Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 27891011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 377
  1. #221  
    Quote Originally Posted by JLegacy View Post
    And instead of debating this, you're using revisionism as a coup out.
    I didn't "coup out" but I can't have a valid debate about a fantasy.
  2. #222  
    Quote Originally Posted by JLegacy View Post
    This was due to the vagueness of the statement.
    The question you say he's asking doesn't follow the basis of topic we were on.

    non-sequitur. :/
    please don't start the logic and grammar stuff. you are not applying them properly and I really don't have time to type out the details of this. I have to get ready to have surgery in the morning.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #223  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    please don't start the logic and grammar stuff. you are not applying them properly and I really don't have time to type out the details of this. I have to get ready to have surgery in the morning.
    good luck bro!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #224  
    I'm not sure either half the time. I guess I'm just saying that bringing the full force of the U.S. military to these peoples homes might not be the best way to prove to them that there are better ways to do things.

    Better meaning equality and all that. Not just creating little United States everywhere. Maybe they like some of the things we are trying to change. There is something to be said for having women cover up. I imagine a lot more work would get done.

    Here is where it might get a little ridiculous again... I think a lot of people are under the impression that the people who flew planes into the buildings in New York did so without saying they would first. Some of them witnessed the destruction of their cities at the hands of the west. Bin Laden then said he would go ahead and return the favor. Then he did. How was everyone so surprised?

    I realize it's terrible. Last I checked, though, two wrongs don't make a right. Adding several more wrongs surely doesn't make a right. So what are we doing?

    If you said making a lot of money for the rich mothers who make the military equipment for this country (the U.S.A.) you might be right.

    People are arrested for completely disagreeing with where this country is headed, and preparing to do something similar to what we did to start this country about it. It happened in Michigan. It just seems weird to me. I thought we were required to do it if we really thought it should happen. Then I find out we just aren't allowed.

    If you read all that, thanks. Sorry if it didn't make sense. Hopefully at least some of it did. I hope everyone has a great day every day. I know I do. Life is good here.

    Peace,
    B.
  5. #225  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    The revisionist history in this thread is amazing.
    History is revisionist by nature. Your interpretation of historic fact may be as accurate as any other.
    Just take the current Korea conflict. North Korea maintains South Korea started the hostilities. Should we believe South Korea because they're a US ally? Is that correct history?

    East Timor is a nice one. Independence, islamic militias, blahblah. Those poor people are sitting on one of the biggest gas reserves, and are pushed around from all sides. I don't think the role of major oil companies here, in Africa and in other places, will ever make it to schoolbooks.

    Russia just officially admitted Stalin had 20,000 Polish officers executed. Until then, the official reading was the ****s had been guilty of that.

    History revised the War on Terror real quickly when no womd were found. I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have wanted that to have been revised, just as there are probably thousands currently crapping themselves over how WikiLeaks will soon revise history as we know it.

    No offence, but let's not claim one interpretation of history to be always correct.
    Last edited by GuyFromNam; 11/30/2010 at 12:55 AM.
  6. #226  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    we are also protecting our friend Israel. Before we did that, 4 counties attacked them simultaneously.
    and why is israel our friend? Why did we help create israel? It wasn't our place then... Isn't our place now...
  7. #227  
    And let's wikipedia the **** out of this one:

    For the denial and distortion of well-established historical facts see Historical revisionism (negationism).

    In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word "revisionism' is often used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.
  8. #228  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I'm sorry, but while I understand and empathize with your sentiment, I can't agree with what seems to be your solution.

    History clearly shows what happens when we become disengaged and withdrawn. Things do not get better, and our security only gets worse.
    how many conflicts are currently taking place in the world w/o US military involvement? How many of those have resulted in terrorist attacks against America?

    See the problem in this country is that so many people believe that the world won't spin if the US doesn't make it spin.

    I'm not saying we should lose our awareness and not keep our eyes on our threats. I'm saying that our homeland security should come from our HOMELAND. Our economy shouldn't be dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Those billions of $ , and thousands of lives we're wasting on a pointless battles should be spent on American education, science, and defenses so that we can afford to reduce our presence there. As long as we continue giving terrorists ammunition and recruitment incentives (civilian casualties, $ for weapons, US occupation, support of israel) they will continue to attack us.

    where is history's example of what happens when we don't bother the Middle East?. There is none. Let them determine their own destiny.
    Last edited by Mhunterjr; 11/30/2010 at 06:46 AM.
  9. #229  
    ok, and lets let the waring tribes in rawanda determine there own destiny, which was butchering hundreds of thousands of women and children.

    and don't we all wish that we had stayed out of WWII, let the germans and french determine their own destiny?

    and the arabs? They NEVER had any war there between any arab nations in the thousands of years before america was discovered.

    THAT, my friends, is how one uses revisionist history to make a case for change!
  10. #230  
    and by the way, every war between soviet states (chezchnia, bosnia, etc) and every war in africa started without our involvement.
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #231  
    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFromNam View Post
    History is revisionist by nature. Your interpretation of historic fact may be as accurate as any other.
    Just take the current Korea conflict. North Korea maintains South Korea started the hostilities. Should we believe South Korea because they're a US ally? Is that correct history?

