OT/ What would one say to Casper Weinberger if you had a chance to meet him?

[aka_tom_w]

Casper Weinberger (sp?) will be visiting our computer lab tomorrow and touring our new emerging technologies building and I may have a chance to meet him. He'll be out of there by about 10:00 am so I need some comments or suggestions before then.

What should I say or ask him, to sound like I actually know what I'm talking about.

What did he do?

When did he do it?

Who was the President at the time.

What is he famous for?

Forgive me I don't want to look like a dolt, I'm Canadian and I'm not really up on my recent American political history.

Any suggestions?

Thanks to all in advance.

-tom w

[Guest KwazyDog]

Hehe, dont feel bad Tom, I dont even know who he is? The name rings a bell though...

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Hehe, dont feel bad Tom, I dont even know who he is? The name rings a bell though...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL!

I think all the yanks here will know.

He was some high profile U.S. politician

a while back.

I hope I can get some more info than that...

Thanks any way Dan.

Stay tuned someone here will surely answer with something they actually know about the guy.

-tom w

[Guest ACTOR]

Wasn't Weinberger the Secretary of Defense? I believe that he was the Sec. Def. in Reagan's first term...I better go look...back soon.

I was right. He was the Sec. Def. under Reagan.

I would ask him what he thought about the current state of the NATO forces? What would he change if he could?

[This message has been edited by ACTOR (edited 09-27-2000).]

[Tiger]

Ask him if he knows the airspeed of an unladen swallow.

-john

[aka_tom_w]

I guess this might help see interview below

But I'm still interested in any personal comments any of you might have.

Thanks

-tom

INTERVIEW WITH CASPAR WEINBERGER

February 17, 1998

Chuck Baldwin: Joining us now is Casper Weinberger. He was the Defense Secretary under President Ronald Reagan and the author of a fascinating book

entitled The Next War. If you haven't read it, you need to get it. And we are glad that he can be with us for this quarter hour. Mr. Weinberger, thank you

very much for being on our program today.

Caspar Weinberger: Well, thank you for having me.

Chuck Baldwin: In the introduction of the book, The Next War, you say this, "Even if the next war were a replay of Desert Storm it would be

substantially more difficult to fight and win today than it was in 1991. The U.S. force that defeated Saddam Hussein no longer exists. What we have today is a

military that is a shadow of its former self." So, are we ready for another Gulf War in Iraq?

Caspar Weinberger: Well, not another gulf ground war, no. We have put together a very lethal force of aerial bombardment and air power but we've stripped

ourselves in other parts of the world to do it. But we couldn't put 500,000 troops back into the ground as we did before because we don't have them. In

Europe we don't have the air and sealift to get them there. And if we put that many in we'd strip ourselves to the point where we'd have virtually nothing

anywhere else in the world including the United States. So, we've cut our military back very, very deeply. And while we can do a very sound aerial

punishment of Saddam Hussein at this point we couldn't do much on the ground.

Chuck Baldwin: I've also read reports that seem to indicate that perhaps Saddam has hidden some of his arsenal in other countries and therefore limited air

strikes may not be as effective as we would like.

Caspar Weinberger: Well, the word limited I don't think is very useful here. What we need to do is pound these sites that he won't let us have any inspection

in twenty-four hours a day for several days, perhaps several weeks. He's probably moved some out. He's moved a lot of things away from sites that were

already inspected. He's moved things back into those. He's in every way violated all the things that he pledged to do at the end of the Gulf War. But whatever

it is we do we can do substantial damage. And we can damage him and we can damage a lot of these new presidential palaces that he's put up as masks to hide

his productive capabilities for these weapons.

Chuck Baldwin: How serious is Mr. Yeltsin's threat that any kind of military intervention in Iraq risks world war?

Caspar Weinberger: Well, I think that's just talk from Mr. Yeltsin. That's mostly the people around Yeltsin. Yeltsin himself knows better and basically has been

supportive of us. They're trying to demonstrate friendship with Saddam Hussein and trying to build a new alliance. Some of the old Communists around

Yeltsin still can't get use to the fact that they lost the Cold War and that they've been completely defeated and they want to get back on the world stage. So

they try to align with every opponent of the United States they can find, including China, Iran, Iraq and anybody else who's around. But I don't think that

there's any eminence of that kind of struggle involved. I can't image Russia going to war to try to help Saddam Hussein. They aren't able to do anything to

help themselves at the moment.

Chuck Baldwin: I've read reports that there may exist an axis between Iraq and Iran. What do you think of that?

Caspar Weinberger: Well, they're trying to form one. Iran and Iraq hate each other and have ever since that war that they had in the '80s and long before

that. I don't think there will be any sort of an axis. They might try to work together against some kind of common enemy. But again, I can't think that they

would ever come together in any kind of a long-term friendship or alliance because they hate each other too badly.

Chuck Baldwin: Well, they both hate America that's for sure.

Caspar Weinberger: They both hate America, absolutely.

Chuck Baldwin: One of the glaring differences between the conflict with Iraq under George Bush and now under Clinton is the leadership of Bill Clinton. Is

not that a major factor in all of this? We cannot ignore the human factor of the leader at hand.

Caspar Weinberger: Well certainly it's a factor, sadly. It's a weakened presidency. It's a distracted presidency. Mr. Clinton doesn't understand the military. He

doesn't like the military except when he has to use it. And he uses it in all kinds of weakening capabilities around the world in places like Haiti, Bosnia and

places like that that don't help the military in any way but put it in considerable risk. So, also I think we've lost a lot of our allies that we had in the Gulf War

because they simply don't trust or believe in Clinton and they don't believe that he's going to be consistent or reliable.

Chuck Baldwin: I'm not even sure that they believe that they can trust his word.

Caspar Weinberger: Well, I don't think they can. He looks people in the eye and says things. The bulk of the people who say that they want to approve his

job performance also say that they don't trust him and they don't believe him. And that's a very sad thing for a person in his position.

Chuck Baldwin: Mr. Clinton was at the Pentagon this morning trying to sell military intervention to the military leaders of our nation. Any word on how that

went?

Caspar Weinberger: Well, he made his talk. He seems to have outlined the history. He's talked about all the violations Saddam Hussein has made and what a

bad man Saddam Hussein is. But at the end, all he said was, "We're going to continue one more time to try the diplomatic channels and see if we can't

eliminate this thing without having to attack him." And the longer Saddam Hussein thinks he has a chance at getting away without being attacked the longer

he's going to be outrageous. That's just part of the way in which he operates.

Chuck Baldwin: As a radio talk show host I hear from the people every day. And what I hear is that there is not much widespread support for military

intervention in Iraq. It seems that even on Capitol Hill it's very sparse.

Caspar Weinberger: Oh, I think there'd be substantial congressional support if people understood what our policy is and what our plan is. Are we just going

to try to get the inspectors back in for a few days before he shuts the doors again and says you can't go any further? If that's all there is to it, well, there

wouldn't be much support for it. But if he really means this time to use the military that he has to punish Saddam Hussein and destroy as many of those sites as

he possibly can then there'd be a lot more support for it. I think that the lack of support is based on the fact of the lack of leadership. Nobody really knows

what he wants to do. Even today, he just talked in generality about what a bad man Saddam Hussein is and how this can't be allowed to continue. But he

didn't indicate any kind of an ultimatum or any kind of definite promise of military force or anything of the sort.

Chuck Baldwin: The feeling that I sense among the people is that they feel that Clinton is doing this as a diversion to take attention away from his domestic

problems.

Caspar Weinberger: Well, I don't think it's that. I think this is action that he should have taken five months ago. Saddam Hussein has been swirling us around

on the end of a fishing rod here for about five months, pushing us one way and pulling us another always indicating that we may be able to get in and that kind

of thing. And all we can say is that we want to solve it diplomatically and get a compromise but in the end we won't let him do it but that's been five months

now. I think the President should have done it five months ago before even the latest disclosures about all his personal life started coming out. I don't think he's

doing that to divert attention from it but I think he's doing something that he should have done at least five months ago.

