Charlie Rose

StevenBlue  05/24/2011 09:55 PM Report

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy" - Henry Kissinger

Such a charming guy. Never mind the tens of thousands of "dumb stupid animals" he and his boss sent to die in Indochina. It says a lot about our country that this is the go to guy when you want advice on foreign policy. He can't even travel freely without the risk of being arrested.

machngunjoe  05/04/2011 02:19 PM Report

Kissinger is a War Criminal, I wish people would forget him and quit giving in Air time.

JohnGelles  04/27/2011 05:53 AM Report

Rob~

Delay in my end of the dialog caused by security problems on the wireless half of the Time Warner modem. So far the switch from Direct TV and AT&T to TW has been favorable. The latter is far faster and more robust than DSL -- but terribly complicated. The good old days of the Internet before it exploded with commercial traffic are gone. But, somehow, I'm sure, simplicity and reliability will return.

You said -- "I suggest our preeminence after WWII was more capable of absorbing our 'PAPER' (based on faith, trust), than exists now. Current lack of faith would send inflation through the roof IMO."

.

Our opinions differ: Our money (and related securities and contracts), paper if you like, are NOT based on inexplicable confidence.

..... They are based on our ability to deliver affordable top quality product, our law and our ability to rule a nation of 300 million individuals in a democracy armed to the teeth.

..... In WWII and today, we were through necessity, armed to the teeth. Price control was necessary. And it worked more effectively than the income tax -- which was corrupt beyond measure. Money was laundered then and cash was king.

There is nothing confusing about full employment, low taxes, and solid engineering.

Idealism my butt.

Last week, When this SHOW featured Paul Allen, Hillary Clinton, Henry Kissinger, and the future of civilization as a new world order shapes up, was a high point in its history.

I'm at a loss to know what conversation at the moment has fundamemntal issues under review. Please, Rob, offer a suggestion on where to carry on. I am sure (but have not actually seen it) that REMant remains an early voice on ever topic. He is dogged if not worth following in any direction. His function of being first with the least is sad but never lonely. Others jump in. But to what end my friend.

The only difference between the Donald and these commentaries, is that his make point: he wants our future to reflect our past industrial power NOT the record of his own dabling in gambling and trash entertainment. What a come down from "CAN DO" to "CAN'T REMEMBER".

robdverity  04/25/2011 06:05 PM Report

Your idealism vs beliefs is as confusing as your economics. I suggest our preeminence after WWII was more capable of absorbing our 'paper' (based on faith, trust), than exists now. Current lack of faith would send inflation through the roof IMO.

JohnGelles  04/25/2011 05:38 AM Report

robdverity ~

You see in Syria today what fighting in that part of human territory is like.

Compare, if you will, Syria versus Syria, with I versus P. If you do, you will come closer to the truth.

Thanks for the dialog. Now let's get to meat:

..... HOW COME WE ALLOW OUR FAMILIES AND NEIGHBORS

..... TO SUFFER UNEMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY IN THE

..... RICHEST NATION EVER IMAGINED AND BUILT ?

How come? Are we stupid or something? Where are all our memories of the depression and WW II? Facing a similar time, we printed the money and went to work.

They say the American People care about the Debt. Do they not remember that we climbed to the top of the world by running the highest debt in history. It did not mean a thing -- but we thereafter allowed cheap labor to destroy our ship building industry.

It's been cheap labor in all industries that has brought us to current crises -- cheap labor, criminals in charge of lobbying and double crossing democracy, and failure to implemet the human right to earn a living with hard work and rational understanding of supply and demand asked for by FDR in 1944.

We will implement the Second Bill of Rights globally -- or we will all be Syrians or cinders soon.

Stop burning carbon! Stop being stupid. We have a triumphal future before us -- but only if we get real.

JohnGelles  04/25/2011 05:14 AM Report

Robert D'Verity -- Bob-the-Truth-teller ~

You think--

"... Israel feels it is better off with the status quo - especially compared to the status of Pal. as a sovereign state. Too many (or all) of Israel's actions vis-a-vis the Pals (embargoes to incursions, check-points, yadda, yadda,) would be acts-of-war if they were indeed an independent state.

"So, [Shalom F.'s phrase,] ". . . Fatah are not interested in a real peace with Israel," is the exact opposite of facts on the ground."

.

Well, Rob you have your thought. I have mine. And it is not disingenuous !

I believe the Palestinians and Israelis have been at war since 1948. As such, they will remain at war until they make peace in fact and by formal treaty. There is no advantage to Israel in this war compared to a real peace.