    East Timor is a nice one. Independence, islamic militias, blahblah. Those poor people are sitting on one of the biggest gas reserves, and are pushed around from all sides. I don't think the role of major oil companies here, in Africa and in other places, will ever make it to schoolbooks.

    Russia just officially admitted Stalin had 20,000 Polish officers executed. Until then, the official reading was the ****s had been guilty of that.

    History revised the War on Terror real quickly when no womd were found. I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have wanted that to have been revised, just as there are probably thousands currently crapping themselves over how WikiLeaks will soon revise history as we know it.

    No offence, but let's not claim one interpretation of history to be always correct.
    Certainly we should all be open to challenging what we know of history as new things come to light. That doesn't mean that all things that an individual can come up with are true.

    There's a huge difference between updating the facts as we know it based on discovery of new facts, and spinning things so very far that they barely resemble anything that's currently accepted as fact, just for the sake of partisan debate.

    I'm smart enough to know that we don't necessarily know everything about the past. After a bit of research, I can usually get a good grasp of what's commonly known and accepted on a subject. I also know spin when I see it.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. #232  
    As far as I was aware, we weren't discussing the zillions of wars that started without US involvement? I thought we were discussing the wars that started with it, and how these and US foreign policy in general could have (or have) affected the current terrorist threat. But perhaps I lost track.

    Since you're heading down that road; a lot of people don't think Rwanda would have happened if they had oil or gas there.
  13. #233  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    ok, and lets let the waring tribes in rawanda determine there own destiny, which was butchering hundreds of thousands of women and children.

    and don't we all wish that we had stayed out of WWII, let the germans and french determine their own destiny?

    and the arabs? They NEVER had any war there between any arab nations in the thousands of years before america was discovered.

    THAT, my friends, is how one uses revisionist history to make a case for change!

    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    and by the way, every war between soviet states (chezchnia, bosnia, etc) and every war in africa started without our involvement.
    I love how people imply that our involvement in the middle east has anything to do with oppressed people. If the US was in the business of helping oppressed nations, then Rwanda would never have happened. The ONLY reason we occupy the middle east is because of Oil. It has nothing to do with being hero's. As I said before, if that's what the US was interested in, we'd be in africa.

    As I said before, i'm all for 'intervening' in locations that won't (or can't) use our involvement as a catalyst for terrorist recruitment. The difference between WWII and the War against terror is that it was conventional warfare. American civilians were not dying and german civilians were not compelled to destroy america because of america's actions. The bad guy was
    clear.

    now that you've stated wars that started without american involvement, I want you to completely answer my question by tell me how many of those wars, due to lack of american involvement, have resulted in attacks on american soil.

    i'm not revising history. I'm stating facts. No foreign terrorists have tried to blow us up prior to us meddling in their affairs.
    Last edited by Mhunterjr; 11/30/2010 at 07:02 AM.
  14. #234  
    considering that embassy and similar sites are considered to be american soil... Most of them.

    and if a country threatens to recruit terrorists if we bother them, we can just stay home. That's great policy. Just sayin.
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #235  
    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFromNam View Post
    As far as I was aware, we weren't discussing the zillions of wars that started without US involvement? I thought we were discussing the wars that started with it, and how these and US foreign policy in general could have (or have) affected the current terrorist threat. But perhaps I lost track.

    Since you're heading down that road; a lot of people don't think Rwanda would have happened if they had oil or gas there.
    Certainly there's a good possibility that oil's a factor in strategic involvement. Whether the US should get involved in every single travesty is another debate.

    But it's also very easy to see everything through the 'for oil lens'. In fact, there's many factors to world conflicts and struggles, and they are not all directly caused by US greed. I've heard that other countries have similar hang ups.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. #236  
    We're moving this discussion towards "What did US do to deserve the terrorist threat".
    I for one don't like that. I think we can agree the answer is "Nothing". No one deserves this.

    But perhaps we do need to find out what terrorists think to somehow get to a structural solution (while chopping their heads off).
  17. #237  
    those old enough to have taken history in school should note that japan attacked the united states because of oul. Also oil was the basis of attacking china.
  18. #238  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    considering that embassy and similar sites are considered to be american soil... Most of them.

    and if a country threatens to recruit terrorists if we bother them, we can just stay home. That's great policy. Just sayin.
    let me get this straight. if US+Bothering = terrorist attack on US, you suggest bothering....

    that's great policy, just saying....
  19. #239  
    (My thoughts) on the Topic.

    I believe "Meddling" is one of the biggest factor that usually the cause for a country to be a prime target for "Terrorism".

    Seriously, no one wants to be told when to sit, stand, eat, or walk. People like to be free - and so people fight back for those rights.

    So, I believe one way of diminishing the attack of terrorist is to stop (Meddling) Just my two cents - that's all.
  20. #240  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mhunterjr View Post
    let me get this straight. if US+Bothering = terrorist attack on US, you suggest bothering....

    that's great policy, just saying....


    I have the same policy for the school bully. Threaten me and punch him in the nose. He won't threaten again.

Posting Permissions