Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
nemesisenforcer wrote: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.
So does that mean you're one of those people who believes that FDR knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor but let it come so that the U.S. had a reason for going to war? At least, I think that's what the theory says (don't quote me on it).
I wonder how successful an attack on America would have been. Hypothetically, if Germany had kept its truce with the USSR and had defeated Britain, what would its chances have been then? I saw a show on the History Channel a few months ago about the Japanese development of biological weapons in Manchuria, headed by some scientist whom I believe the U.S. got after the war to work for America. I think that the Japanese were building some advanced bomber which would have been too fast or could go at too high an altitude for our fighters, and that if it had come to fruition in time it could have bombed San Diego. Think of that, as well as an attack on the East Coast by Germans/Italians, and it's not a pretty sight.
That said, this little thing called the Second Amendment would at least have prevented any easy land campaign for the enemy.Yes, it’s interesting that history doesn’t really note any protesters or WWI (or even WWII as far as I’m aware), but protests really help to define wars like Vietnam. History will tell whether the current Iraq War will be defined in terms of protest as well.
Fjanusas - it's interesting that I think the quote I cited regarding the Ottoman Empire and "rise of Arab Nationalism" after WWI was what you were talking about in your other post, right?kingjoey wrote:That’s a good question, I don’t think the founding fathers had subdivision in mind when the layed the groundwork for this country, but they did leave the power in the hands of the states and the people with provisions to overthrow an oppressive gov’t. Legal or not, if things go sideways in this country it could happen again
Yeah, I think that the power in the hands of the states has shifted in more recent times than what the Founding Fathers had anticipated. In fact, it's a good question to ask whether the original colonists would have agreed to become states which were united if they could have foreseen the federal government set up we have today.Yes, that’s right – I forgot about The Aeneid, but that’s a good example – although from what I can remember, Aeneas was a Trojan, not a Greek (unless he was a Greek transplant in the poem, which could be). Aeneas’ journeys and battles in the poem show his transformation from the old Hellenic culture to become the very first Roman citizen. I also think that his Latinized name in the poem is “Seven of Twelve” (alright, bad joke 😆 ).
nemesisenforcer wrote:How sifnifigant do you think it is that Islam has never had any period/phase of anything comparable to the Christian or Jewish reformation movements? Is this why it is essentially a dark age religion? Would the situation be different if it went through a humanist/secular transformation or is such an event incompatible with Islam itself?
This is an interesting question, but I'm not sure I completely understand it. What would an Islamic reformation consist of? And how would a humanist/secular transformation bring Islam out of a "dark age" phase?I think that it’s the same political division responsible for the Bork fiasco that is pushing the Iraq=Vietnam comparisons. Today, wars are fought on many levels – hardly just the physical battlefield anymore. Psyops has existed in some form since the days of Sun Tzu and Alexander the Great, but I would imagine that it has not been until modern times (20th Century) that psyops really took off as its importance was realized. It’s one way to help win a war.
Another way is through domestic political processes; change the political sway of a country and support falls out from a war. I think it's entirely possible to win a war by doing this, whether you are a foreign enemy of an administration or an internal enemy. What better way than by identifying the current Iraq war with Vietnam, a war which is considered, at least in the public eye, as being one which was a losing effort? While there are some similarities (exercise with uncertain end date in sight), there are many more differences.It is interesting how countries and regions get shaken up or consolidated every so often (I agree, Donnie – I think the U.S. could potentially fall as well; we should be weary of an aire of invincibility and should protect our border, economy, etc.).
What others, besides the Ottoman Empire, were changed after WWI? My knowledge of history leading up to WWI is a bit sketchy, but I understand that Prussia was a dominant force in Europe, I believe even up to the late 19th Century.DonaldBaker wrote:The question to be considered is, why do historians perceive these Greek leaders to be so great? What were their contributions to Western Civilization beyond the legends that surround their names?
Though I can't speak for these specific leaders, in general I think that the Romans, once they consumed Greece and Greek culture, looked to it for guidance and for a paradigm of high culture. As I understand it - though you are probably much more familiar with it right now than I am - the Romans didn't squash Greek culture (as they might have with other conquerees) but held onto it. Naturally, Greek heroes and leaders would probably be studied and their ways would play some part in future Roman political philosophy.I haven’t read much of his work – only the one I’m reading and A Christmas Carol, which is almost like a short story. From the notes in the book, though, it appears that he does include certain themes in more than one novel.
I find historic British literature to be interesting, and so I've been reading that for a number of months now. Perhaps some time I will move on to Russian literature, but it seems like there are an awful lot of British novels to get through first.This brings up another question – did the “borking” of Bork signal the beginning to a new phase in American politics? Do any of you see a shift in the divide which we now refer to as a Red/Blue State division?
Certainly, Ted Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" was a low blow - a sort of scortched earth policy when it came to liberal/conservative differences. Following up with Thomas' confirmation hearings and we can see a continued division. This division is really alive today, though I think the conservative sector of American politics has become more intelligent (politically speaking) and now knows better how to respond to such attacks.I wonder where Prohibition got its underlying support – as in, which states was it popular in? Was there a Northern/Southern split in feelings toward it?
If secession was legal up to 1861, but became illegal thereafter, it brings up a new question – should secession be legal today?
It seems like secession should be legal even today so that the United States reflects states that are united in spirit, not only in letter. By preventing a state from seceding with the force of law, the federal government has assumed a lot of power - moreso than I believe it was supposed to get when the country was founded. Of course, it is unlikely that a state would secede, but the option should be available as a last resort.
On a related note - Donnie, I have read only a bit of your thesis rough draft so far, but I was wondering if you thought the same spirit of the Great Awakening in South Carolina influenced it when it seceded from the Union. As it was the first state to secede, it was made of bold, probably fiery people. The South Carolina secession document is an interesting read.Lacking an informed mind on many of these leaders, I say I was impressed by Pericles’ leaderhip displayed, as recounted in Thucydides’ the Peleponnesian War. And since you listed him twice in your list above, I imagine that you probably like him as well.
Donnie, interesting take on Napoleon. You also reminded me of the role Robespierre played in the deaths of thousands. What’s interesting about Robespierre is that aside from the murders he participated in during the latter part of his life, earlier he sounded like the modern liberal posterchild. I believe he actually argued against capital punishment and also wrote advocating the end to the slave trade in the West Indies or for an end to slavery altogether. It was only later on that he went beserk, culminating in the pagan holiday he founded (I believe in conjunction with his Cult of the Supreme Being) which was more like a circus show.