But if a peace is only a rest until Palestine re-starts the war, there will have been no advantage to be gained by pretending to want and make peace IF you harbor thoughts of endless war.

At one time, "54 40 or fight", America and Canada were neighbors who had been separated by a Revolutionary war and a border dispute.

Feelings ran high on their issues. But today we are the very best friends -- the trust between the two is perfect.

I see the P and I dispute as having the potential to bring these neighbors and cousins together some day.

There is nothing ingenuous about me or my take on issues. If P and I become more like C and A , all we be well. If not, Israel is too small in a sea of often-enemies to take the stance you suggest.

robdverity  04/24/2011 05:56 PM Report

Shalom/John - To a supposed idealist both of you come off as disingenuous as it is my belief Israel feels it is better off with the status quo - especially compared against the status of Pal. as a sovereign state. Too many (or all) of Israel's actions vis-a-vis the Pals (embargoes to incursions, check-points, yadda, yadda) would be acts-of-war if they were indeed an independent state.

So, ". . . Fatah are not interested in a real peace with Israel," is the exact opposite of facts on the ground.

ShalomFreedman  04/24/2011 05:59 AM Report

Secretary Clinton is an articulate and forceful spokesman for U.S. policy. She is to be commended for clearly stating that the U.S. opposes a one- sided U.N. declaration in support of a Palestinian Arab state. She adheres to the long- term U.S. position that only through negotiations can the parties come to true agreement. However she is a bit over even- handed in apportioning blame for the present statlemate. If she analyzed the situation deeply she would understand that the Palestinians, not simply Hamas, but Fatah are not interested in a real peace with Israel.

JohnGelles  04/24/2011 03:42 AM Report

Here I am talking to myself aloud in a pseudo dialog. I would compare the conversation Hillary and Henry held with each other -- via Charlie's interview -- with my suggestion for dialogs by the audience.

I claim the two Secretaries had a subtle and wonderful dialog -- more or less agreeing that diplomacy is always called for and war should be avoided -- BUT NOT AT ALL COST.

AVOIDING WW II would have cost even more than war. Civilization would have ended -- as Germany and Japan aavoided forced democratization.

JohnGelles  04/24/2011 03:30 AM Report

robdverity~

Thanks for asking. As so many of the interviewees on the SHOW will say, "GOOD QUESTION" !

1. Let's say most posts will not be replied to by moderators --because the SHOW promises to reply to what it decides is the opportunity for a good dialog. So posters like you and me will be flattered by any moderator's attention.

2. Still, posters may then read the moderator's comment and decide IT STINKS and cut off the dialog. Or they may continue the dialog.

3. So most posts will have no dialog. Some will have long dialogs where two people, one like you and me, and the other a designated moderator (or responder), are able to create a responsive conversation.

4. All readers will have the OPTION to read only dialogs (short or long).

5. So, to answer your excellent question -- each side in all diaglogs will be able to quit or continue. That will make it fair.

6. Assuming I think a responder is STUPID or unfair, I can always say so -- and readers can always see the whole raw commentary OR only what the SHOW has recommended by responding to a member of the audience.

7. In a way we already have what I want. You responded to me and I replied to your response. What is missing is the option to hide all the other posts.

8. The SHOW could implement the dialog idea without designated responders to minimize costs. It would just add the hide feature to its existing comment file.

9. Of course, my request for unlimited editirng of posts, by senders like you and I, would be a great impovement to this system as a first step.

Thanks again for the dialog.

robdverity  04/23/2011 05:55 PM Report

JohnGelles - And what if the 'moderators' weren't of the EXACT same mind as you? Would you then call for moderators of the moderators?

tabs  04/22/2011 09:41 PM Report

Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon each had sense enough to spot the moment of when and where to strike their opponents to achieve the decisive blow. Ms Hillary bemoans the fog of war with either having too little or too much information and the difficulty in separating it all out to thread the eye of the needle by going to the heart of the matter. Yet at the end of her discourse, she changes direction and claims to be doing her best to keep her head above water to see where that arc of history is pushing us.