Chuck Baldwin: Well, the timing is at least questionable.

Caspar Weinberger: Yes. A lot of people are worried about thinking he's just trying to divert attention from all his major personal problems and they are

major.

Chuck Baldwin: Yes, absolutely. And what are the risks that Saddam Hussein posses to the free world?

Caspar Weinberger: Well, the risks are that he accumulates, continues to manufacture and threatens to use and is capable of using such things as: Anthrax,

Botulina and DX and all those other agents that are very deadly and can cause an immense amount of damage. He is also trying desperately to get the

components for nuclear weapons and countries like Russia seem to be willing to sell it to him. He may even be getting some things from China and from other

countries of that kind. So, he posses a risk in the sense that he is willing to use any kind of violence. He is a mass-murderer. He's used gas against his own

people up in the north just three years ago. And he's used gas against the Iranians in that war that they had in the '80s. So this is a thoroughly bad man and the

longer you give him the belief that he's not going to be punished the longer you give him the opportunity to manufacture and accumulate these things in areas

where he won't let the inspectors in the more dangerous he becomes.

Chuck Baldwin: Your book, The Next War, is fascinating reading. I have the hard copy version in front of me. What was it that motivated you to write

this book?

Caspar Weinberger: Well, we wanted to try to point out to the people in fictional form, since nobody seemed to be paying an awful lot of attention, in the

form of lectures or speeches or articles exactly what kind of perils the country faces as a result of the very deep cuts that have been made in our military

capability. We've lost over 54% of our military capability and we have deliberately refused to have any kind of defense against the intercontinental or

intermediate range nuclear missile. All that program was gutted by Mr. Clinton in 1993 after President Reagan started it in 1983. We've stopped the

procurement for the last three years and we have not had any really new tanks or guns or planes in that period, all because it seems to be more popular

domestically from the political reasons to cut back on the military without regard to the kind of world that we still live in. And now we see the fruits of it.

Chuck Baldwin: It still is a very dangerous world, isn't it?

Caspar Weinberger: It is indeed. Just because we defeated the Soviets doesn't mean that the risks have all gone away.

Chuck Baldwin: You have a chapter on Mexico. Can you just briefly give us a quick analysis?

Caspar Weinberger: Basically, the scenario there was one that is practiced in some of the war colleges and staff colleges and that is that with the drug

problems in Mexico and with the government changing very suddenly, from a very friendly government as it is now to a very hostile government, it becomes

a possibility of a place where various drug-running and other crossings of our border could become quite possible. And in the scenario that was used in war

colleges that we used in the book. Basically, it becomes necessary to go down in and try to catch this rebel leader in Mexico and restore democratic rule to

Mexico. And that is one of the things, of course, that could happen. The whole book is based on a series of fictional scenarios that are posed to see whether our

forces are trained and ready and our leaders are capable of dealing with sudden, unexpected situations.

Chuck Baldwin: And if you had to personally predict where you think the next major war would break out, what would you predict?

Caspar Weinberger: Well, I'm afraid I would predict North Korea, where the economy is in horrible shape. You've got a half-mad ruler, a large military and a

feeling that the only way they could ever make any improvement is to attack South Korea. In the book they did that and at the same time persuaded China to

attack Taiwan, which would mean that we would be tied up in two wars. And sadly, with the capabilities that we have now, we wouldn't be capable of

prevailing.

Chuck Baldwin: How important is it that we begin to rebuild our military?

Caspar Weinberger: I think it's very, very important. It's important if we want to keep our own peace and securities. It's important if we want to help keep

peace and security in the world. We need to do that because nobody else is willing to do it and no one else is able to do it. And so it's very much in our

interest. We don't want to be the policeman of the world but we want to have a world in which our people can live and grow up in peace and freedom and

security as they have in the past. The only way that we can accomplish that is to be strong ourselves.

