W

Bodisathva said:
so...let me sort this one out...

You decide who is right and who is wrong.

Nice try, but a poor effort, History decided that we were right and you're wrong:rolleyes:

That's World history by the way and not the loaded Pro American one as portrayed in your history books:eek:
 
bwrobel said:
Do you have Pro UK books?
Nope, we're taught what actually happened during our history without any slant
 
bwrobel said:
Do you have Pro UK books?

I don't think so. Not in schools, anyway. I always remember my history teacher being quite proud of the way in which big mistakes made by the UK weren't glossed over any more. I'm sure they were at one point, but the more recent attitude seems to be 'if you pretend they didn't happen, or that there was nothing wrong with what was done, what's to stop them happening again?'.

We went into quite a bit of detail when we learned about the British defeats in WWII, for example.
 
The funny thing about history, if you were not there at the time personally you have to take someone else’s word of that they seen or that they thought they have seen.

So what "IS" is? I hate that line...
 
bwrobel said:
The funny thing about history, if you were not there at the time personally you have to take someone else’s word of that they seen or that they thought they have seen.
...
That's why one reads more than ONE version to arrive at a sensible conclusion, of course one also has the benefit of watching recent events as they happen and being able to see right through the crap spouted by so called leaders:mad: ;)
 
bwrobel said:
The funny thing about history, if you were not there at the time personally you have to take someone else’s word of that they seen or that they thought they have seen.
That applies to everything, though, doesn't it? Not just important history, but sports events, weather, etc. It all boils down to perception in the end.

I think if enough people who were there agree on a given topic and have nothing to gain from presenting their view in the way they have, then - assuming there isn't an equal amont of opposing evidence - you have to give them the benefit of the doubt and accept it.
 
Rich you seem like you think you know everything, how would you deal with terrorism?
 
do you like diplomacy, fight them with paper cuts?
 
Rich said:
That's why one reads more than ONE version to arrive at a sensible conclusion,
Of course, reading different versions doesn't do much to broaden your perspective if they all pretty much say the same thing. Reading versions that disagree is a fruitful endeavor.
 
Reading versions that disagree is a fruitful endeavor.

mmmm I love fruit. Sorry I'm hungry
 
Last edited:
GWRich said:
Nice try, but a poor effort, History decided that we were right and you're wrong
I thought it was an excellent effort actually...the answer was as expected.

Now that we've agreed that it is History that has made the decision (or a general consensus of those writing it, any way you want to define it)...how 'bout you drop it for about 40 years and then we'll pick this up?:rolleyes: :cool: :eek: :D :p
 
Last edited:
Bodisathva said:
Now that we've agreed that it is History that has made the decision (or a general consensus of those writing it, any way you want to define it)...how 'bout you drop it for about 40 years and then we'll pick this up?:rolleyes: :cool: :eek: :D :p

Now now, you guys take it easy on Rich. He's probably well into the bottle by now... :cool:
 
Kraj said:
Of course, reading different versions doesn't do much to broaden your perspective if they all pretty much say the same thing. Reading versions that disagree is a fruitful endeavor.


ver·sion (vûr'zhən, -shən)
n.
A description or account from one point of view, especially as opposed to another: Your version of the accident differs from mine.

Rich said:
That's why one reads more than ONE version

please try and pay attention
 
Completely indiscriminate bombing in Lebanon in areas of Christian civilians without any connection to Hezbollah. And does the US rebuke Israel for these actions? Of course not, it actually encourages them to continue...
 
Oi you whatisname! (that's Tony Bliar Mr. President) if the Syrians stopped their shit it would all be over.
Well done George, aren't you intelligent:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
nomorehype said:
Completely indiscriminate bombing in Lebanon in areas of Christian civilians without any connection to Hezbollah. And does the US rebuke Israel for these actions? Of course not, it actually encourages them to continue...

Why should the US rebuke a country defending itself?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom