Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I question whether Iran would even bomb Israel because that would be suicide,and I do not think they are suicidal.
You do realize that suicide in the pursuit of national and religious goals has a long and illustrious history with Muslims? The Assassins are the earliest suicide attackers I can think of. Iran will do whatever they think they can get away with and probably even some things that they know they can't get away with. We are dealing with irrational people, it is a mistake to assume that they won't do something because it is irrational. That is the mistake Chamberlain and Daladier made at Munich in 1939. They did not recognize that Hitler was essentially an irrational actor and his motivations stemmed from irrational precepts. Negotiating with Iran is repeating the mistakes of the past. We cant truly know the motivation of Iran and so are ill-equipped to make judgment calls on what they will or will not do. In this case I believe it is prudent to expect the worst and proceed on that basis. This is why Obama's call to negotiate alarms me so much.
Roman governance collapsed in 476, but it's institutions survived via the church...
I see you subscribe to the traditional date of the fall of Rome. Roman governance did not cease with the death and overthrow of Romulus Augustulus at Adrianople. The forms of Roman government survived in a diminished reform through to today. Roman Law lived on in civil society as well as in church law. Local Roman governments throughout the empire continued until they succumbed to invasion or were rendered unrecognizable by time and change.As to why Rome fell, certainly the barbarization of the empire played a part. I would argue that a bigger reason was the moral decay at the center of the empire. It was this decay that made barbarization palatable to the emperors. The needed soldiers and the average Roman was uninterested in defending the empire so the emperors had to get them from somewhere. In the end, it was expediency, compounded by moral decay, which allowed the enemy within the empire and then ate it alive from the inside out.
But, do we truly have a right to expect our historians to be truly objective? Shouldn't we emphasize looking bias as opposed to objectivity?
Of course we can expect historians to be objective, or at least we can expect them to strive for objectivity/impartiality. The job of a historian is not to acknowledge bias in his work, rather it is to attempt to eliminate bias as much as is practical. I won't get into the impossibility of eliminating all bias as that is axiomatic, but we should not, as historians, throw up our hands and say that since bias cannot be eliminated we should revel in it. The best way to eliminate bias or come close is to examine historical events from the perspective of all involved in the events. In this manner, a balanced account can be presented and it also works to minimize the bias of the author.
Didn't we catch some French spies in the mid-80's? I cant remember the details but I seem to remember some French and even some West German spies getting busted in the mid to late 80's.
I cheer him on. It is always great to see someone fighting the dead hand of bureaucracy. He is like Canute and the sea though, I am certain the tide of government will wash back over him.
Have to agree with Don here. Hitler was determined to invade Poland and start the war in 1939. He felt Germany's military edge slipping away and negotiation would have just proved the weakness of the democracies and increased hi sense that the timing was right. The allied capitulation at Munich helped convince him that the democracies would not lift a finger in the case of a Polish invasion so it is hard to see how further negotiations would have averted the war. Buchanan, is more than a little off the mark here.There is a time and place for negotiation just as there is a time and place to stand firm and be prepared to go to war. The Invasion of Poland was a case where no amount of negotiation could have stopped the German invasion. Delayed maybe, but stopped, no.
Maybe farmers are just happier and have a higher sense of accomplishment in their lives because of what they do for a living. I grew up on a farm and would go back to it if it wasn't for agribusiness driving all the small operators into bankruptcy or peonage.
There may be a WW III in the future, but if you accept the reckoning of some historians, WW II was actually WW VII so we should be talking about WW VIII. WW III or whatever, is a ways off. What is the competeing power block opposed to the US and the West that can realitistcally challenge the global supremacy of the West? It is certainly not Islamic Jihadism, which a self-defeating doctrine anyway.
There's an election coming up in Iran in 2009. Hopefully everyone will be patient enough to wait and see what happens.
I guess you are assuming that the elections in Iran will be free and fair. How about the last go-round when wll the moderate Iranian candidates were barred from standing for election because it was known they would win?
In the last twebty years or so there has been wide recognition in the academic community that the Dark Ages were not Dark at all. Of course, people in Europe were more focused on survival after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century but civilisation was not stagnant in the interval between the fall of Rome and the Middle ages. Science and technology did not develop as much but legal theory advanced, monasteries played an important role in transcribing the ancients, and water power was developed. As to how bad it was, it all depends on perspective, for the peasants, the middle ages were also bad. Royalty and the nobility had it pretty good though.
Heres another article that appeared in the Jerusalem Post today about how happy the Jews were under Islam. Admittedly, it is not from an unbiased source, but it doesn't say anything that I have not read elsewhere either. This article is a good example of using the facts for political gain.http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1213794275808&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Well, I have to say that if I heard them coming. I would probably shoot and kill one of them, my first instinct would be to reach for my pistol anyway. But, if they woke me up, I would yell at them and then speak to their supervisor that night and the chief the next day. I would not sue immediately, I think people in America are too litigious anyway. You can bet that I would be not just mad but red-hot furious.
My first instinct would be to have serious words with the chief of police and I might even consider suing if I did not get satisfaction from him. I agree with the guy who was woken up that the actions of the police were a gross violation of privacy. I would guess that the chief will just claim the police were overzealous in the execution of their duties and they will not be santcioned.
The Lisbon Treaty and the other similar EU expansionism represent the death of democracy in Europe. The folks in power have made it clear that this is what they want and do not hesitate to take a condescending attitude to the people. I thought the failure of the constitution a few years ago made it clear that Europeans want to pause and take a breath before they continue with the EU federalization project. The elitists have highlighted their arrogance and condescension by continuing to to insist that they no what is better much like parents to children. It is the ultimate expression of the nany-state.
Saw this today and thought it was an interesting analysis.http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3340
