Charlie Rose

Plasha  12/31/2012 08:14 AM Report

NeilMacCallister the USSR was going to fall before the SDI was seriously considered. America didn't beat the USSR, the USSR lost. I am sure we would have won eventually, but they imploded first.

hgrace  12/16/2012 08:25 PM Report

A giant. A great man.

Max83  12/10/2012 09:26 PM Report

This should be interesting for this discussion. Very good and insightful interview with Oliver Stone:

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV967ykeVhU

''Published on Dec 10, 2012

This is the full, uncut version of film director, screenwriter, and producer Oliver Stone talking to Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks. Stone discusses his legendary career, his views on politics, and his time as a soldier in the Vietnam War. Now, Stone presents his new book and special series, The Untold History of The United States, which highlights unsung American heroes whose views caused them to be lost to history as well as respectfully debunk more well-known historic figures.

Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States airs on Showtime, Monday nights at 8PM starting December 10.''

NeilMacCallister  12/07/2012 11:43 PM Report

Gee, tabs, ..maybe you ought to consider that Reagan's threat of spending the money to make Russia's ICBM's obsolete actually CONTRIBUTED to the fall of the USSR -- and saved the United States many BILLIONS of dollars in cold-war and HOT-war spending????

And how ELSE would Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich have been able to secure a BALANCED BUDGET under the new President Clinton in the 90's???

Where are the brains for today????

President Obama's food-stamps will NOT keep off those 6 billion Chinese looking at the WASTE we THROW AWAY here in America, ..nor will it deter those MILLIONS in the Middle East who are just PRAYING for their chance to stab their talons into OUR recalcitrant and over-fed America!

When it happens, tabs, ..don't go blaming Reagan, okay???

tabs  12/07/2012 03:41 PM Report

NCP3:

When one thinks of the Reagan military buildup, one has to think of which state did the aerospace industry call home? Then one has to think of which state did Reagan call home? To make it simple the answer to both questons is California.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/07/2012 04:17 AM Report

Yes, 10 years to get him and five hours later the story is out followed by two books, a documentary and a major film to be released.

A tragedy it took 10 years.

A miracle that the story was not leaked before the operation.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/07/2012 03:49 AM Report

Then according to Gates, Reagan spent way more than he had to on Defense.

Good question Charlie—'the first briefing was?'

Gates tells us the first time he heard a briefing, given to the President by the CIA, that Soviet Union was on its last legs was 1985.

So 1985 and the Soviet Union was sinking.

A central instrument for sinking the Soviet Union was Reagan’s massive defense build-up, which raised defense spending from $134 billion in 1980 to $253 billion in 1989.

This raised American defense spending to 7 percent of GDP, DRAMATICALLY INCREASING THE FEDERAL DEFICIT.

Yet in its efforts to keep up with the American defense build-up, the Soviet Union was compelled in the first half of the 1980s to raise the share of its defense spending from 22 percent to 27 percent of GDP, while it froze the production of civilian goods at 1980 levels.

Reagan went to far though--too much money on defense when Gates told us here that Reagan knew in 1985 it was over for the Soviet Union (and he also sold weapons to Iran, which should have impeached his entire administration).

By the way, becoming like Greece with debt? What about becoming like the Soviet Union with defense spending? The hawks will need to plunder to fund their philosophy.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/07/2012 02:27 AM Report

Remarkable for a Secretary of Defense to say this:

“I became very cautious about the use of military force because the consequences are so unpredictable. Maybe it will be a small reaction but maybe not and then you are back in another big war.”

He continues that the law of unintended consequences is always at work in these situations.

He then mentions Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and what looked to be quick turned out to be long.

What a crazy system--this is not a reason to leave, but a reason to stay, in the position as Secretary of DEFENSE.

Of course not wanting to get our soldiers killed is another good reason not to leave your position (not to mention not wanting to increase our National Debt nor increase the money borrowed from China to fight).

