Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Actually, this might make sense. I looked up where you got the story about the Earl of Huntingdon at http://everything.blockstackers.com/index.pl?node_id=1767219 .There was a link to the story of Robin Hood at http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Robin%20Hood . The article includes the story of the legend, which centered around Norman and Saxon relations; the Normans had arrived a century or so before the time of Robin and the good Norman king, Arthur, was away on a Crusade while his brother, John, was the present ruler who acted harshly toward the Saxons. Robin was turned into an outlaw after getting caught hunting deer which only the king could hunt. His small noble title was taken from him. The story is resolved when Richard finally makes his return to England:
Robin's adventures come to an end when Richard finally returns from the Crusades. Many versions have Richard disguising himself and adventuring at Robin's side before he finally reveals himself, gets rid of Prince John, and restores peace and wellbeing to the Saxons. Robin gets his noble status restored and gets to marry Marian at last...
So the mixing of fact and fiction could very well be at work in the story, and it is at least possible that the Sheriff would be fighting a noble who became an outlaw.
I was watching Fox News last night and they raised comparisons to the political end of Vietnam and Iraq. They discussed whether a Democratic victory this Fall would usher in a “Withdraw Now” push as what evidently happened in the 1970s. It was argued that this would not happen, but that there would be a possibility that a Democrat Congress would start tying the setting of specific withdrawal or other action dates by the President into other bills (such as spending bills?). Based on this it seems that the anti-war crowd was more vocal and/or powerful during the 1970s if they were demanding immediate withdrawal.
Sure, no problem. 1) Click on the LINKS button so you get to the LINKS area. 2) You'll see a page that says LINKS and various categories of history and how many sites are listed so far in that category (e.g. "Ancient History - Total Links: 3"). Click on a category name (such as "Ancient History")3) You'll be brought to a page of links to different sites. Scroll down and at the bottom you will see a section called "Links Directory Panel". Directly underneath this is the "Add Link" button, which you click.4) In the next page, type in a site title, the url of the site, and a description of the site (i.e. why you like it, what it has to offer, etc). Click the "Add Link" button at bottom to finish.Is this good, or are there more questions?
I agree with what Donnie said. We're not fighting a conventional war as in ages past. There is no direct possibility of us being occupied by a foreign army as there was during WWII. The real threat is one of terrorism, or the surprise attack on civilian populations producing a great psychological effect. I think the threat of some potential catastrophe from an unseen force is far less tangible than the threat of some occupation by a sovereign nation. The enemy fights sporadically, yet fiercely. The enemy can use a tactic of waiting - something that we cannot do. If we wait without progress, public support falters which causes financial/political support to be less consistent.Our current military activities are also taking place against a polarized partisan political landscape, something which I don't think was nearly as severe in 40s as it is today. Any misstep by the administration will lead to blame by the opposition. Add to this the general media bias against the administration or its ideals. Don't get me wrong, though - I don't think the administration has done everything correctly and has made some judgment errors.
Though all to often man is not qualified to judge what is the common good. I can say for a certainty those Japanese did not see it that way. And all those women and children who died had nothing to do with pearl harbor.
I think, though, that man can judge what is the common good through the use of his reason. The common good might include destruction on a people or their property. In any just war this could be the case (if military activity in Iraq/Afghanistan were merely done to benefit defense contractors, for example, it would be unjust and we should not support it). However, I'm not certain that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan were moral actions, and Donnie mentioned some good reasons why it might not have been.
Donnie you bring up some good points. I'm not certain of the morality of Truman's actions, though now after sixty years to reflect on it I think that we know much better now. The indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands is obviously the biggest hurdle any moral analysis would have to face. And you are right – the lives of the Japanese were worth as much as the lives of the Americans. This is why war cannot be fought in the spirit of vengeance, but must be part of a goal for the common good.
Washingtons probably the heart of american history for sure. And a lot of good ones have been mentioned. Maybe we can throw in sites of great accomplishments like the Golden Gate bridge or the Brooklyn Bridge as well as Mount Rushmore. I think its also significant that Yosimite and Yellowstone were set aside as parks as well.
Some of those are historic landmarks, to be sure. But I don't think they'd qualify as important locations of historic events. Of course, there are multiple ways to interpret your original query, aren't there?
Yes, I'd have to say DC as well. Has anyone ever been to Fort Ticonderoga? Went once a long time ago.
I've never been there. Pardon my lack of knowledge, but where is it located exactly? Kentucky? Tennessee? As far as significant sites in terms of actual events that took place in them, I'd have to say Dallas (JFK assassination), Gettysburg, Manhatten (9/11), Pearl Harbor, Lexington, Mass (Revolutionary War).
Remember what happened to that scientist that Ashcroft declared a “person of interest” during our national anthrax paranoia? His life and career were destroyed because a public official decided that he deserved to be made an example of. THAT scares the sh-t out of me and happens far too often and THAT qualifies as evil.
I don't think, first of all, that it would benefit anyone to make an example out of a person known to be innocent. My hunch therefore is that it was not known that the person was innocent, as you suggest he is. Second, Richard Jewell underwent similar circumstances during the 1996 Olympic bombing in Atlanta. This was during the Clinton Administration.I don't think that one can parallel unfortunate events toward innocent people to any "rise in religiosity", such as the Great Awakening. I think that innocent people can get reamed at any time.
I can reduce this but I don't want to go below 50, as it provides more incentive to post. The floor is now open to agree or disagree with any change in minimum deposit.
I see we now have over 2000 posts. Feels like I've said the before. 🙂 Yes indeed I believe I did before the Great Crash of October. Oh well, keep up the good work.
Washington D.C., if only because the ideas which shape the world are born, transformed, or refined in this small area.
Let me put it this way – you punish people, and you punish countries, but you don't do it through war. If Japanese soldiers were guilty of their actions, then they should be brought to justice through established means. This differs from vengeance. I think if war is ever used for as a means of punishment then the worst of humanity would be experienced.
I had heard of the Rape of Nanking before when I saw an author discuss her book about it which came out a few years ago (unfortunately she was mentally unstable and Iris Changcommit suicide [/wiki]within the last year or two).I don't, however, think that anything of the sort would be a "justification" for dropping the bomb. Whether or not it was in fact justified - which I'm not certain of - I don't think that viciousness on the part of one group morally enables a similar viciousness onto that group and others associated with it. I think that war can only be waged in light of the common good rather than according to a rationale which seeks to punish.
Interesting because I still picked the American Revolution and the Civil War. I think with the War On Terror the U.S. would continue to exist even in the face of a major disaster (e.g. nuclear bomb going off in an urban area), but the American Revolution and the Civil War could have led to a dissolution of the United States as we know it today.
