Big Kahunas

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

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"

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

"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.

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"

"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".

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

"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?

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
..

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."