jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (123 posts)

The Accuracy of History

  1. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 7 years ago

    I know there are people from all over the globe participating on Hubpages.  I am curious how we were taught the history of the world. Take for example,something vague.  The Cold War.

    What were you taught about the Cold War?  How did it begin why did escalate to such proportions?  What country's schools did you attend?

    I am curious if we were all taught different stories?

    I was taught that the world was divided after WWII.  Both sides maintained their borders aggressively.  There was missle build ups on both sides in competition with each other.

    That is what I taught.  I know different now.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image91
      Reality Bytesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      anyone?

      1. profile image80
        Hxprofposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I was taught much the same.  I think what we were taught is correct ONLY at the most basic level.

        There certainly was a division between east and west before the war and after.  The Soviet Union being the dominant force in the east (China joining them later) and the US in the west.

        The details are more involved though, as you say.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That's pretty much the basics of what I was taught as well, but the details are much more complex.

    3. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      There is a certain propoganda that is taught into history that has the tendency to favor the authors benefactors.

      Case in point is the Texas text book controversy.  Because the sale of the book is more important than the contents the relating of the history can be changed to meet the needs of the purchaser. Is this proper or correct?  Absolutely not but it is acceptable to the consumer and therefore made available.

      Perhaps time will help correct it as the history becomes more distant.  As Robert E. Lee appologized for the blunder of Picketts charge in Gettysburg maybe Eisenhowers regrets of mounting the massive D-Day invasion with the resulting casualties will become better known.

      Unfortunately the impassioned alliteration of some of the authors of these history books sometimes make war a glory bound account rather than the harsh reality of the death of some mothers son.   Wars are fought for monetary or political gain and until the true reasons of these conflicts are recounted by the historians rather than the romantic recollections little will happen to change the horrors of war or histories accounts of it.

    4. profile image59
      niall.tubbsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Deleted

      1. Reality Bytes profile image91
        Reality Bytesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I find it interesting and I wish I could find foreign history books translated into English.

        1. Sab Oh profile image58
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          They are not hard to find.

  2. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago

    During the war of 1939-45, the people killed in earstwhile Soviet Union is more than those killed in all other countries. Not because Hitler invaded Russia. Its leader Stalin was heading a government which was so tyrannic that no one could even think against him. Deaths in Russia exceeded imaginations. When the war ended, the allied forces came near the Russian border. The western world, famous for lavishness and media-blitz, was imminent to enlighten the tyranny of Rusian dictator Stalin. If the harshness was enlightened to the people, another Russian revolution would have upset the whole world. So, the Russian ruler wanted to put an iron curtain between the east and west, separating the once one-ccountry people for a long time to come.
    For Russians, the iron curtain was preventing the western media from entering their country. For west, it was preventing communism from spreading to their country.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      An interesting "history" that I've never heard, and it makes a great deal of sense to me.  Likely a lot of truth there.

    2. Reality Bytes profile image91
      Reality Bytesposted 7 years ago in reply to this



      Great answer Thank You,  Was China part of the Iron curtain?  Even though China- Russia almost came to battles throughout much of the time period.

      When Nixon went to China did he cross the Iron Curtain?

      1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
        VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No. China was not part of it.  Iron curtain was aimed to separate the east (Russia) and west (Allies).  Its utility was only in Europe. China was communised by Mao-tse-tung, who led the movement with the help of the suffering masses.

        They wanted good government at that time and Mao provided it.  He took some harsh measures to suppress the opponents which was openly reported by the press. But for westerners, China was a far-away country and they never cared what happened in the eastern world, comprising half of humanity. So the level of press reporting was and is very low compared to the west.

        Nixon went to China in 1972, breaking all anti-communist barriers in his administration only to set right the balance of power, created by the Indian victory over Pakistan in 1971, when almost Pakistan was divided and reduced to rubbles and could no more promise a safe and reliable friend for the US in the east. All the financial aid, armaments, ammunition provided by US to Pakistan became waste at the end of the 1971 war. Even after that, the US seems not to have learnt a lesson.

        1. Sab Oh profile image58
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          "They wanted good government at that time and Mao provided it. "

          BS. Mao 'provided' terror, famine, oppression, and death.

          "But for westerners, China was a far-away country and they never cared what happened in the eastern world"

          The slightest understanding of history shows that comment to be nonsense.

          Btw, the term describing China's communist isolation was 'The Bamboo Curtain.'

          1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
            VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Mao did not provide famine and so on.  Is it easy to feed one billion people in a land, ravaged by the WW-2 ?  The government of Chiang could not give an effective governance and had to flee to Taiwan (Formosa). After getting in, Mao had to enforce discipline among people. There are oppression, terror and death in some countries even now. That is not important.  Mao left a country self sufficient and can be proud of leading a nation, entirely isolated from the world for 25 years. 
            "End should justify the means".

            Press reporting about the eastern part of the world, by the west is certainly far below the level required.

            1. Sab Oh profile image58
              Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              "Mao did not provide famine and so on. "

              He absolutely did. That is a matter of fact. History, remember?

              " There are oppression, terror and death in some countries even now. That is not important. "

              Oh, that's not important? How big of you to decide that. I'm sure the millions and millions and millions who died because of Mao and those suffering today would agree whole-heartedly.  roll

              "Mao left a country self sufficient and can be proud of leading a nation, entirely isolated from the world for 25 years."

              He left no such country. China did not begin climb out of abject famine and poverty until the policies of Mao were definitively rejected. I'm sure you remember what Deng Xiaoping said.

              1. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
                AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I must admit it is a bit odd to try to defend Mao. There is probably something to the idea that we in the West know less about China than we think (though the poster is not from China either I might point out!), and I suspect Mao did do some things that were admirable (I'm pretty sure he may have done quite a lot of good things for China actually), but then again, not to trot out the usual example, Hitler did a lot of good for Germany... I am not sure your average German would say he was good for the country overall however! And, of course, the idea that terror and oppression are justified in the name of discipline is just, well, a joke. Yes, we'll increase suffering so as to reduce suffering. Riiight.

                1. Sab Oh profile image58
                  Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Nothing can be counted as 'good' that happens under a regime responsible for 50+ million deaths.

                  1. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
                    AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Fair comment

                  2. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
                    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Deaths due to government repressions are never counted. It runs along with our imaginations. While the govt. kills its own people for political reasons, how can others go there and count the dead?   So, the deaths attributed to Mao's era is exaggerated.  Mao ruled from 1949 to 1975.  May be during his 26 year term, the over all deaths would have been 50+ mn.  But the population increased 150% during his rule.... ie., 400+ mn.

              2. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
                VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                When Mao became the Chairman, the population of China was around 800 millions.  When he died, the population was 1200 millions... How much would have died during that period?

                It is easy to accuse everyone, but it is hard to felicitate them.  Even if no one in the west is ready to accept, Mao's policies are very much alive in China and elsewhere under the name "Maoism".

                Deng is not accepted as a hero, but Mao is certainly their hero.

                1. WizardOfOz profile image60
                  WizardOfOzposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You make sense here.  I am only breezing by this thread as I have to go work sad but your comments have stood out.

                2. Sab Oh profile image58
                  Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  No offense but it seems that while for some reason you have chosen to idolize a murderous communist dictator you do not understand Chinese history.

                  One of the many of Mao's policies that created generations of suffering was his 'brilliant' idea that the Chinese should have as many babies as possible and "out breed" the West in order to gain some imagined advantage. Mao is today recognized for what he was, and the fact of the matter is that China did not even begin to dig out of the privation he wrought until the change in direction initiated by Deng. You do remember what he said, right?

                3. profile image0
                  china manposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  This is about correct. Another post here is also correct in that most people in the west know almost nothing about China = and other posts here just mouth off the same old propaganda that has been fed to them.