This brings to mind RE Lee and his successful campaigns during the Civil War. Lee knew all the Union commanders personally as he had served with them and as such knew their strengths and weaknesses. With the advent of Grant as General in Command of Union forces, Lee knew that the only hope the South had was to make the war so bloody and drawn out that Abraham Lincoln would be defeated in the Presidential election of 1864. To that end Lee knew that Grant would strike directly towards Richmond and would not be dissuaded from that objective as other Union commanders were. Lee was able to successfully predict Grant moves at Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House and Cold Harbor. However Lee miscalculated Grants fourth move in thinking he would strike at Richmond as was his want. Grant instead side stepped and moved across the James River to Peters burg. Why had Lee miscalculated, the answer lies with a change in Grants thinking that Lee could not have known about. Grant only regretted one decision in the Civil War and that was the frontal assault at Cold Harbor which resulted in a slaughter of Union troops in short order. That is what caused Grant to side step Lee at Richmond and instead head for Petersburg. Now one can ask why is this bit of arcane military history important to this discussion. The answer on a superficial level is simple, in spite of the right decisions or miscalculation the outcome of the Civil War was not determined by these decisions as the momentum of history was moving inexorably like a river towards a Union victory and both commanders had at least some awareness of that fact. However if one looks a bit deeper one can see how past events influenced each commanders decision making. In Lees case, he knew of Grants predilections for striking directly and relentlessly. Grant at Cold Harbor saw the carnage and decided to side step the direct route. Thus past events determine current thinking and decision making for better or worse.

futurevisionaries  04/22/2011 08:33 PM Report

we all people all countries need to work together Can you help or know of people or companies that can help?

I need to save global FUTURE brands for and by the global people and countries.

My name is Kent G Anderson .

I see where 12 years of my life's work and ideas can help all people in all countries. My goal is to share the global Brand FUTURE... Future is design like a country and people's ideas are the global product. For more information about me and global people FUTURE google Kent G Anderson. My web page is www.futurevisionaries.com .

FUTURE sm/tm

925 N Griffin

Bismarck,ND

58501

USA

milmntec@btinet.net

robdverity  04/22/2011 05:03 PM Report

JohnGelles meets ShalomFreedman.

JohnGelles  04/22/2011 10:10 AM Report

If you compare the SHOW with the AUDIENCE COMMENT it is like a parade of PALOMINO HORSES with costumed riders on their backs versus the trail they leave behind for sweepers to remove for eventual processing into fertilizer.

What ought to be done?

1. Unlimited self-editing as offered by Amazon.com forums to get the lowest cost greatest measure of improvement.

2. Space along side in column format (or below -- without columns) for moderator re-writes of what the worthiest comments really mean.

These two changes would establish thousands of little spaces where competing ideas were allowed to develop into detailed worthwhile thought.

The comment would still be free and democratic and mostly junk. But, where possible, the authors and moderators would have polished a few jewels. And the reader would have the option to skip all comments that had not benefitted from moderator-author exchanges.

JohnGelles  04/22/2011 09:45 AM Report

Charlie Rose and his significant staff have brought the audience of the SHOW a remarkable week of intellectual promise for a bright American and Planet-Earth future. Hillary, Henry and Paul. Charlie and these three offered us the truth on the within-reach post cold-war leadership contest in this century, Iran, Libya, the whole Middle East and North Korean threats, the revolutions in computer science and thier cousins in biology and materials, and the courage of one rich great ordinary genius whose ideas are ever deserving of our attention.

Some of the comments here among a not-silent miniscule portion of that audience deserve the absence of effect they will receive. If there is one monstrous failure of the SHOW it is these commentary paragraphs (by others not myself).

It is true that the American Experience includes poverty without excuse and imperfections no one approves. The remarkable internal revenue code of law without rhyme or reason and insult that knows no bounds has persisted these many decades after it was hihacked by our lawyers, law-makers and accountants to turn citizens into too many men without a country.

Our citizens have died abroad where robots were not protecting them to the everelasting disgrace of our political system and leadership.

Nevertheless, in diplomacy, science and war, the Americans who spoke this week, including Charlie, prooved we remain the best hope for the human race. We have descended from dumb animals and ascended from the dust. And we have done it with the little freedom we have nurtured and great ambitions we have tamed. The week's ideas allowed that the communications arts and inventions are reaching to include the masses more than ever before. That is a project that will feed and house us all and promote our skills and talents if we can only keep the worst people from the getting close to the powers we still monopolize over awful weapons and their future generations of yet greater threat to all life itself.

sandbox  04/22/2011 03:40 AM Report

the most amazing part of the show was watching kissinger--a war criminal who carpet bombed Cambodia and is responsible for so much death--sit there calmly and spew his toxic rhetoric--like a wise elder. Until he and the likes of him (George W) sit in the Hague and wait (in a cell) to be judged and sentsenced, nothing will change as history, onece again, let's the bad guys off the hook and continues to repeat. Shame on us all for letting them get away.

