Friday 7 November 2014

Unfortunate Sons

Fortunate Son - Creedence Clearwater Revival 1969
CREEDENCE CLEARWATER REVIVAL's Fortunate Son stands alongside the very best of the anti-war songs to come out of the United States tragic involvement in Vietnam. Written by John Fogerty and released in September 1969 (as the B-side to CCR's runaway hit Down On The Corner) the song so accurately captured the spirit of the times that by December it had climbed to No. 3 in the pop charts. Rolling Stone magazine rates Fortunate Son No. 99 of its 500 Greatest Songs Of All Time.

The accompanying video montage features some of the most iconic images of the era. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the troops pictured fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are professional soldiers and reservists - not conscripts. Uncle Sam had to learn something from Vietnam - even if it was only the unwisdom of forcing the sons and daughters of registered voters to fight and die in faraway places!

Video courtesy of YouTube

This posting is exclusive to the Bowalley Road blogsite.


Jamie said...

Here's a few more for the playlist...






I am not a pacifist but I believe the mission in the Middle-East is un-winnable when you are un-able to even secure your own border...

How bout another serious question...

Do the families of the soldiers become targets for ISIS while they are deployed???

{Shakes his head in utter disbelief}

I shouldn't even have to say this over the wire but I'm still waiting for some hot-shot to break it down for this simple soldier...

Jamie said...


Anonymous said...

Recently on facebook you called Iain Parker a fanatic. I'm sure Iain's quite capable of defending himself, and that's not what this note is about, but in my view you haven't taken the time to work out what he is on about.
It's a fact that a sovereign nation issuing it's own fiat currency does not have to go into debt. The debt of a country can be it's own currency in circulation.
The current banking system allows money to be printed out of thin air. This is easily observed, simply by noting that one accepts as money a number printed on a statement from the bank.
This ability has been taken from sovereign nations is ultimately defended by force after propaganda, lies, and disinformation.
In the face of constant lies and propaganda people have different reactions.
Mark Gorton (inventor of Limewire) sent his staff a memo titled “50 years of deep state”.
Once you catch them at one lie it then becomes a case of;
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.” (Neitzsche, supposedly).
Then of course:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” (Goebbels).
Bill Clinton Murders
A Noble Lie--OKC Bombing 1995
9/11 - Anatomy of a Great Deception - Complete Version – YouTube

Chris Trotter said...

To: Anonymous@20:23

My curtness with Mr Parker was inspired not by the ideas he so forcefully espouses (many of which I agree with) but by his constant badgering of journalists and columnists to act as amplifiers for those ideas.

If he had bothered to look, he'd have discovered that I have written quite a lot about monetary matters over the years.

It's being shouted at and harried that makes me cross, that, and the never-ending beating of Iain's monetary drum.

If he would rather not be called a fanatic, then, as I told him, stop acting like one.

Jamie said...

How could I forget...


Nothing old,
Nothing new,
just different names,
faces and places...

Chris Trotter said...

To: Jamie.

Commentators threatening other commentators is not something I tolerate on Bowalley Road.

Read the Bowalley Road Rules, Jamie, (you'll find them on the left-hand side of the page) and if you're prepared to abide by them, then, by all means, rejoin the conversation.

If not, then good-bye and good luck.

Jamie said...

All good Brotha,
Your house your rules...

Anonymous said...

Chris Fair call re Iain, it's interesting, in fact great news, that you agree with some of his ideas. I think we are poorly served by journalists and the media especially in the light of this guy's revelations I follow the likes of Pepe Escobar, Chris Hedges, Mike Ruppert, F William Engdahl, Sibel Edmond's, Catherine Austin Fitts and various other blogs, who I think are genuine. Disinformation, is a key part of the cover-up and some of it stands out eg. Alex Jones, with huge amounts of money is being spent on it, but they work hard to make it undetectable. Have followed you over the years.

Fred said...

Oh and how could I forget Seymore Hersh

Fred said...

This is my reminder of the futility and folly of war

Robert M said...

Quite of a lot of the elite or even the US Aristocracy fought in Vietnam and conscription in the US meant that the armed force officer and ratings at the time of the Cuban missile crisis was probably much more intelligent than it is today. Interestingly in the mid 1960s RFK and EMK opposed the ending of the draft because it would lead to a 'ghetto' army, which is arguably the case, particularly for men. Being commissioned as an officer for a women probably has higher status and improves their employability.
One of the major reasons McNamara wanted an end to conscription was because, to show Peking and Moscow he meant to fight,and would resist the communists he intended a fairly dirty war. While never spelt out that meant a war of percentage attrocities, and the less blue bloods in the military, who might wince and have too much guilt, the better.There is also the issue that a narrow military caste has been created in the US where the same lower middle class and working class families provide the officers and men ( and women) generation after generation.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Robert, you're being confusing again. I'm not sure you are correct about the numbers of the American elite serving in Vietnam. Many of them had deferments due to university enrolment. You are probably correct that more served then than do today. But having said that what is your point? Your second paragraph makes almost no sense at all. Yes the U.S. Army is officered by the middle-class, and the enlisted men tend to be lower class, but the British Army's been like that for hundreds of years (if you include the gentry.) and it doesn't seem to have done them any great harm? Again, I don't think that you present your point clearly enough. You say stuff, but don't explain its relevance.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Oops, forgot to mention – I think generation after generation is perhaps a bit strong considering that conscription in the U.S. was only abolished around 1973 or so. "Too soon to say." :-)