                  Mao is still a hero here, most village homes have his picture on their wall still and the party members that I know still hold him in high esteem. Modern times and rapid development have put his ideas out of fashion but they are still a living force within the Chinese culture.  If you ask a Chinese about Mao the most common reply is 'no Mao no China'.

                  any leader in times of war and especially revolution will be responsible for many deaths, the idea that he is single handedly responsible for millions of deaths is just tired old propaganda being repeated by the ignorant or those with a political agenda.

                  1. Sab Oh profile image58
                    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    "most people in the west know almost nothing about China"

                    The people of China often know almost nothing about things in China that the PRC doesn't want them to know.

                    "Mao is still a hero here, most village homes have his picture on their wall still and the party members that I know still hold him in high esteem"

                    Those pictures have been there for decades. He is an object of nostalgia today, not idolization. And PRC party hacks have no choice but to go through the motions even though it was the party itself that eventually saw that it could not survive without moving away from his stupid policies.

                    "Modern times and rapid development have put his ideas out of fashion"

                    *ahem*

                    "any leader in times of war and especially revolution will be responsible for many deaths"

                    Unbelievable. When one stoops to playing the apologist for a murderous communist dictator and disregarding the deaths of tens of millions you know that the indoctrination is complete. Beware the Queen of Diamonds...

                  2. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
                    AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Mmm, all the same, it is hard for me to believe that he wasn't responsible for some horrendous atrocities. Naturally, as a Westerner, I have been trained to believe he was a monster, so I am willing to take my own enculturated instincts with a grain of salt. But no one here has mentioned the Cultural Revolution. I mean, say what you want about the Communists (and I appreciate that they did do some good things, like trying to introduce some sort of universal medical care, and of course trying to modernize (assuming that is a good thing, on balance!)) but the Cultural Revolution is NOT something that can be excused, in my view, in any terms.

        2. Reality Bytes profile image91
          Reality Bytesposted 7 years ago in reply to this


          Your answer is coincidental. I have just read a Kissinger essay describing the India/Pakistan war over what I believe is now Bangladesh? This is one of the reasons for my question so once again thank you for your response.

          1. AdsenseStrategies profile image67
            AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I would take ANYTHING Kissinger wrote with a grain of salt. Of course, that is true of ANYTHING you read. You probably need to read a number of authors to get a sense of any topic. But I would include people FROM the region that any historical event took place in. Kissinger certainly was neither Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi...

            As to the Cold War, I am old enough to remember a large chunk of it, plus I lived in Western Europe for a big chunk of that... it's a lot less theoretical for you when, after the explosion at Chernobyl in the USSR (of the day) you are told not to drink the milk in your own country...

            I certainly remember the rise of Solidarity and Lech Walesa in Poland, I remember Brezhnev, and I certainly remember Reagan, Gorbachev, Star Wars, Iran-Contra (involving supposed Communist rebels), Mrs Thatcher, and so on.

            But here is a question for you. Is it not just as important to ask about our sources of CURRENT events as it is to ask about our sources of history. In other words, are those of us who lived DURING the Cold War really better informed than those who didn't?

            1. Reality Bytes profile image91
              Reality Bytesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Honestly,  I wanted a subject that would not become confrontational.  I simply wished to discuss different world views of historic events.  Different perspectives, no arguments.  smile


              I am going to be reading a post war version of the reconstruction of Europe after 1945 next.  I also am looking forward to reading a novel of essays authored by Gore Vidal.

              I know absolutely nothing about Gore Vidal but the cover sold me the book.  LOL

  3. Rafini profile image86
    Rafiniposted 7 years ago

    Can't remember - I didn't like history much.  What I do remember is something about the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy, Bomb Shelters, and Reagan (?) being at the end of the Cold War.


    So, basically, what I was taught was it wasn't really a war at all, but the threat of Nuclear War that kept the 'peace'.

