On Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:22:30 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> On 12/16/2012 3:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:19:54 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>> The assumption here is that Oliver Stone is presenting verifiable
>> history, rather then his own, Neo-marxist "Theory" of history. That the
>> Third World (an invented word of the Left) is deserving of deep respect,
>> and is presumed blameless in all things, as well. I notice the avoidance of
>> blaming Islamists for jihad actions in the world, or do you feel we should
>> have sued the Afghan government in the Hague, rather then invade? Secondly,
>> in Afghanistan, should we have allowed the Soviets to remain unchallenged
>> during their involvement there? Another element of the neo-Marxist is to
>> avoid speaking to Soviet actions in the world that was.
> It just depends what we want to do. If we want to try to be the last
> empire on Earth, then we should continue lying, cheating, and bombing the
> most territories that we can into submission and hold on to it as long as
> we can. If we do that, the current trend of degradation and corruption will
> likely be amplified and we will go the way of all failed civilizations. If
> we took another route and rolled back the empire, then we would have a lot
> of intense social dislocation and readjustment but ultimately maybe have a
> chance of joining the rest of the world as an equal partner nation.
> If you know of anything that Stone is presenting that is false I would be
> interested in hearing what that is. While he is obviously presenting his
> narrative of what happened, he makes no secret of it. I don't think that
> any of the events he depicts are in dispute. I will say that he
> de-emphasizes the transgressions which do not support his narrative, but it
> is ridiculous to say that these Neolithic-hut dwelling people did something
> to deserve being invaded and destabilized by American black ops.
> What about all of the other possible theories of history?
This series isn't a theory, it's just recent US history focusing on the
deeper background of the people involved. He shows how even the generals
disagreed with Truman that dropping the A-Bombs was necessary, how the
Russians did the bulk of the fighting against the Nazis (they lost like
23,000,000 people to our 418,500
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties). Which is ironic
considering that right wingers now try to claim that Hitler was some kind
of Marxist (of course the opposite is true).
> What makes Stone's theory any more credible than my own? Is it because he
> is famous? Famous people are well known to be just as wrong as any one else.
There's no theory. Watch the series sometime.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at