Chuck Baldwin: President Reagan said constantly, "Peace through strength."

Caspar Weinberger: That's right.

Chuck Baldwin: I really appreciate you being with us. One final question. What's the near future for Cap Weinberger?

Caspar Weinberger: Well, I think when you're 81 years old, the near future is to continue to survive!

Chuck Baldwin: I know you're lecturing and you're writing and your book is now out in paperback, I understand.

Caspar Weinberger: It is, yes.

Chuck Baldwin: And we're real happy for its success. Thank you very much for spending this time with us, Sir.

Caspar Weinberger: Thank you, again.

[Slapdragon]

Tell him your in charge.... uh no, that was Haig wasn't it.

Weinberger was a Reagan cabinent minister. Reagan was not really known for the quality or honesty of his cabinent, but Mr. Weinberger was honest and forthright in almost everything he did. He really screwed up the Falkland War negotiations for the US -- at a time he should have been standing by Britian he was worried more about Latin America... which did not make Thatcher happy with him, but to his benefit he was more carrying out a very disjointed foriegn policy set by higher up than following his own will in the matter.

He has written a book called "The Next War", which is not a serious defense issue book but is lauded by the right wing. It is worth a read because Weinberger is a very perceptive writer, it si also worth a BIG grain of salt since it was more written for political purposes than to really get Weinberger's idea out. The numbers used in the book are very soft, and the military has disputed some of his "findings" since they are based upon 2nd person testimony and not performance data.

Mr. Weinberger is 81 years old. One of my clients, who was Reagan head of the Technology office from 1980 to 1986 thinks he was one of the nicest members of the Reagan staff... easy to get to know, intelligent, and not really partisan, although the press have painted him as very partisan (mostly because of how his name is used by others and his hawkish views on world affairs rather than anything really extraordinary he had done.)

[Pham911]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ACTOR:

Wasn't Weinberger the Secretary of Defense? I believe that he was the Sec. Def. in Reagan's first term...I better go look...back soon.

I was right. He was the Sec. Def. under Reagan.

I would ask him what he thought about the current state of the NATO forces? What would he change if he could?

[This message has been edited by ACTOR (edited 09-27-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that it took three answers to get this information out is kind of scary, considering this is a military oriented board, and he was the secretary of DEFENSE...

If you want to sound all smart and annoying, ask him why did we "invade" Grenada, did Ronald actually not have any recollection of that at that time and was it a result of lying or alzhimers, and similiarly, did he personally have his hand in the Iran Contra cookie jar. Also, does he think the VP at the time was a goof for reversing his stance on "Voodoo Economics" to get his foot in the White House door.

It'll make your teachers pretty proud to watch you piss off the big CW.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger:

Ask him if he knows the airspeed of an unladen swallow.

-john<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLMAO!!!

Very nicely done!

Asian or European?

[M Hofbauer]

I remember Weinberger as Reagan's Defense Secretary well. IIRC he was heavily involved with the SDI issue. If you want to ask him, ask him about what he now thinks about SDI.

However, personally, I feel that asking concrete questions of that kind might semm misplaced when he is casually touring a Computer Lab. It might look like an over-eager questioning for questioning's sake, to feign interest in the VIP and his history, if you know what I mean. Wouldn't look very natural, I mean.

tell him one of GAZ_Stransky's eternal one-liner universal truths, like the "Please fix! or do somefink!!!!", or tell him the current sig. GAZ-quote below *g*

------------------

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[Guest ACTOR]

Hey Pham pardon me for taking TWO not THREE posts to get the answer. I probably shouldn't have posted until I knew for certain. I was in high school back then and the fact that I remembered is pretty good.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pham911:

The fact that it took three answers to get this information out is kind of scary, considering this is a military oriented board, and he was the secretary of DEFENSE...

