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. > > Craig > > Hi, > > 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. Craig > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/grjFZ0E4AqUJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