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/07/2012 01:54 AM Report

Yes, The Shah and his nukes . . .

No country "has a right to dictate nuclear policy to another," said the Shah's chief atomic energy official in 1977.

By the summer of 1978, Tehran and Washington had overcome differences and agreed to a nuclear pact that met U.S. concerns and the Shah's interest in buying reactors, but the agreement closely restricted Iran's ability to produce plutonium or any other nuclear weapons fuel using U.S. supplied material without Washington's "agreement."

Also from the 70's:

When officials from Oak Ridge National Laboratory received briefings on the planned Esfehan Nuclear Technology Center (ENTEC), they concluded that the "bears watching" because "unusually large" size of the facility "makes it theoretically possible to produce weapons-grade material (plutonium)" and the ENTEC plans include a "large hot lab," the first step toward reprocessing.

That was almost four decades ago and yet here we are again Charlie.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb268/index.htm

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/07/2012 01:49 AM Report

He says, “There is a certain point at which you have to assume that they (Iran) have a nuclear capability.” Since our intelligence is not that good.

OK then, we will assume they have them now.

So do you bomb them with our nuclear weapons?

Or do you just reprogram the supercomputer at Livermore to add another variable?

Not a good game.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/07/2012 01:23 AM Report

Charlie says, “You can’t occupy with machines, can you, from the air.”

He responds, “We learned that.”

First, "occupy"? Very interesting choice of a word. Since when was our goal to occupy?

Second, sure you can . . . WITH TECHNOLOGY like drones, satellites, AWACS, perhaps Reagan's Star Wars.

finalfantasytown  12/06/2012 10:27 PM Report

I remember after watching interview about facebook last Nov., I wrote comment"If I were you, I go to facebook to dream American faces'. Focus on yourselves, don't focus on others.

This world is timeless. We must get out of maze.

The code. Last week when I went to Dunhuang and visited Mogao caves/Caves of the Thousand Buddhas, I understand what you are talking about, Charlie. Also, I understand what Chuck Close is doing.

It is the last hope to gether all resources from the four main members of free country to get or earn the code, which is already known(because too much coincidence have happened in very short time), for yourselves. get out of the maze. No time to waste. Otherwise, all researchers will be slaughtered. Is it caused by personal experience?

The weapon. I am afraid to think about how much courage Americans have when losing the weapon from modern technology. China is the very good example. How to stop the nightmare?

I have two questions: 1. Charlie, do you still believe in God? 2. Americans including the four main members as free country, do you still believe in God?

ShalomFreedman  12/06/2012 09:39 AM Report

This was an informative interview with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. He is clearly a person of integrity and decency. His law of 'improbable consequences' is no doubt wise, as his understanding that all wars bring with them painful injury and loss of life. His concern for the well-being of the individual soldier is admirable.

But there is a question of whether or not his kind of humaneness and caution are what is most needed in a Secretary of Defense. No doubt he is right when he says the U.S. must know how to choose its interventions, and stay away from those which do not serve its national interests. I wonder then if he doesn't consider that the years in Iraq and Afghanistan were not really in the national interest. But under his watch and under two Presidents Iran moved its nuclear program forward and was not really stopped. It might have been easier and advisable to stop them in the Gates years and not in those which come afterward.

He is clear and convincing in outlining the dangers to the world of a nuclear Iran. I am not sure however he is as clear in understanding how to prevent this from happening.

His insights on the U.S. and China relationship were very informative.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/06/2012 02:50 AM Report

Have to call "nonsense" on his comments about the use of technology.

15 month deployments and quadruple amputees who just want to drive again--are you kidding me?

Then we hear, "As General 'Vinegar Joe' Stillwell said,"'No matter how a war starts, it ends in mud. It has to be slugged out -- there are no trick solutions or cheap shortcuts.'"

HA!

