Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I may be beating a dead horse, but I don’t believe the true story of the horrors of Stalin and the GULAG have gotten any sort of due from Hollyweird. This is astounding considering the mountain of evidence (anecdotal, historical, and documentary) that exists to detail it in nearly every aspect. The reason it hasn’t gotten made is plain: Hollywood is inhabited mostly by anti-American ComSymps of the first degree.
Good article. Cal is always good for a one-liner and some plain speaking. I didn’t know about the House vote. Just goes to show you how people’s perceptions are distorted by what DOESN’T get reported by the Leftists of the MSM.
The effect of climate and geography on the progress of civilization is absolutely fascinating. For a more in-depth treatment of this topic, I’d recommed “Mainsprings of Civilization” by Ellsworth Huntington. Dense at times, but it’s worth it.
Define “worse.” Did it take more lives? Over the course of the war, undoubtedly. But, we were at war. And not just war, but total, all out, population against population war. We thought we had to do it at the time based on information we had available so we did it.
In my opinion, the fire bombing of Dresden was "worse" than Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Unlike nuking Japan, there was absolutely no strategic purpose to it and the authorities knew that. But even then, I don't shed a tear for the "victims." They were citizens of a state that we were locked in mortal combat with such are the wages of sin and war.In fact, one could say Iraq is the opposite of Vietnam in mission and purpose: Vietnam was fought to contain communism, Iraq is being fought to roll back Islamists.
Didn’t get to see the thing on the mini ice age, but I’m sure they’ll show it again. The stuff on Siberia was pretty interesting because they talked alot about Stalin and the GULAG, something that I’m fascinated by.
Without question. Even if the casualty figures end up being exactly the same, the comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are preposterous. I”ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the only way in which Iraq is the same as Vietnam is the Left’s desire for us to lose.
I like authors of original non-fiction, non-textbooks. In fact, I’m reading A History of the American People by Paul Johnson right now. I also enjoy Martin Gilbert’s stuff.
I like authors of original non-fiction, non-textbooks. In fact, I’m reading A History of the American People by Paul Johnson right now. I also enjoy Martin Gilbert’s stuff.
In short, no. Even if Japan hadn’t attacked us, they were too serious of a threat to our interests and territories to be ignored forever.
As to Germany attacking us: good luck, Krauts. Germany's Navy couldn't even defeat Britian's, let alone launch an invasion of a country the physical and popluation size of ours. Hiter could conceivably have invaded and conquered England, but that's a whole different ball of wax than crossing an ocean to subdue a nation that is the most fiercely independent on earth. (and huge and rich to boot)
Roosevelt was an interventionist and wanted to get involved in the war precisely because he understood the threat Hiter and Tojo posed to the rest of the world. Congressional and popular opposition prevented him from doing so until we were attacked directly, however. We didn't support Stalin because we liked him, we supported him because we hated Hitler and as a prelude to direct involvement. Likewise, supporting Britian may have assauged our conscience, but we didn't HAVE to do it. We did it because we couldn't at that point get into the fight, so to speak. Even if Hitler hadn't declared war on us, I believe Roosevelt would have found a way to get us into the fight in Europe, by hook or by crook.Don:
Good thoughts about the lack of conflict fostering a reformation. Good analogy and very thought provoking.
My thoughts are this: Islam is not at war with the West, Islam's LEADERS are and simply want all their followers to be, but the overwhelming majority just aren't that interested in turning back their societal clocks any farther than they already are. However, since they have such an iron grip on the throats of the majority of Muslims (especially in Tehran, Riyahd, Cairo, and some other places) the reformers (assuming they exist, but I think they do) aren't given a platform to challenge the dominant paradigms. I think the solution lies precisely in them having serious contact and even conflict with the West. It's no accident or coincidence that Saudi Arabia has started reforming, Egypt is loosening restrictions on dissent, Baby Assad is tottering, Libya gave us its WMD program lock, stock and barrel. These things only happened because of our presence and influence in the region because of the Iraq war. If we waited for Islam to reform itself, we'd be waiting another 1400 years I'm afraid. Christianity reformed itself but it may be the exception. A paradigm usually only breaks or shifts after running headlong into another one, and that's what's happening now. I firmly believe that Iraq is the start of a long, long, process not only of democratization and liberalization in the Arab and Muslim worlds, but of the reforming of Islam itself, and for the better.Donald:
Very informative and in depth reply. Thanks. As to your assertions re: secularism, that's not exaclty what I'm talking about. Egypt, Iraq, Syria etc. are all "secular" states in that their leadership isn't a theocracy, but this is not the same thing as Islam as an institutionalized worldview undergoing a Reformation like Christianity did in Europe. I'm no expert in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems to me that Islam, in all of its sects, has never had an internal, inward looking reform movement aimed at reconciling it with changed circumstances, new ideas, different methods of living, etc. All of the things that put an end to religious wars in Europe after the Reformation. I don't pretend to know what an Islamic Reformation would look like and maybe it's impossible precisely because it's not as monolithic as the Catholic church was in Europe, but Islam views itself as a relgion at war with modernity and by and large, it's right on this count. Do you think this is because it's never had a reform movement comparable to Christianity and a lesser extent Judaism and if so, is a Reformation even possible in Islamic/Middle Eastern culture? Could Iraq be the beginings of such a phase? Who knows?I don’t know if it can be traced back to WWI per se, but I think the current problems can be traced back (to a certain degree) to the post-war carve up of the Ottoman lands. This is certainly a factor. Iraq was cobbled together and drawn arbitrarily by Churchill and the Colonial office. Ditto Syria, Jordan, Lebanon to an extent (though this was given to the French) Saudi Arabia to a degree, and the rest. They never had a chance to settle their own boundaries, territories, create their own institutions, fight their own wars or do the other things that peoples and nations must do to at least have a chance to create a workable long term system. Now then, lest I sound like I’m too harsh of a judge, I realize that what was done was thought to be the best solution to the problems of the day, and I for one am at a loss to think of other, better solutions that preserved order and influence of the respective nations and the region as a whole. My 2 cents FWIW.
I’ll be the first to admit that Iraq and Vietnam are little, if anything, alike in geopolitical terms. However, I don’t have the confidence you do in the public that they’ll put up with what they perceive to be inaction and a defensive posture; things they rightly hate.
Remember, I'm not saying progress isn't being made. I know as well as anyone that it is. I'm saying the perception is that we're not doing anything because this is somewhat of an unprecedented way for America to fight a long term conflict. They perceive that we may have lost the strategic initiative and that is fatal to the war's prosecution. IF the people don't like it, they won't stand for it.
