If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
In article MXvyb.371905$Tr4.1101284@attbi_s03, "Jay Honeck"
wrote: Yeah, I can't claim that my distaste for that war at that time was based on fully conclusive evidence. But it *is* nice when hindsight confirms ones judgement of the moment. Funny thing is, many historians (with the benefit of increasing distance from the emotional event) are now viewing our decision to fight the Viet Nam war as pivotal in our ultimate Cold War victory over the Soviet Union. and many historians will try to tell you that the US forced Japan into WWII. break the code. :-( -- Bob Noel |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
and many historians will try to tell you that the US forced
Japan into WWII. break the code. :-( How? It really does make one question the accepted versions of history, doesn't it? I mean, if historians can get things SO wrong, so quickly -- what chance for accuracy do we have when referring to things that happened a century ago? Or in the last millennium? They always say that history is written by the victors, thus warping reality -- but there seems to be far more to it than that. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:23:07 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote: and many historians will try to tell you that the US forced Japan into WWII. break the code. :-( How? It really does make one question the accepted versions of history, doesn't it? I mean, if historians can get things SO wrong, so quickly -- what chance for accuracy do we have when referring to things that happened a century ago? Or in the last millennium? They always say that history is written by the victors, thus warping reality -- but there seems to be far more to it than that. I'm waiting to see a citation of a non-Japanese historian who thinks that Japan didn't invade Korea, Manchuria, China, the Pacific islands, etc., starting long before 12/7/41. The last popular book I remember on Japanese atrocities was _The Rape of Nanking_ , published in 1997, _The Comfort Women: Japan's Brutal Regime of Enforced Prostitution in the Second World War_ came out in 1995. Don |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:fCxyb.372899$Tr4.1107176@attbi_s03... and many historians will try to tell you that the US forced Japan into WWII. break the code. :-( How? By shutting down their access to oil and other resources. It really does make one question the accepted versions of history, doesn't it? I mean, if historians can get things SO wrong, so quickly -- what chance for accuracy do we have when referring to things that happened a century ago? Or in the last millennium? It makes a difference when a historian has an agenda (the "status quo" for example, or trying to play "revisionist"), as opposed to objectivity. It's like other fields of endeavor where the participants pick and choose facts that support their conclusions, but ignore vast quantities of facts and data that nullifies their position. They always say that history is written by the victors, thus warping reality -- but there seems to be far more to it than that. Even the losers sometime re-write history. See, for example, what Japanese children are being taught about WW2, or what children in the former Soviet block were taught about loads of history. Hell, see what OUR kids are being taught. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
break the code. :-(
How? By shutting down their access to oil and other resources. ??? What does that mean? Who is "their"? -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:S3zyb.373891$Tr4.1110611@attbi_s03... break the code. :-( How? By shutting down their access to oil and other resources. ??? What does that mean? Who is "their"? Japan's. During the 30's, the Dutch East Indies (IIRC) was the main source of oil and other resources (Japan had about as many local resources as they do now.) They were essentially "shut out". |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Dan Luke"
writes: But they won't stay. Before Bush's Folly, Saddam had our real enemies, the radical Islamists, under his thumb. He hated them and the feeling was mutual. This is an oft repeated fallacy. The record indicates otherwise, with solid evidence of cooperation and non-aggression agreements over the last 13 years. See the Weekly Standard article "Case Closed" for details. -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in
: "Orval Fairbairn" wrote: Iraq would still act as a magnet for Islamic radicals, even if Bush weren't there. It is relatively easy for them to get there, as they have fellow Arabs to aid them. IMHO, it is better to have them in Iraq than in the US. But they won't stay. Before Bush's Folly, Saddam had our real enemies, the radical Islamists, under his thumb. He hated them and the feeling was mutual. Now, Iraq is a wide-open recruitment and operations So his televised announcement to financially reward the families of suicide bombers was a message of hatred toward terrorists, then? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
David
Got in this thread and hard to back out. On 30 Nov 2003 12:45:04 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: ----clip---- Clinton avoided the draft honestly, ----clip---- He redefined the word "is" for us so let me redefine "honestly". Lie, steal and cheat. Big John .. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
A little editorial quote from Max Boot in the Wall Street Journal on the
subject: "The most compelling evidence of the success of President Bush's trip to Iraq was the reaction of the opposition. No, not the Iraqi opposition -- or "resistance," as the French have taken to calling it. I mean the American opposition: the Democrats and the news media. The former were forced to concede that, as a John Edwards adviser put it, the visit was a "daring move and great politics." In a pathetic attempt to find something negative to say, Howard Dean's spokesman sound-bited as follows: "This visit won't change the fact that those brave men and women should never have been fighting in Iraq in the first place." Thanks, Howard. I'm sure the troops appreciate your support." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|