    1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
      VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      For every human being, the knowledge about his country, his people, his government, his religion, his language is a must. Without knowledge in those things, no one can analyse the present happenings in every country. Every happening around the world has its roots in history. We cant judge who is right and who is wrong, if we are ignorant of history.

      So start reading history books.

      1. Rafini profile image86
        Rafiniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        nice try but I don't believe I'm meant to read history books. hmm  I'm meant to write them. big_smile  (as long as someone else provides the facts lol)

      2. pylos26 profile image76
        pylos26posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        That is an excellant suggestion...Venugo...never any harm in reading history or practically anything else.

  4. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    As Churchill said

    "History is written by the victors."

    1. elayne001 profile image50
      elayne001posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I believe that is true. Since moving to Hawaii, I have discovered how much has been swept under the rug about Hawaii's takeover and it is still an unhealed wound to many native Hawaiians. I feel sorry that I never knew it until I lived here. I went to public schools and history was not one of my strong suits, but so much is unsaid.

      1. Sab Oh profile image58
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What had you not known?

      2. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        elayne001 I lived in Hawaii on and off for about 8 years and learned much about the overthrow of the monarchy there.  I also lived in Samoa and visited many other islands in the South Pacific.

        Some learned of the take over in Hawaii and passed laws to prevent it from happening in their own countries.

        Fiji has an interesting situation with the resident Indian population that almost took over the Islands and the civil unrest and wars that took place.

        I was back for a visit to Hawaii about a year ago and saw many changes since the 25 years I had been away.  The thing that did not change was the people and how accomodating they were to us hoales.

    2. ericsomething profile image79
      ericsomethingposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This is true, UninvitedWriter. Winning a war or battle has its perks, and that is probably the biggest, longest-lasting one.

      1. Daniel Carter profile image91
        Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The biggest perk, of course, is the ego satisfaction to the winners, regardless of whether any good was done in the world.

    3. WizardOfOz profile image60
      WizardOfOzposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Wise words.

  5. profile image0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    It was not Russia and the cold war, it was the USSR: Soviet Union. I remember it all very well along with China rise to power. Iron Curtain, Bamboo Curtain, they were both created to keep information and liberty from their own people. Eisonhauer knew it could not last and said so. Sadly the build up of arms was not needed, but it did bring about the collapse of the USSR a little quicker I think. If you weren't good at history and never read it, how would you know? Yes, we did an injustice to Hawaii, the Native Americans as well. So goes history and it does kind of repeat.

    1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
      VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Mentioning the non-existent Soviet Union will not make sense when reading history. Soviet "Union" was a federation of around 16 countries with capital in Moscow in Russia.

      The collapse of Soviet Union is mainly because of Chernobyl, Afganistan and American interference, when that country was at odds.

      1. Sab Oh profile image58
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It was "mainly because" communism is inherently unsustainable. Reagan played them like a fiddle and sped them along toward the inevitable.

        1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
          VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Communism is not a political party to become unsustainable. It is an ideology. Even now, the communist population in the world is equal (if not more) to democratic population. Reagan's playing wont have worked in China or anywhere else.  He only gave the last blow to the already dead Soviet Union.

          When Soviet Union collapsed, there was a minority government in India led by M.Desai and Charan Singh. (1981-91).  If Mrs.Indira Gandhi was in power in India, she would not have let the Soviet Union down. There was a treaty of cooperation between India and Soviet Union at that time, which was disregarded by the then Indian government.

          1. Sab Oh profile image58
            Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I'll consider some of your remarks in light of an apparent language barrier, but you're correct in that India had been in bed with the Soviets but bailed out when it became unavoidably obvious that the ship was (inevitably, given that it had been built upon an inherently unsustainable ideology) sinking.

            1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
              VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              India and Soviet Union were not in bed. They were bound by a treaty of peace, friendship, and cooperation, signed on Aug.9, 1971.  In that treaty, an  clause makes each one to come to the help of others in case of a threat. That threat came to India in 1971 and S.U. came to India's aid and India won the war decisively. Likewise, India was bound to have come to their help and should have stopped the downfall of the SU.  But the government headed by Chandrasekar in 1991 never cared to help the SU. He had no time to safeguard his own govt. and he had to resign.