On October 19, 1944, Stilwell was recalled from his command by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Partly as a result of controversy concerning the casualties suffered by U.S. forces in Burma and partly due to continuing difficulties with the British and Chinese commanders, Stilwell's return to the United States was not accompanied by the usual ceremony. Upon arrival, he was met by two Army generals at the airport, who told him that he was not to answer any media questions about China whatsoever.

Yes, quote Stillwell. Nonsense, I say.

Technology over 15 month deployments, quadruple amputees who just want to drive again, and even casualties suffered by U.S. forces in Burma by Vinegar Stillwell.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/06/2012 02:23 AM Report

He said he spent 4.5 years at war with Congress, the President and his own Pentagon.

That is a lot of fighting for what seems to be a neocortex, rather than amygdala, kind of man.

He says his first priority with his War at the Pentagon was to be successful at the wars we are already in. The Pentagon's bureaucracy is to plan for war not to wage war. Getting equipment to troops in months--and not years--is contrary to the nature of the building.

Yes, if only it were called the Department of Offense instead of the Department of Defense then perhaps the bureaucracy would get it.

NeilMacCallister  12/06/2012 01:13 AM Report

Dear Mr. Gates, ..about 2 weeks ago (11/13), it was said by Charlie Rose and John Miller that David Petraeus came to you and ASKED to be named chief of CIA.

Can that be true??? ..It seems like such a drastic career switch.

Or did President Obama ASK Gen. Petraeus ask to step into that role? ..because Petraeus carried popular support (trust and likeability) generally lacking in presidential administrations.

But then after the Benghazi media quash, and the President's re-election, Gen. Petraeus' usefulness was over?

NeilMacCallister  12/05/2012 10:33 PM Report

Mitt Romney delivers BALANCED BUDGETS!!

Obama's Democrats deliver only EXPLODED budgets!

No sense! ..no self-control !! ..financial ANARCHY!!!

Let's hope America survives four more years of their reckless GREED!

MisterMittster  12/05/2012 06:50 PM Report

Hopefully that's what God thinks too.

There is an inertia at work to play the war pigs in power. Don't want to lose it so will push our kids under the bus to maintain it. More and More 'Homeland Security' must be sold, and $10 cans of coca-cola to the poor children under the bus being sacrificed for the unscrupulous contractors and their computer nerds who want to rob Uncle Sam blind.

That's the chicken hawk way. All the way. Tooche

DarthCheney was a what? r e p u b l i c a n

...like I said before, Mitt Romney Didn't have a problem with that. . Why?

NeilMacCallister  12/05/2012 06:16 PM Report

Wow!! ..what an outpouring of support for Robert Gates!!

Maybe we should make him President of Israel, or something??

We all know that people are going to die soon in this world,

..we all hope that it will not be OUR children!!!

tabs  12/05/2012 05:53 PM Report

NCP2:

The following is an e-mail sent to Mr Rose on 11/30/12.

From: TABS

To: Mr Rose

Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:10 AM

Subject: Governing II

This is what one said in an e-mail to CNBC yesterday morning, which was entitiled "The Crossroads of Destiny"

"Barrack Obama only knows one thing well and that is how to campaign and that is because all he has to sell is his image and not his substance."

And today what is President Obama going to be doing, but going out to give a speech to arouse the American people to support his plan. In other words going back into the campaign mode, which is not Governing.

The "Plan" that when presented by Secretary Geithner yesterday was laughed at by the Senate Minority Leader McConnell. Even if this was political posturing as an opening gambit, alienation of the opposing party under the current circumstance by conducting a business as usual negotiation is poor decision making. The rational is simple the stakes and thus emotion is running too high to create an environment where ones actions can be misunderstood by the opposing side, which will cause the opposing faction to become reactive rather than proactive. This is NOT A TIME for GAMESMANSHIP but clearly stating ones positions so that an air of trust and cooperation can be achieved.

