I love how at 10:30 the interviewer's reaction to Thomas Rick's utter condemnation and dismissal of all of journalism is to say "uh huh" and to change the subject.
14:56 - Poor dude's about to experience a *third* political awakening from seeing the Taliban firing captured M4 carbines into the air as the last C-13's leave Kabul
Yeh we need all the generals gone. Anyone who did not oppose the abandonment of the easily defendable base! And didnt fight to save our soldiers..equippment..and more. As this guy has said. P.c. smith..and his preparedness saved the soldiers at chosin!! Yet none of our generals made any sort of fuss about HAVING NO WITHDRAW PLAN.. OR ANYTHING. ALL too busy playing politics. America is doomed. We could have the largest military ever..but with no good generals..we are doomed
@@claudeyaz As an allied Canadian, I’d counter by saying that America is a lot more than just its military. I wouldn’t worry too much, because American hegemony isn’t 100% supported by military power (though it does make up a hefty 60-70% chunk)
he lived in Afghanistan, as a jounalist has been embedded with the troops, and loves books. 😘 No that doesn’t make him the “perfect” expert on the subject. It does make him very interesting, and he definitely has lived experience to speak from.
Tom Ricks speaks with deep knowledge and understanding of the topics he has covered. The interviewer on the hand is operating from extremely little knowledge and nearly pure ideology. He cannot even think about the military without tripping over his preconceived notions. Very Bay Area college mentality.
Morria1962, I disagree. I see this a lot on TH-cam - 'So and so PUNISHES interviewer' etc. I didn't see any egregious display of ignorance on the part of the interviewer here. Firstly, if the interviewer knows so much, why not just a speech by the interviewer? Then the interviewee becomes unnecessary. Secondly, and more valuably, I believe it is the purpose of the interviewer to ask questions that are meant to be exploited by the interviewee in order to provide greater knowledge. The interviewer is supposed to provide an intellectual vacuum which the interviewee is supposed to fill. This is a function of this kind of dialectic which this interviewer seemed to fill well. If you appreciate the value of the answers, you cannot deride the questions. Thirdly, it is the purpose of the interviewer to represent the ignorance of the more ignorant sections of the audience in order that they might be better enlightened. All that said, I am sympathetic to your view of 'bay area mentality'. There is much arrogance in these pretentious groups which conceal damaging ignorance.
![POLYCAT - ข้อความรูปยิ้ม :) [Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lBhIgPGCgbI/mqdefault.jpg)
The opening score is lit.
Excellent. Very informative.
Ricks seems incredibly legit. 💜👍
Makes alot of sense to me.
I love how at 10:30 the interviewer's reaction to Thomas Rick's utter condemnation and dismissal of all of journalism is to say "uh huh" and to change the subject.
Cant wait for his next books.
Super interesting.
"News is what people who don't care much about anything read" -Evelyn Waugh
Prepare Ye The Way.- JRMcD.
Prepare Ye The Way! JRMcD
Ricks is brilliant
Ricks also believes the Pentagon was struck by an airliner.
16:12 he sounds and looks like Socrate in 2000.
So what happened CPL Armando Rodriguez & Perris Island ? 🙂
38:18 min ... "mired in an unproductive wasteful approach" ... that's a fantastic sentence, given by Thomas E. Ricks.
Shakespeare it’s not. Churchill would have written a shopping list with greater grace.
0:22... Cheezz this music from late 70`s
43:00 the German had the same problem with French resistance and got the same involving of counter-insurgence... WW2
14:56 - Poor dude's about to experience a *third* political awakening from seeing the Taliban firing captured M4 carbines into the air as the last C-13's leave Kabul
I really want to hear his next big lecture!!! This is getting really interesting! 💜
Yeh we need all the generals gone. Anyone who did not oppose the abandonment of the easily defendable base! And didnt fight to save our soldiers..equippment..and more.
As this guy has said. P.c. smith..and his preparedness saved the soldiers at chosin!!
Yet none of our generals made any sort of fuss about HAVING NO WITHDRAW PLAN.. OR ANYTHING.
ALL too busy playing politics.
America is doomed. We could have the largest military ever..but with no good generals..we are doomed
@@claudeyaz As an allied Canadian, I’d counter by saying that America is a lot more than just its military. I wouldn’t worry too much, because American hegemony isn’t 100% supported by military power (though it does make up a hefty 60-70% chunk)
I'm on the fence with this guy. He's brought up good points in a lot of war subjects, but armchair quarterbacks have 20/20 hindsight
Well he's an historian. Historian's by nature are looking backwards instead of forward and in that respect he MUST HAVE 20/20 "hindsight".
Are you the former operator of Morrisound Studios, or are you a different Scott Burns?
he lived in Afghanistan, as a jounalist has been embedded with the troops, and loves books. 😘 No that doesn’t make him the “perfect” expert on the subject. It does make him very interesting, and he definitely has lived experience to speak from.
Tom Ricks speaks with deep knowledge and understanding of the topics he has covered.
The interviewer on the hand is operating from extremely little knowledge and nearly pure ideology. He cannot even think about the military without tripping over his preconceived notions.
Very Bay Area college mentality.
Morria1962, I disagree. I see this a lot on TH-cam - 'So and so PUNISHES interviewer' etc. I didn't see any egregious display of ignorance on the part of the interviewer here. Firstly, if the interviewer knows so much, why not just a speech by the interviewer? Then the interviewee becomes unnecessary. Secondly, and more valuably, I believe it is the purpose of the interviewer to ask questions that are meant to be exploited by the interviewee in order to provide greater knowledge. The interviewer is supposed to provide an intellectual vacuum which the interviewee is supposed to fill. This is a function of this kind of dialectic which this interviewer seemed to fill well. If you appreciate the value of the answers, you cannot deride the questions. Thirdly, it is the purpose of the interviewer to represent the ignorance of the more ignorant sections of the audience in order that they might be better enlightened.
All that said, I am sympathetic to your view of 'bay area mentality'. There is much arrogance in these pretentious groups which conceal damaging ignorance.
@@kingkonut I didn't see the interviewer interjecting his own beliefs anywhere. I'm entirely puzzled.
Ricks most important thing in the world is Ricks.