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.

Reply via email to