Obama Reality - A Pretty good assessment

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Iran test fires new missile. story

 

Been reading the thread but staying out of it.

 

I figure Iran would target KSA and Kuwait first in order to cause maximum damage to world oil supplies no love lost between them. Much easier targets than Israel plus Israel is more of a symbolic gesture and they no without doubt that Israel would reply four fold, where as we would all dither around on what to do if they hit the oil supplies, probably increase sanctions.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Ken Davison South Wales

[chesters1]

the west must be thinking of pulling out of iraq and looking for new pastures to mow ,let iran have missiles their entitled to just as anyone else is if they use them who gives a poo the quicker they stick a nuke on the pointy end the safer they become from us

Edited November 13, 2008 by chesters1

[DavyR]

Sorry to bring this back to the top again. In the interests of fairness re Emma's statement that "In the case of WWI, the US entry was so late as to have no impact upon the final outcome", I've been chatting (via email) to an old friend of mine who is a retired Professor of History. He lectures and does WW1 battlefield tours for the Western Front Association so I think he can definitely be classed as "serious".

 

His reply was long and detailed, but can be summarised by his opening statement:

 

"The 'USA won the war' myth is blatantly untrue but so is the 'USA made no difference' myth. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between."

 

Most debates we have on here do not have black/white answers to them, but they go on for page after page because the protaganists on each side only produce evidence (when they bother to do so at all) that supports their own point of view.

 

That's no problem in a real debate where a final vote sees the motion either carried or defeated, but has little point on a forum like this. All it does is to generate heat rather than light and serves to put people's backs up.

 

Sometimes there just ain't no definitive answer and nothing is achieved by pretending that there is.

 

Other than a good argument, of course.

[Newt]

Emma two - please bookmark this topic and 3-4 years from now, if my opening post was way off the mark, please feel free to bring it back up and laugh at me for being a wrongheaded & foolish American.

 

If it proves to be accurate, I don't expect you to bring it up at all.

[Emma two]

Emma two - please bookmark this topic and 3-4 years from now, if my opening post was way off the mark, please feel free to bring it back up and laugh at me for being a wrongheaded & foolish American.

 

If it proves to be accurate, I don't expect you to bring it up at all.

 

if it proves to be accurate, then I will concede that you were right.

[Emma two]

"The 'USA won the war' myth is blatantly untrue but so is the 'USA made no difference' myth. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between."

 

Sometimes there just ain't no definitive answer and nothing is achieved by pretending that there is.

 

Other than a good argument, of course.

 

The statement 'the US entry to the war did not impact upon the final outcome' I first heard from a published historian too, Dr Neil Jameson, University of Northumbria (2003). Of course the deployment of American forces made 'some difference' , notably improving the morale of Europeans. However Germany was collapsing from the inside, and that collapse would have occured even if the US had not entered the war. This is not 'pseudo' history, it may sound contrary to the accepted non academic 'beliefs' of those who have heard Americans telling us that they saved Europe twice so many times they they have come to believe it.

[Emma two]

the statement that america's input into the european conflict did little surprises me ,

 

Who said that?

[Emma two]

i just find it strange that my link (and being very high up the list of "catches on a web search) is incorrect (and being up so high would mean its used more thus open to correction by users ) whilst yours appear to be fine

 

Just because a source is at the top of a list doesn't make it likely to be any more reliable then those further down.

[DavyR]

This is not 'pseudo' history

 

I wasn't suggesting it was pseudo history - just that opinions differ (as with most interpretation of historical events) and it came across as a bit of a bald statement of fact, rather than opinion.

 

This is how historians make their living, of course - if history was just a case of cut-and-dried facts, none of them would have much of a career.

 

So, the Princes in the Tower. Did Richard III have them done in? Or not?

[chesters1]

Just because a source is at the top of a list doesn't make it likely to be any more reliable then those further down.

i didnt say it was reliable but as its used more then its more liable to correction if it were incorrect