              (PS: In my previous comment, it was not M.Desai and Charan Singh in power in India during the Soviet downfall (1989-91).  It was Mr.VP Singh and Chandrasekar. Error is regretted.)

              1. Sab Oh profile image58
                Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Like I said, India was in bed with the Soviets. And it was on bottom. Obviously, no treaty between the two was a treaty of equals. It was the Cold War and India chose its bedmate. When the political reality changed India's loyalties changed. It happens.

                1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
                  VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Relations between two nations should not be taken as "bedmats".   And also whoever you hate is put in the bottom.  But India's political and economic clout  in the region made SU befriend India.   SU was not better off than the India at any time, except militarily.  Now that has also changed.   Some nations like US tries to become bedmates of China, in your words. Whoever comes, China will always be on top.

                  1. Sab Oh profile image58
                    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    It's a figure of speech commonly used in such discussions. I understand your national pride, but don't take it too personally.

                    Btw, "except militarily" was a controling factor of the Cold War.

                    And I don't "hate" any of the nations being discussed here. I wonder if you can say the same.

        2. Uninvited Writer profile image82
          Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          lol

        3. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
          VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You may ask the 85 army commanders of the then Soviet Union why their country collapsed.... 

          I read that all of them received millions of dollars in their bank accounts alongwith  palace-like bungalows for keeping quiet while the States fell apart one by one.  The culprits will reap their sins one day or other.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image91
            Reality Bytesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Were these commanders treasonous or heroes?

            Do you think the Soviet Union provided a cruel and unjust government?

            With all the rsources that Russia holds why were they unsustainable?

  6. profile image0
    Kathryn LJposted 7 years ago

    I thought history was the 'official' version of what happened and that it changes depending on whose in charge.  I can thoroughly recommend a book I am reading at the moment - 1000 years of Annoying the French by Stephen Clarke.  In this hilarious history reader the following fondly held myths are exploded -

    The battle of Hastings was not a French victory, William the Conqueror was Norman and hated the French

    - Joan of Arc was executed for wearing trousers

    - and the guillotine was not a French invention but was first constructed in Yorkshire, England.
    So Sabo may well be on to something.

  7. KFlippin profile image59
    KFlippinposted 7 years ago

    Just ocurred to me, has China offered us help in this oil spill?  How long does it take for a ship to traverse the seas to America's shores?

    1. profile image0
      china manposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Apart from the fact that China is a long way away I guess the trillions of dollars it has loaned you could go some way toward it - Oh no - you gave it all to the bankers who took all your money I forgot for a moment big_smile

      1. KFlippin profile image59
        KFlippinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        As long as it's taken for Obama to make any decisions, I would have thought it was a plot to put China forward as our savior!  We've been waiting all this time for Chinese skimmers to get to the Gulf!  And then say lookie loo.........

        1. profile image0
          china manposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Well you would think it is plot - anything that does not agree with your view appears to be a plot in your eyes.

          And your pathetic attempt to mock the Chinese language is outdated and racist in nature.

          1. KFlippin profile image59
            KFlippinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Ha, I'm no plot proponent, and I was ridiculing fondly my own Irish roots, get a better grasp of America's varied culture, and the Chinese within which you claim to live......as I said, it's me bed time, and me Mum's really shouting now.  Take your fake racist blarney to someone else, doesn't fly 'ere.

          2. Sab Oh profile image58
            Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Wow. I'm pretty sure "lookie loo" was NOT an attempt to mock the Chinese language.

      2. Sab Oh profile image58
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "the trillions of dollars it has loaned you "

        China did not "loan" the US money, it invested in the US. Don't be misleading.

        1. profile image0
          china manposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          invest is misleading - 'bailed out' might be more appropriate

          1. Sab Oh profile image58
            Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            That would not be appropriate at all because that is not the case.