DavLev  04/21/2011 08:01 PM Report

I could point out dozens of mistakes made by both of them. But two come to mind immediately. Kissinger was honest about his approval of our incurion into Iraq. However, he was instrumental in

forcing Israel to disengage and not destroy the Egyptian 2nd and 3rd armies, when it had surrounded them. The IDF had they moved into Cairo, would have saved Egypt from subsequent dictators..and brought democracy (Israeli style) to their country, a dynamic we are seeing years later. Hillary on the other hand, scolded the P.M. of Israel recently for building in the major settlements ( in existing ones), even though she knows a deal had been arranged between Israel and the US former President ( The Roadmap, adjustments of borders, and retention of major settlements for growth purposes). She said any such understanding was moot. Hillary doesnt have the foggiest idea as to the many conflicts in the M.E. Her appearances at Egyptian rallies was a joke. Where was she when Libya stopped its nuclear production after long talks with Britain and France.

Sometimes its better if we just let these efents just go to their intended consequences. G-d gave us Palestine..all of Palestine. he did not give it to nomadic Arabs. As religious people, the Clintons should have known it.

robdverity  04/21/2011 05:32 PM Report

Hank said it all when he preempted Hillary with guarantees are needed. No commensurate concern for Pals. Despite kill ratios of 100:1, settlement encroachment, border infringement, embargoes, humiliation, and general dehumanizing. Victimizer playing the victim.

No way a duplicate UN fiat will be voted a la Israel for the Pals. Their oppressive incursions would become acts of war on an autonomous state - not that that would slow them down any.

Of course Israel prefers negotiations over a UN vote. Makes for keeping their Nazi jack-boot on the Pals neck their guarantee. They don't want two-states. Exposes US for the hypocrites they are for even remotely participating. Geo W's hands-off was one of the few things he got right.

DavLev  04/21/2011 01:55 PM Report

When the USA holds elections in Nov every four years, we do not vote for the Secretary of State, or any other cabinet members. We vote for President and VP.

Of course we assume whomever the President selects as Sec of State, will virtally rubber stamp his (her) policies.

That is to be expected.

Kissinger was smarter than his boss, but also less dishonest. He did not run the government, his boss did.

The buck stopped with Nixon for better or worse.

Lets be realisitic. Foreign policy is probably the most important areas of governmnet. In the USA we do not, as in the M.E. or Asia, or Africa, take to the streets to vent out

frustrations AND histility. There are exceptions..the pastor

in Florida. However even he did not start a revolution in

America. He did provoke the Islamic fascists in Afghanistan, etc, in deplorable ways.

But sometimes Presidents and Secretaries of State can make

mistakes. Vietnam is but one example. We lost that war, for no good reason. In Iraq, our losses have been miniscule, but still painful. The cost to date, over 1.5 trillion dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kissinger and Hillary Clinton havent a clue as to how to end

our wars. Hillary knows virtually nothing about the complexity of the M.E.

I have watched a number of interviews by Charlie with

Kissinger. Typically he says he doesnt know.

Doesnt know?

I suppose only the USA, as large and powerful and rich as

we are, can afford Secretaries who don't know.

Other countries dont have such a luxury.

The best thing for Hillary to do would be to resign,

and let someone with some sense and logic and experience take over. This is not a job that allows learning on the job.

REMant  04/21/2011 12:09 PM Report

Early on in our republic the office of secretary of state was a stepping stone at first to the vice-presidency and presidency, a position which it has lost, probably to our detriment.

If there is a loss of balance of power from Cold War days and a fracturing of nation states, there is clearly a growing movement to replace it with world government much the same as the movement for American federation and the European Community, and for the same reasons. But the degree to which this will be successful will depend on the desire to participate and that in turn on the maintenance of dignity. The task for diplomacy is to see this done, therefore, in an equitable manner until self-government, the only real basis for freedom, takes root. But I doubt this is Ms Clinton's idea, no more than it seems that of successive administrations domestically, and we cannot even get our own "house in order to influence events" given this perspective. Brazil, China, Russia, India, Germany, and many other countries agree no more than the "Tea Party" with the way we are doing business. Most of the rest of the world are not the evangelical enthusiasts we are. They don't see relations as a matter of rewards and punishments. They do not believe we are owed anything by God. And they know that the world cannot subsist on credit without virtue. As much as the youth in the Near East may desire freedom, they will not likely desire to be patronized. I think if we cannot find a way to reconcile ourselves to this idea we can probably expect in time to find ourselves on the short end of another world war.