dlowan wrote:It's kind of out-dated for the US to be playing that sick schtick in the 21st century - no?
Out of deference for my rather punched about admiration for you, Deb, I am walking away from this one.
Still, I would like to make a prediction that in the coming decades the American century will be looked upon rather wistfully. In regards to what's brewing in the East, the MiddleEast, and the sub-continent, I'm afraid mankind ain't seen nothing yet.
Regards.
On December 18, 1793, cannons of the Revolutionary army under the command of twenty-four year-old Major Napoleon Bonaparte destroyed ten English ships anchored in Toulon's harbor. He bravely led his men in the assault on the fort guarding the city, suffering a wound in the thigh from an enemy bayonet. Bonaparte's first victory made him the hero of the day throughout France.
Hungry for greater advancement, Brigadier General Bonaparte headed for Paris. Political turmoil in the city's street soon gave him his chance. On October 5, 1795, mobs of Parisians joined national guardsmen bent on toppling the Republic, and the government called on Bonaparte to repel the attack.
"They put the matter in my hands," Napoleon recalled, "and then set to discussing whether or not I had the right to repel force by force. 'Do you intent to wait,' said I, 'until the people give you permission to fire at them? You have appointed me, and I am compromised. It is only fair that I should do the business my own way.' On that I left the lawyers to drown themselves in their own flood of words, and got the troops on the move."
------------------
This is true.
WhoodaThunk wrote:dlowan wrote:It's kind of out-dated for the US to be playing that sick schtick in the 21st century - no?
Out of deference for my rather punched about admiration for you, Deb, I am walking away from this one.
Still, I would like to make a prediction that in the coming decades the American century will be looked upon rather wistfully. In regards to what's brewing in the East, the MiddleEast, and the sub-continent, I'm afraid mankind ain't seen nothing yet.
Regards.
If you had quoted the entire post, I might respond. Let me know if you ever do.
Certainly it is true, and far from denying it, i pointed it out at the very beginning.
If you have a point in posting that, you haven't made it clear.
An interesting aside: Napoleon arrived in Toulon as captain and left the town as general: made up four ranks within four months.
Setanta wrote:This whole "we've done it for the good of the world and the Iraqi people" horseshit was cobbled together after the fact, when no evidence of weapons of mass destruction or a connection to the September 11th attack was forthcoming. So you not only know jack **** about history, you're trying to re-write the history of the last few years.
I've dug no hole, and i've nothing i am either ashamed of or embarrassed by in this thread. You spew nonsense all over these boards every day. I take very little notice of it, but i do enjoy rubbing your nose in it from time to time.
I guess you'll have to forgive me if I don't subscribe to your notion of the "character of reasonable discussion" or what does/does not constitute "vague and unsupportable statements" of history.
Once again, you're a smart guy but you
don't know everything.
I've never claimed to know everything, nor even that i'm "a smart guy." I stand by the statement that Ican knows nothing about history and that he spews nonsense all over these boards. As i wrote, i've nothing i am either ashamed of or embarrassed by in this thread. This was only the latest example of Ican's attempt to use distorted characterizations of history to support his thesis. Read it how you will, Ican has consistently demonstrated that his view of history is consonant with that of Karl Marx--that it is something one uses to support an ideological position, and not something which is subject to investigation intended to separate the ideological chaff from the wheat of substantiation.
Walter Hinteler wrote:An interesting aside: Napoleon arrived in Toulon as captain and left the town as general: made up four ranks within four months.
He certainly made hay while the sun shone. There is very good evidence that he made a significant effort to secure the appointment of Dugommier to the command position, knowing that his efforts would be rewarded by an appointment within that command. Considering the hash he had made of the Corsican effort, he needed something to move his career along.
I have been out of school too long and wasn't exactly a serious student so all this history stuff is out of my league.
I am talking about the here and now. Can any of you imagine another country doing an Iraq and getting away with it without a lot of other countries bearing down on them with military action if all else failed? I seriously can't. The US would be first in line to object.
