level in the government, it's highly unlikely you'll have to resign for anything. Hookers? Crack? Wars based on bad intel? A secret spying program that would make George Orwell blush? Nah. Fire some low level staffers and keep going. If you've gerrymandered your area well enough, you might even get re-elected. If you're at a high enough level in general, you're generally not going to face punishment for any crimes you commit. Jail is for people that can't afford lawyers.
All true, but how many people who believe those same things will turn around and vote for Hillary or some Republican trust fund baby in the next election?
The second-oldest depcition of war I'v e read is the Iliad. It starts off with Achilles accusing Agamemnon, among other things, of staying behind the lines while others die at the front of the war he started. (The oldest is Gilgamesh, in which war happens through duels between divine heroes. Which might have been cultural custom at some time, and I'd certainly be in favour of having more duels among rulers than wars, but it really wouldn't amount to war in our sense.) Basically, that's the sense in which I'd agree to being called a pacifist: I oppose war, not violence; where war is specifically violence among people who are only in the conflict by proxy.
Really? In many ways I'm the opposite. I tend to loathe violence by individuals which is largely waged for personal reasons. But wars waged for the interests of a united, substantial group of people do not offend my sensibilities.
As far as I know. I remember seeing a famous picture of him in the White House listening to a tape Robb had sent him from Vietnam and Johnson is doubled over with his face buried in his hands apparently so emotional. Note, that Robb was a White House Marine guard at the time he married LBJs daughter IIRC.
Plenty of elites have fought in most wars -- Kennedy and Bush in WW II are fairly recent examples. John Kerry, Al Gore in Vietnam, and more recently Sarah Palin's son and one of those princely English chaps in Afghanistan.
In medieval Europe, war was considered the exclusive purview of the elite. Of course, they were heirs to a culture that valued fighting ability above all other masculine traits. The medieval concept of war as single combat between noble knights was prevalent but in reality proxies and mercenaries were heavily employed. The necessities of war as always dictated that the prowess of any individual warrior was less important than the ability to coordinate available forces to maximum effect. This would seem to require an elite leadership corps removed from the raging chaos of battle.
Zapp Brannigan: "Killbots? A trifle. It was simply a matter of outsmarting them." Fry: "Wow, I never would've thought of that." Zapp Brannigan: "You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down."
If you didn't misspell the name of an insanely talented man who wrote an incredible rock opera that you obviously have no clue about in terms of the meaning, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
^Meh, his peak predated The Wall by a few years. His solo, spotty at best, having listened to them all hundreds/thousands of times; I still like Pros and Cons best too. Achilles was just pissing and moaning and raging because his prize booty Briseis was poached by the 'king' before heel-boy could get his fill of her snatch. And the king was acting iirc at the machinations of the gods, zeus or something. So the elites in those days were pretty fuckin elite, and anyway Agamemnon did some fighting, ten years is a long fuckin time, and he was pure mortal unlike some guys. Whiny fuckin Achilles probably his days are numbered. Good newspaper, 'flow, as far as msm liberal rags go pretty much the best, ed pages can't be beat.
Gotta agree, Waters was no genius. His best work was when he collaborated with Barrett or Gilmour. As for the WSJ, the news room is top notch, but the editorial board is best described as reactionary. Not surprised Tuttle would consider that the best part.
Well i didn't say he was a genius, but after listening to most of his work and seeing him live twice I'm comfortable in saying he is very, very talented.