Drawing lines in the sand is counterproductive as postions become rigid and forces ones back up against the wall. Where one sides blinking becomes tantamount to losing. Both parties when they walk away from the table have to think and feel that they gained something. Either this nation comes together to do right in an air of trust and cooperation or God will let us go our own way to our ruin.

TABS

tabs  12/05/2012 05:11 PM Report

"Those who the Gods wish to destroy they first drive mad!"

Regardless of what ex Defense Chief Gates says about the decision making process of President Obama, a picture is worth a 1000 words. That picture of President Obama in the War Room during the Osma Operation sure has a close resembelnce to the look one has sitting on the Pot after eating a Taco in Tijuana.

"

That said one has always thought that give President Obama two weeks in a closet by himself and he could come up with a decision. The problem comes with having to make Real Time or under pressure decisions to which Chief Gates says that President Obama "EVEN" makes them on the fly. If this is so then President Obama made a CLEAR CUT COMMAND DECISION to let his Ambassador in Benghazi ROAST, and it wsn't because military assets were not available for deployment during those long hours.

NeilMacCallister  12/05/2012 04:49 PM Report

..and so "Barack Obama decided to spend American paycheck-money upon a gunfight among gangs in Libya" ..rather than helping 100,000 people in tsunami destructed Japan?

Hey?? ..Good call. eh???

NeilMacCallister  12/05/2012 04:28 PM Report

One guy is President, advocating Socialism, ..this other guy is "Writing a book" about what he SAYS he saw during the modern downturn in America (..snoooooooze!).

Then there is Mitt Romney, ..who is now returning to the Board of the beautiful and financially successful Marriot Hotels.

Hah!!! ..I ask you, who in America cares about financial success anymore?

Which nations survive??????

REMant  12/05/2012 03:40 PM Report

As I wrote yesterday the president's remarks were IMHO grandstanding. And his appraisal of Gates expressed his usual condescension, in effect telling Democrats that even if he was a Republican, he was okay.

It's all fine and good to take care of veterans, but it's a lot better to stop making veterans of them in the first place, all the more because that same speciously compassionate public is taking full advantage of their patriotism.

Our problem is not with fundamentalism per se, but with our own rampant relativism, in our failure to rear children who learn to really respect others, and end up hypocritical narcissists, caring no more for their parents, than they believe their parents cared for them. Making for a public that can countenance anonymous killing and faceless bureaucracy, and a military that has as many generals as it has infantry battalions, and admirals as it has ships, none of whom it apparently can rely on. The axis of evil has nothing on this evil empire. Nor on its leadership.

In this regard Gates seems all of a sudden to be doing a lot of fence-straddling. Doe he really believe he became a wuss? Thought never seems to have crossed Petreaus' mind.

Regarding intelligence, it is certainly UN-intelligent to believe we can't predict what someone is going to without hard evidence. But it IS typical social science, which cannot seem to rise above mere description. Such liberalism in scholarship took off in the 19th c when it was assumed that looking at the world "as it really is" would yield both a break from the moralism and the tyranny of the past. But these "social sciences" led directly to relativism, as much as did free grace to behaviorism. Hence you will find no intelligence in sociologists, political scientists or economists, nor probably psychologists, and increasingly, philosophers and historians. Not, as I said above, that it seems to faze anyone. tho it has tased a few.

And if the Alawites have been so repressive to so many religious groups, why are they still being supported by so many of them? And who daily complain of rebel atrocities?

Did it really help anyone to bankrupt this country, as well as the USSR? And what is the root cause of Chinese unrest? Of the Foxconn strikes? Only these same exploitive financial policies of the West. Not only are we in no position to bribe ppl today, it can't possibly do any good. We give, incidentally, large amounts of money not only to Israel, but also Egypt and the Palestinians.

As the Congress debates reducing the some $200 trillion we are in hock, it might re-consider a balanced budget amendment. Some would ask how we can fight wars and stave off revolutions without borrowing and printing money, but I would reply, that's exactly the point.