In the end Bush did it because he could for whatever motive.
Setanta wrote:... I stand by the statement that Ican knows nothing about history and that he spews nonsense all over these boards. As i wrote, i've nothing i am either ashamed of or embarrassed by in this thread. This was only the latest example of Ican's attempt to use distorted characterizations of history to support his thesis. ...
Repeatedly alleging another person has stated falsehoods while failing to specifically identifying them
and failing to explain why you perceive them falsehoods
and failing to say what you believe the truth to be, seems
deceiving to me.
www.m-w.com
Quote:Main Entry: de·ceive
Pronunciation: di-'sEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·ceived; de·ceiv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French deceivre, from Latin decipere, from de- + capere to take -- more at HEAVE
transitive senses
1 archaic : ENSNARE
2 a obsolete : to be false to b archaic : to fail to fulfill
3 obsolete : CHEAT
4 : to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid
5 archaic : to while away
intransitive senses : to practice deceit; also : to give a false impression <appearances can deceive>
- de·ceiv·er noun
- de·ceiv·ing·ly /-'sE-vi[ng]-lE/ adverb
synonyms DECEIVE, MISLEAD, DELUDE, BEGUILE mean to lead astray or frustrate usually by underhandedness. DECEIVE implies imposing a false idea or belief that causes ignorance, bewilderment, or helplessness <tried to deceive me about the cost>. MISLEAD implies a leading astray that may or may not be intentional <I was misled by the confusing sign>. DELUDE implies deceiving so thoroughly as to obscure the truth <we were deluded into thinking we were safe>. BEGUILE stresses the use of charm and persuasion in deceiving <was beguiled by false promises>.
Apropos of someone's post ten or so back:
I believe that it was ex-President Clinton, who, upon being asked why he did what he did with Monica in the Oval Office, replied: "I did it for the worst possible reasons. Because I could."
In response to Ican's most recent, off-target rant:
I haven't contended that you are stating falsehoods, Ican, that is a straw man, and your post, as is typical of your work, is wasted knocking down the straw man you have set up.
I have contended that you know nothing of history. I have used as examples (recently--i don't intend to delve any further into the past) your ludicrous contention that the War of 1812, World War I and World War II were pre-emptive wars. When challenged on that, you decided you have some kind of right to re-define pre-emptive to suit your purposes.
Then you came out with this claptrap about Hussein, Napoleon, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Rather than take you down a path which would have confused you further, i simply pointed out that you would be unable to support a contention that Napoleon was responsible for the deaths of millions of civilians. The point about civilians is important, because in a list of monsters which includes Hitler and Pol Pot, any contender for a place of honor there would have to had been responsible for the deaths of millions of non-combatants.
You just don't get it, because your world view is oversimplistic, and your devotion to a purely partisan support of the current administration leads you to reach beyond your understanding of history to establish precedence for the administration's actions. The United States has had some pretty flimsy reasons for going to war, but this is the first "pre-emptive" war in our history. It is a pre-emptive war in that the administration claimed there was a proximate danger of Iraq threatening our security with weapons of mass destruction. The administration knew better than to assert outright that Iraq was involved in the September 11th tragedy, but they were certainly not above a sub rosa implication to that effect.
But no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and no undeniable linkage of Iraq and the September 11th bombers has been established. So the conservatives have switched the rationale to one of freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal tyrrant. Without doubt, Hussein was a brutal tyrrant. What is in doubt is whether or not the Iraqi people would have suffered as much if some other member of the Ba'at Arab Socialist Party had been in charge. What is in doubt is whether or not it is justifiable to assert that Hussein is in a league with Hitler and Pol Pot. What is not in doubt is that Napoleon does not belong in that list.
