Call for help -- in a debate!

by **Snorri1234** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:24 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:No, reporters went around squealing about how the US was so brutally dicking on the poor Vietnamese peasants for no obvious reasons, whilst completely and blissfully unaware of, or worse, selectively filtering out, Communist atrocities.

That's because those atrocities weren't american and therefore unimportant. Journalists still have to earn money and talking about how horrible the US was meant the papers would buy their stories. It's like reports about plane-crashes and stuff, they always mention how many people on the plane were from your nationality. Reporting what a bunch of vietnamese did to another bunch of vietnamese is just not interresting.

Also, meg does have a point that info was censored, but the problem with the US government is that it really couldn't do a very good job at that. It's not a totalitarian state where the media is controlled. The only things the government could do were making it extremely difficult to get the info, censor parts and give out unclear information or outright made up info (all to make sure the enemy is misled...).

Take a look at how the Bush-administration has reported on Iraq. They've lied a lot, but they still can't deal with the huge negative press on it.

Right. Absolutely. Media reporting was biased, and this more or less cost the US the war. Not any "ooooh determined bwave freedom fighting peasants wesisting wacist impewialist Amewica!!!" bollocks.

Stop simplifying it! It isn't simple.

by **Napoleon Ier** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:28 pm

Dude,I come from an educationnal system which gives me a still shot from a Video Game on Viet-Nam, calls it a "historical source", and asks me to discourse upon it's usefulness and what it tells me about the War. What do you want me do?

by **Snorri1234** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:37 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:Dude,I come from an educationnal system which gives me a still shot from a Video Game on Viet-Nam, calls it a "historical source", and asks me to discourse upon it's usefulness and what it tells me about the War. What do you want me do?

Okay, point taken.

by **InkL0sed** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:37 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:Dude,I come from an educationnal system which gives me a still shot from a Video Game on Viet-Nam, calls it a "historical source", and asks me to discourse upon it's usefulness and what it tells me about the War. What do you want me do?

Play hooky?

by **Napoleon Ier** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:44 pm

btownmeggy wrote:
Nephilim wrote:sounds quite fairy-minded and nostalgic to me.....since meggy hasn't quoted any sources and nappy resorts to ad hominem and other fallacies w/ great frequency, can't we just construe all of this as a verbal war between competing ideologies rather than an attempt to rightly interpret historical evidence?

I have no ideology. I have History degrees.

Guiscard, leave that body! The power of Christ compels you! ::sprinkles holy water, reads 23rd Psalm:: The Power of Christ comepls you!

by **Napoleon Ier** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:44 pm

InkL0sed wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:Dude,I come from an educationnal system which gives me a still shot from a Video Game on Viet-Nam, calls it a "historical source", and asks me to discourse upon it's usefulness and what it tells me about the War. What do you want me do?

Play hooky?

The f*ck is that?

by **InkL0sed** on Mon May 12, 2008 4:12 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:Dude,I come from an educationnal system which gives me a still shot from a Video Game on Viet-Nam, calls it a "historical source", and asks me to discourse upon it's usefulness and what it tells me about the War. What do you want me do?

Play hooky?

The f*ck is that?

Old, swell term for cutting school.

by **suggs** on Mon May 12, 2008 4:21 pm

Best fucking advice i've heard all day. One of my (many) mistakes in life was too work my arse off at school, which was great in terms of getting cool grades, but also meant i hardly ever socialised.
f*ck school Nap - get out and enjoy yourself, get rat arsed , smoke a joint.

by **Neoteny** on Mon May 12, 2008 6:42 pm

suggs wrote:Best fucking advice i've heard all day. One of my (many) mistakes in life was too work my arse off at school, which was great in terms of getting cool grades, but also meant i hardly ever socialised.
f*ck school Nap - get out and enjoy yourself, get rat arsed , smoke a joint.

Smoke two, for good measure.

by **jnd94** on Mon May 12, 2008 9:45 pm

HE KILLED JFK!!!!!ONE!!!! GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY!!!!!111!!!

by **Nephilim** on Tue May 13, 2008 1:04 am

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Nephilim wrote:
sounds quite fairy-minded and nostalgic to me.....since meggy hasn't quoted any sources and nappy resorts to ad hominem and other fallacies w/ great frequency, can't we just construe all of this as a verbal war between competing ideologies rather than an attempt to rightly interpret historical evidence?

and can't we agree that nappy is a giant ignorant douche with a decent vocabulary and a penchant for facile but high-flown rhetoric that masks his weak arguments?

yes, let's.....

I'm sorry, but who the f*ck are you?

Do you know what the 1954 Geneva Peace accords were?

Do you know who Nikita Sergeyevitch Kruschev was?

Do you know what a "memoir" is?

Do you even know where Viet-Nam is?

i would ask if you know what empty posturing is but you've revealed the answer......

i'm just someone who has read lots of your posts and is calling you out for being a pathetic bully and a weak ass poser. when you accuse someone like meggy of naivete and label your opponents as biased, yet inherently trust in the objective "purity" of your own sources, expect to get ridiculed. doubly so when you question the intelligence of your interlocutor merely b/c they disagree w/ you

by **Napoleon Ier** on Tue May 13, 2008 12:42 pm

Nephilim wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
Nephilim wrote:
sounds quite fairy-minded and nostalgic to me.....since meggy hasn't quoted any sources and nappy resorts to ad hominem and other fallacies w/ great frequency, can't we just construe all of this as a verbal war between competing ideologies rather than an attempt to rightly interpret historical evidence?

and can't we agree that nappy is a giant ignorant douche with a decent vocabulary and a penchant for facile but high-flown rhetoric that masks his weak arguments?

yes, let's.....

I'm sorry, but who the f*ck are you?

Do you know what the 1954 Geneva Peace accords were?

Do you know who Nikita Sergeyevitch Kruschev was?

Do you know what a "memoir" is?

Do you even know where Viet-Nam is?

i would ask if you know what empty posturing is but you've revealed the answer......

i'm just someone who has read lots of your posts and is calling you out for being a pathetic bully and a weak ass poser. when you accuse someone like meggy of naivete and label your opponents as biased, yet inherently trust in the objective "purity" of your own sources, expect to get ridiculed. doubly so when you question the intelligence of your interlocutor merely b/c they disagree w/ you

I question your intelligence because you seemes to imply tha Kruschev's memoirs had an anti-Communist bias, and you were unable to provide any specific historical approach of your own to what was an interesting debate between me and btownmeggy. So with all the little respect I owe you, f*ck off.