            1. profile image0
              china manposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              only in your little world

              1. Sab Oh profile image58
                Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                No, in the real one. No matter how satisfying you may find certain misrepresentations, China - like many countries -  has invested in the US because they have found it in their own best interests to do so. It's a wise investment.

                1. profile image0
                  china manposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  or getting a grip on the plug - depends on intent, and nobody knows what that is yet

                  1. Sab Oh profile image58
                    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    That also makes no sense. China would not want to pull the plug on itself.

  8. KFlippin profile image59
    KFlippinposted 7 years ago

    Rattle, rattle, toys and tattle....

    I'll work on a poem with that line.....after I get a good night's sleep....me Mum has said it's me bed time.

  9. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 7 years ago

    While politicized history is found in history books, history itself is found in the words and ideas passed between people living in that moment, communicating for their purposes and not for some students to learn...

    For example, I have transcripted communications between Russian and Chinese diplomats ranging from 1918 to post World War II. I do couple this information with the multiple specialized "Western" texts written by professors and analysts in order to gain a greater perspective.

    Concerning World War 1, per se, I again look to as many non-history text accounts as possible....but I am also fortunate to have inherited my great-aunts library, and I have several university texts from 1916, and it is very interesting to read the perceptions of scholars at that time watching the war brewing...

    As with anything of great importance, history requires a restless, unsatisfied mind that is open to searching and challenging already conceived perceptions and understandings....  Through multiplicity of sources....from as many different angles as possible....this is how perspective is gained.

    I look at the Cold War and I compare it to todays "War on Terror"....and in both cases the American people were hyped and mislead by their "elected" government...(quotations denote that, while many positions in the U.S. government are elected...far more are not).

    1. Sab Oh profile image58
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The Soviet Union WAS a threat to the US during the Cold War and terrorism IS a threat to the US today.

    2. Reality Bytes profile image91
      Reality Bytesposted 7 years ago in reply to this



      I agree both seem to be never ending pursuits of victory!

      Wars without victors.

      Except the war on terror has no actual enemies we can name.  Anyone in the world can be determined to be a terrorist and blam eradication.

      1. profile image0
        china manposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        And of course invading other countries and killing loads of people wouldn't increase the numbers of outraged citizens at all now - would it.  Creating the 'terrorists' seems to be good business for some.

        1. Sab Oh profile image58
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That is an illogical argument no matter how often repeated.

          1. profile image0
            china manposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Let me make it simple - if you come to my house, in whatever country, and kill my wife and kids I will come and find you and kill yours if it at all possible.  And I am a pacifist and mild mannered kinda guy. 

            If you make war on a country that cannot defend itself from your aggression the only option open to any resistance is to try to get to your country and attack in the only ways possible.  It is a cliche now - but one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - blurring this distinction by saying everyone who wants to attack America is just some kind of religious bad guy is short sighted and dangerous because you don't then address the problem that you have created.

            1. Sab Oh profile image58
              Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              "saying everyone who wants to attack America is just some kind of religious bad guy "


              Who said that? Everyone who specifically wants to kill American civilians and declares openly and often that it is because God told them to is some kind of religious bad guy and needs to be stopped.

              The "you'll make more enemies" thing makes no sense because by that way of thinking the police could never arrest or, if necessary, kill a criminal who has gone on a killing spree for fear that his friends and family will become killers if we do. By logical extension it would invalidate all laws and any enforcement, to say nothing of national defense.

              IT MAKES NO SENSE.

              1. Strophios profile image60
                Strophiosposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I'll see your stretched scaled down analogy and raise you one effective sensical hypothetical:

                Imagine, for a moment, that an ideology gained currency in the U.S. which claimed that Canadians were evil socialist/communists who wanted to steal our freedom and slaughter our citizens. That's patently ridiculous, right?

                Now imagine that, all of the sudden, Canada has invaded. Thy defeated our national army and are now occupying our cities, restricting our rights, and killing people who we have only on their word are deserving of death (and sometimes they end up killing civilians anyways, even by their own admission).

                You don't think a likely response would be an increase in adherents to the aforementioned ideology?

                I'm not saying that this, a priori, means we should make no war, but it is something to consider, and to pretend it isn't is intellectually dishonest.

                1. Sab Oh profile image58
                  Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Imagining that Canada's military could defeat ours is pretty fantastic. Regardless, not acting when you are convinced it is necessary because you are afraid that doing so will create more enemies is illogical.

        2. Reality Bytes profile image91
          Reality Bytesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          There is a lot of problem+reaction=Solution

  10. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 7 years ago

    Thanks again Sab for the snippet response to a very specific selection of my statement.

    I will assume, as usual, that you must agree with the larger remainder of what I stated.

    As for your words concerning terrorism, terrorism is always a threat, and one that is by far more of an internal threat than its foreign counterpart. There is a vast powder keg of pent up ill-intended emotion that waits to spew to the surface, like super-heated rock..

    To use "terrorism" and point abroad is also to deny our own national legacy. We profit from terrorism as a state, and we exercise and promote it. There is no denying or sideskirting this fact.

    Beyond official acts, it is also those unofficial ones, like the actions of missionary groups worldwide that have also created and exacerbated tensions, breeding more threats.. I need not go to a history text to learn about this...for it is carried in my familial legacy..

    I need not look to history texts, for I have the words and experiences of my forebears. Yet, I have done my research...and these groups actions abroad exacerbate the ills already created through European colonization and post-colonial economic and political dependence.

    While I agree that the Soviet Union posed the U.S. a threat, it is known that it was the United States that taxed and spent its people the most to generate the largest stockpiles of weapons as well as the most powerful...spurring the "arms race" on... 

    Great wealth was harvested.....du Pont...Mellon...numerous others...the rich got richer..

    "Fear the Soviet threat of Nuclear Fallout"

    How about the reality of chromium 6 and other seriously toxic cancer causing chemicals found in large amount in the San Fernando Valley's groundwater...prompting our department of water and power to demand over 80 million dollars for immediate cleanup...or else they are going to close a large number of our wells.. This furthers our dependence on water imported from far to the north near Lake Tahoe, and to the East, from the Colorado River, which is being consumed more and more by growing communities from Arizona to Mexico...  Tensions are growing....

    Personal experience compiled with the insights of others....how some of us choose to understand history...

    Others choose quick one liners and grand generalizations that they couldn't relate in a personal sense if they tried....a perfect example is the person to whom this post is a response...

    1. Sab Oh profile image58
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "While I agree that the Soviet Union posed the U.S. a threat, it is known that it was the United States that taxed and spent its people the most to generate the largest stockpiles of weapons as well as the most powerful...spurring the "arms race" on... "

      NO, what it did was hasten the Soviet Union toward its inevitable demise. It won the Cold War.

    2. Sab Oh profile image58
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "I need not go to a history text to learn about this.....I need not look to history texts"


      Well, well, well, isn't that convenient?

    3. Sab Oh profile image58
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "it is also those unofficial ones, like the actions of missionary groups worldwide that have also created and exacerbated tensions, breeding more threats.. "


      Ah yes, non violent groups and individuals who want to teach others about their faith are really responsible for creating terrorists. That makes perfect sense...

    4. Sab Oh profile image58
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "As for your words concerning terrorism, terrorism is always a threat, and one that is by far more of an internal threat than its foreign counterpart. There is a vast powder keg of pent up ill-intended emotion that waits to spew to the surface, like super-heated rock.. "


      That is not true. I understand why you want it to be true, but it is not.

  11. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 7 years ago

    Thank you Sab for demonstrating my point perfectly for me....

    Aren't the grand generalizations glamourous?

    Good job!

    1. Sab Oh profile image58
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What point do you think has been demonstrated?

 
working