If you want to sound all smart and annoying, ask him why did we "invade" Grenada, did Ronald actually not have any recollection of that at that time and was it a result of lying or alzhimers, and similiarly, did he personally have his hand in the Iran Contra cookie jar. Also, does he think the VP at the time was a goof for reversing his stance on "Voodoo Economics" to get his foot in the White House door.

It'll make your teachers pretty proud to watch you piss off the big CW. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK thanks

I'm not a student I'm the Sys Admin responsible for the computer hardware he is looking at and I realy don't want to piss anyone off.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Tell him your in charge.... uh no, that was Haig wasn't it.....

Mr. Weinberger is 81 years old. One of my clients, who was Reagan head of the Technology office from 1980 to 1986 thinks he was one of the nicest members of the Reagan staff... easy to get to know, intelligent, and not really partisan, although the press have painted him as very partisan (mostly because of how his name is used by others and his hawkish views on world affairs rather than anything really extraordinary he had done.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Steve that was VERY constructive and helpful.

I feel a little more prepared.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

I remember Weinberger as Reagan's Defense Secretary well. IIRC he was heavily involved with the SDI issue. If you want to ask him, ask him about what he now thinks about SDI.

However, personally, I feel that asking concrete questions of that kind might semm misplaced when he is casually touring a Computer Lab. It might look like an over-eager questioning for questioning's sake, to feign interest in the VIP and his history, if you know what I mean. Wouldn't look very natural, I mean.

tell him one of GAZ_Stransky's eternal one-liner universal truths, like the "Please fix! or do somefink!!!!", or tell him the current sig. GAZ-quote below *g*

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Marcus that was the kind of insight I was looking for and you are correct it is a shame we can't sit down and chat about SDI.

Oh well....

-tom w

[Guest KwazyDog]

Ahh I see.

Well in that case, ask him what the defination of an 'intercept' of a scud by a patriot in the Persian Gulf war was, hehe.

You could then ask him if that same definateion applies to the new nuclear missile defence system the military is working on

[Guest ACTOR]

Too funny KD!

[Mannheim Tanker]

Ask him if implementation of high-speed jeep recon tactics by NATO forces would be gamey...

------------------

"The real groundbreaker of CM isn't the 3D modeling, it's the 'holy crap! what the heck was THAT' factor." - Dalem

[Slapdragon]

I would not mention Iran Contra -- number one the people who like to redact history like to sweep it under the carpet as one of the worst abuses of government power in the last two decades of this century (sleeping with the secretary and lying about it is a minor peccadillo in comparison) and the fact is Weinberger was most likely out of the loop on that one.

I would ask him about his book sales, mention that some people on this thread liked it a lot (not me though, but it was not terrible, just lacked credibility).

[Pham911]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Ask him if implementation of high-speed jeep recon tactics by NATO forces would be gamey...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, joy. Then Casper and the lab can generate 5000 posts debating the issue in depth.

[Slapdragon]

Asking him about Scud intercepts, the Falkland War, or Reagan's poor memory when asked about illegal activites is probably really bad.

Clinton: Depends on what the definition of is is.

Reagan: I can't recall if I was ever told the definition of is, and if I was told I can't remember what day I was told.

[Mace]

Does he play CMBO, and is he up for a PBEM?

Mace

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Asian or European?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I....I don't know that.... aaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Banshee]

Considering he gave himself to public service (in such a high profile position there are a lot of benefits AND a lot of bad things, usually bad things > benefits) I would be very respectful. Maybe ask him about his toughest decision being Sec Def or something like that. To meet people who had a chance to define the history for their time in some way is a great honor and should be treated as such.

Also considering he was Sec Def during the some very interesting and tense times of US vs USSR I could think of many questions stemming from that..

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Slapdragon]

He plays CMBO but he is so far down the ladder I can't play him anymore.

[Henri]

Ask him if the Humvee is a gamey vehicle, and if not why they designed it so that it can hold a machinegun...

Henri