Gavin McInnis on Baby Boomers

[Galen]

(09-06-2016, 08:53 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-06-2016, 03:38 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 11:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-23-2016, 01:38 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(05-23-2016, 12:39 PM)Galen Wrote: Probably because we don't make a lot of noise as we go about getting things done.  One thing that you should know about Generation X is that we don't do virtue signaling.  The GIs may have been doing the shooting but who do you think was figuring out how to go about it.  The Lost were the junior and senior officers of the Second World War.  They were also in middle and senior management of all of those businesses that produced what was needed.

I suspect you understand now why the GIs treated the Lost far better than anyone else did.

Yep sure do. They were the ones who fixed the mess and us civics are merely the cannon foddar.

Let's not forget the top of the constellation:  FDR and Churchill were Missionary Generation.  And part of why we were on the winning side was because we were led by idealists and Hitler and Tojo were Reactives.  They had their little qualms about things like bombing monastaries, while the idealist leaders on our side, who are about nothing if not the nonnegotiable end justifying the means, were happy to bomb Monte Cassino, firebomb Dresden, and develop nuclear weapons to use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

FDR was the idiot that got the US into that war.  The oil and scrap metal embargo virtually guaranteed that Japan would go to war with the US.  It is also clear FDR knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming.  In that respect the Missionary Generation generation isn't much different, as long as they get what they want they really don't care about the body count, as long its not them.  Ironically, it was the Lost that were the backbone of the anti-war protests in the time just before the Second World War.

It seems ironic that the generation that produced Patton would be less inclined to get GIs killed.

I don't disagree.  When I make an observation about the facts, that does not necessarily imply approval of those facts.

It's actually kind of scary to think about how a Crisis constellation such as FDR's would have handled the Cold War in the 1980s.  It might well have become an all out nuclear war.

Reagan's solution, with orders of magnitude less bloodshed, is to my mind much preferable.  But then, he didn't have the massive conscript armies that FDR had to work with, instead having a smaller and more dedicated volunteer force perhaps capable of more flexible and targeted operations, and his generals and primary opponent were adaptives who were flexible and tended to look at all sides of a question rather than just finding a solution to make things work according to an defined objective.

More like Reagan had to accept that the Soviet Union and US would wipe each other in a World War.  I did notice that he was much less inclined toward intervention after he got a couple of hundred Marines killed in Beirut.

What should concern anyone capable of rational thought, clearly this condition disqualifies Eric the Obtuse, is that the neocons are backing Hillary.  Having listened to both Trump and Hillary, when she isn't coughing up a lung, speak it is clear that her foreign policy will be much more aggressive towards Russia.  The neocons are just stupid enough to start a war with Russia  so Trump is looking much better as a consequence since I am adverse to nuclear war for rather obvious reasons.