Re: Mountains Rush and Moore
From: Andre Lieven (dg411_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 08/28/04
- Next message: Mad Stoat: "Touchdown On The Moon"
- Previous message: Joe Durnavich: "Re: Apollo. The only thing I never understood"
- In reply to: Christopher M. Jones: "Re: Mountains Rush and Moore"
- Next in thread: Scott Hedrick: "Re: Mountains Rush and Moore"
- Reply: Scott Hedrick: "Re: Mountains Rush and Moore"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Aug 2004 15:26:13 GMT
"Christopher M. Jones" (marmiteNOTSPAM@dualboot.net) writes:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> "Christopher M. Jones" (marmiteNOTSPAM@dualboot.net) writes:
>>>Precisely, no nation is perfect, not even all
>>>mighty Canada. Not that you'd know that to hear
>>>some folks tell it.
>>
>> Well, I can't speak for anyone aside from myself.
>>
>> Are we perfect up here ? No, no one is. But, IMHO,
>> we're doing rather well.
>
> Fair enough. Just so long as you don't try
> whitewashing the truth. Canada has more than a
> few ugly parts to its history, and it would be
> foolish to pretend otherwise.
Indeed. My interests, including those that bring me here,
are about history, and you don't get actual history, if
you edit out parts you may not like.
The CBC did a massive history of Canada several years
ago, and I have it all on DVD. It covered the not nice
parts, too.
>>>>Rather, I made a specific and accurate point.
>>>
>>>Specific at least. Check your history. Canada hasn't
>>>gone much longer than the US without an insurrection /
>>>rebellion. Hint: keywords "Mackenzie" and "Papineau".
>>>Or, perhaps "Quebec". =)
>>
>> 1837 is surely further back than 1861-65...
>>
>> And, as one wag up here once said, " as civil wars go,
>> 1837 wasn't bad: 100 dead, 1,000 drunk. "
>
> Still, you made a specific yet inaccurate point.
It would be a gross historical innacuracy to try to
equate Canada 1837, with the US, 1861-1865. The former
was not a mass participation event...
>>>See: dry humor. I think you'd find very few people
>>>anywhere who seriously consider forcibly "liberating"
>>>a province of Canada.
>>
>> Weeellll.... The basic history on this, is clear.
>> Several times, not a few from down south, not only
>> considered that, but tried it. As the definition of
>> " empire " changes into a mercantile/economic kind
>> of one, that is not wholly impossible, even now.
>
> Firstly, American empire has always been of a
> different nature than other sorts.
Ask some Phillipines...
> Secondly,
> the US and Canada are so closely tied in trade
> and in other ways that it would be insane to
> consider invasion.
Well, that was more than considered, between 1777
and 1814. Even considered afterwards, too...
> Which is why you can safely
> say most people who bring up the subject off
> hand are doing so non-seriously, because it's
> funny.
Again, seen from this side of the line, thats not
quite an all encompassing statement...
>>>Second, according to John Kerry, today, Vietnam was a
>>>shining moment of America's history of which we should
>>>all be proud.
>>
>> Based on his remarks that I've read, I don't believe
>> that that accurately summarises his thoughts.
>
> You've got to be careful reading John Kerry, he'll
> say one thing one week and another the next.
You mean, like every other politician...
> But
> today he seems to be saying that his Vietnam history
> was one to be proud of.
Well, hes not the only one suggesting that one's war
service might not be a total topic if shame...
> If you can't tell, I'm being slightly facetious here.
OK...
> As it's somewhat "amusing", in a bizarre sort of way,
> to see a man who has denegrated his service and his
> fellow veterans as war criminals, murderers, and
> rapists in the past and yet still manages to use his
> "war hero" service record as his primary platform for
> running for President. As they say, truth is stranger
> than fiction.
Sure. But, thats hardly new. Whats the war service of
Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the neo-con hawks ?
Exactly.
>>>Third, Vietnam was not "liberated", South Vietnam was
>>>defended. Historically there had not been a unified
>>>Vietnam. I think we did the right thing in defending
>>>South Vietnam, though not entirely in the right ways,
>>>and the wrong thing in hanging them out to dry.
>>
>> Norman Friedman's " The Fifty Year War " makes a case
>> for the idea that, when the US went into 'Nam, the nearby
>> states were not yet strong enough to resist takeovers,
>> and by the time the US left 'Nam, they were. So that
>> there were no " dominos ", due to the US having helped
>> change the parameters of domino-ism.
>>
>>>Considering the conditions in Vietnam today vs. those
>>>in South Korea, Taiwan, or Japan, I think the facts
>>>support my assessment.
>>
>> Possibly. In none of those three, was there an active
>> resistance to the US, post 1945. The timing of those
>> places is non trivial.
>
> Actually, this is not correct. Check your history.
I have. SK's war was over in 1953, and the other two,
even earlier than that. SV's wasn't over until 1975.
Thats a non trivial difference.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
- Next message: Mad Stoat: "Touchdown On The Moon"
- Previous message: Joe Durnavich: "Re: Apollo. The only thing I never understood"
- In reply to: Christopher M. Jones: "Re: Mountains Rush and Moore"
- Next in thread: Scott Hedrick: "Re: Mountains Rush and Moore"
- Reply: Scott Hedrick: "Re: Mountains Rush and Moore"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