It serves conservative propaganda quite well to whip the discussion into hysteria by likening Hussein to Hitler and Pol Pot. However, that contention will not stand up to close examination. Of the more than 300,000 Iraqis estimated to have died during his regime, other than combat deaths, the majority came after the failed uprising which Shi'ites undertook in the belief, tragically mistaken, that Pappy Bush would support them. While not in the least condoning any of the behavior of that regime, i can understand well why the number of deaths chargeable to them would increase dramatically after a failed uprising.
It would be absurd to contend that no war would have taken place in Europe in the mid-20th century had Hitler not taken power. It would be reasonable to state, however, that the number of deaths would have been fewer by millions had there been no Hitler, no Eichmann, no "final solution." However, the greatest number of deaths took place in the Soviet Union, many if not actually most were as a result of the actions of Stalin's regime, and the reduction in deaths in that war had there been no "final solution," no death camps, would have been proportiately small. Reasonable estimates of deaths in the Soviet Union are placed at 25,000,000. Subtract the deaths of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals and anti-Nazi activitists from the death toll, and the difference is far less significant as a proportion of the total loss of life, given the horrible toll of death in the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, it is still quite reasonable to contend that millions fewer would have died had there been no Hitler.
In the case of Pol Pot, the examination reveals an even more extreme case of bloody murder. There is no reason to deny that life would have been brutal under a Khmer Rouge regime. However, under Pol Pot's leadership, millions died who likely would never have had to fear for their lives, absent Pol Pot. It simply is ridiculously unreasonable to put Hussein in the same league as Hitler or Pol Pot.
And that is a significant point. Having failed to find the weapons of mass destruction, having failed to find solid evidence of a link between Iraq and the September 11th bombers, conservatives have rushed to assert that it was always about freeing the Iraqis of a brutal, murderous regime. But those who opposed the war, and now criticize the administration's fabrications leading to war point to two significant holes in that story. The first is that the PNAC has listed bases in southwest Asia in general and Iraq in particular as a goal in their agenda, since long before the Shrub was even elected. The second is to point out that there are other brutal, murderous regimes around the world which have not received the tender minstrations of the Shrub and his Forty Theives--North Korea is mentioned again and again, because it is a brutal dictatorship which murders its people through starvation, and there is not doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that they possess weapons of mass destruction.
Therefore, the conservatives attempt to raise the debate to an hysterical level by comparing Hussein to the likes of Hitler and Pol Pot. It is an attempt to place the justification for war on the solid ground of removing an epochal murderous tyrrant from power. But the case cannot be made, because it depends of analogies which don't hold up.
That is why i found your post to be a line of crap. Were anyone to make the same assertion again, i would consider it a line of crap, and say as much. Therefore, i did not and do not accuse you of retailing lies. I simply point out that you are not equipped to make such historical analogies, because you demonstrably possess insufficient knowledge of history, and insufficient historical prespective to sustain such analogies.
Watching Adlai Stevenson debate Al Gore would be far preferable to this ... excuse me while I go vomit a couple of quarts.
sumac wrote:Apropos of someone's post ten or so back:
I believe that it was ex-President Clinton, who, upon being asked why he did what he did with Monica in the Oval Office, replied: "I did it for the worst possible reasons. Because I could."
I know I had that in mind and I was thinking I would have rather Bush had done what clinton did because he could.
I turns out though that clinton really couldn't do what he wanted because he could, he got impeached. Whereas Bush lies and takes our country to war and nothing happens to him.
Still tryin' to pick a fight, huh, Whooda?
God, you crack me up . . .
Setanta wrote:Still tryin' to pick a fight, huh, Whooda?
No, actually you did both of us a favor with that last diatribe/Ode To Me because there's a limit to how much self-adoration I can stomach, and I believe it's time for me to tune out of this thread. It's beyond me why anyone with a dissenting opinion sticks around these shooting gallery threads anyway.
So ... here's to you ... but I guess you pretty much covered that earlier on your own.
See ya . . . don't let the door hit ya in the ass . . .