Food For Thought

[Max Whittaker]

This ought to get you thinking... Just in case your brain is asleep now.

History Repeats Itself. For example, if you have read about Napoleon, Hiter and Bin Laden you may find atleast a few similarities in the way they think or act. Just a few mind you. And each time there is a foreign threat of some kind the United States never gets involved in it until we are attacked (i.e. WWI,WWII and terrorist)
You can find similarities throughout history.


War Leads to More War. After World War I the Germans wanted the land that they lost in the war back. And Hitler promised them he'd get it back and blamed the Jews for their problems. The next big war followed, as you know. The end of World War II marked the beginings of the USSR. I haven't fully studied the Vietnam war yet but I'm sure that war lead to another. After the fall of the Soviet Union(in which, by the way, we worked with Afghanistan) our troops went back home. In doing so we sowed the seeds of the war against terror by allowing Bin Laden to take over.

Just some stuff to ponder. OK, I'm gone!




------------------
Help others before you help yourself.

America, land that I love.

Walk straight, have faith and stand tall!

[Bootsy Whoosh]

Ummm...I understand what you're getting at, but still, you have some facts majorly messed up.

First off, the USSR was formed in 1922 by Lenin in the wake of the Russian Revolution of 1917, before WWII even began, not afterwards.

The statement that the U.S. never gets involved in any war unless we are attacked is wrong on many counts. First, the U.S. was never attacked to bring us into WWI, nor were any of our vessels or anything. The U.S. tried to remain neutral in WWI, in fact Wilson was re-elected on the idea that he had kept America out of war. When the Germans declared that they would sink any vessel that entered the waters surrounding Britain, it is true that a handful of Americans died when the Germans sunk the British ship Lusitania and the French ship Sussex. However, the deaths of these civilians is not what drew the U.S. into the war. Germany broke several pledges it had made with the U.S. concerning what it would and would not sink in the waters surrounding Britain. The violation of these pledges is what caused Wilson to ask congress for a declaration of war. Not once was the U.S. or any U.S. ship attacked before we entered that war.

Second, the fact that we do get involved in so many foreign affairs when our right to be there is questionable is part of the reason why the U.S. is hated by other nations. We were not attacked but still entered Vietnam, a "war" which we arguably had no reason to be involved in, yet still were despite the fact that the Viet Cong never did anything to us. Even though you have not really studied the Vietnam war, I'm sure you realize there was great social unrest in the U.S. at that time, and it was largely due to our involvement in a "police action" that many people disagreed with.

Additionally, the U.S. entered the Korean war without being attacked. We fought in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War in an attempt to stem the spread of Communism in Asia.

As for the fall of the USSR, we did not work with Afghanistan to help bring down the USSR. At the time that we gave aid to Afghanistan, the USSR was invading Afghanistan. The fall of the USSR didn't come until several years after that, and it was a generally peaceful process, spurred mostly by economic reasons.

Anyway, in general I agree with you that history does tend to repest itself, but some of your examples of it are not correct. I'm really not trying to be a "know-it all", it's just that you only weaken your valid argument by pointing to facts that are wrong.

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Bootsy Whoosh:
Ummm...I understand what you're getting at, but still, you have some facts majorly messed up.

First off, the USSR was formed in 1922 by Lenin in the wake of the Russian Revolution of 1917, before WWII even began, not afterwards.

The statement that the U.S. never gets involved in any war unless we are attacked is wrong on many counts. First, the U.S. was never attacked to bring us into WWI, nor were any of our vessels or anything. The U.S. tried to remain neutral in WWI, in fact Wilson was re-elected on the idea that he had kept America out of war. When the Germans declared that they would sink any vessel that entered the waters surrounding Britain, it is true that a handful of Americans died when the Germans sunk the British ship Lusitania and the French ship Sussex. However, the deaths of these civilians is not what drew the U.S. into the war. Germany broke several pledges it had made with the U.S. concerning what it would and would not sink in the waters surrounding Britain. The violation of these pledges is what caused Wilson to ask congress for a declaration of war. Not once was the U.S. or any U.S. ship attacked before we entered that war.

Second, the fact that we do get involved in so many foreign affairs when our right to be there is questionable is part of the reason why the U.S. is hated by other nations. We were not attacked but still entered Vietnam, a "war" which we arguably had no reason to be involved in, yet still were despite the fact that the Viet Cong never did anything to us. Even though you have not really studied the Vietnam war, I'm sure you realize there was great social unrest in the U.S. at that time, and it was largely due to our involvement in a "police action" that many people disagreed with.

Additionally, the U.S. entered the Korean war without being attacked. We fought in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War in an attempt to stem the spread of Communism in Asia.

As for the fall of the USSR, we did not work with Afghanistan to help bring down the USSR. At the time that we gave aid to Afghanistan, the USSR was invading Afghanistan. The fall of the USSR didn't come until several years after that, and it was a generally peaceful process, spurred mostly by economic reasons.

Anyway, in general I agree with you that history does tend to repest itself, but some of your examples of it are not correct. I'm really not trying to be a "know-it all", it's just that you only weaken your valid argument by pointing to facts that are wrong.

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gif Okay, um... listen to her http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Oh well. Back to the hstory books! http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/outtahere.gif

[Bootsy Whoosh]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker:
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/eek.gif Okay, um... listen to her http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Oh well. Back to the hstory books! http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/outtahere.gif

lol, don't get discouraged Max! After all, I have about 8 years on you of studying this crap, lol.

At least you're thinking! That is commendable. Intimate knowledge of details will come with age and more study, but your insights into the world are still quite valid, and usually true. You are very perceptive and insightful.

[Kitt]

You're a good sport Max. That's commendable.