55 replies to this topic

[techkid]

Retina, on Jan 31 2007, 04:40 PM, said:

Some people? Which ones?

Well my AP US teacher was vague as to who voiced those opinions. All I know is that some people said that.

TheRainbowFalcon, on Jan 31 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

Weasel Words, dude.

Huh?

[NickC]

techkid, on Jan 31 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

Some people say that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and just allowed it to take place.

Oh Please.

[z2z007]

It is a claim made by quite a few historians. Even my AP US history teacher mentioned some of the other viewpoints on Pearl Harbor.

I also read a book for the class on FDR that was recommended to me by my AP USH teacher.

This is it: http://jonmeacham.com/frankwin.html

It is a great book and shed some light on the situation of world before the World Wars and how European imperialism dominated international affairs. It also explains how it would make sense if Pearl Harbor was "allowed" to happen by not relenting on spying on the Japanese. Churchill was practically begging him to enter the war and FDR needed a way to sway the American public.

Don't dismiss an opposing point of view so easily.

This thread has gone way OT. Get back on topic.

[TheRainbowFalcon]

"Weasel Words" are words that begin a sentence to give it false credibility when in fact the statement is only an opinion or fabrication. "Some people say" is an example.

[TechrEvolution]

djharkavy, on Jan 31 2007, 02:58 AM, said:

You are accusing someone at high levels of government of some serious criminal negligence, if not outright mass murder.

I guess I think of it more as human nature (not one of the better qualities though). Let's say that, in passing conversation, person A tells person B that he/she is going to kill person C at person C's home at midnight tonight. And let's say B knows that, upon the death of C, he/she {meaning B} will receive $1,000,000.00 from C's will, even though B has never even met C. Now B just doesn't bother to call the police to let them know that A is about to kill C.

A kills C.

B does or doesn't receive $1,000,000.00. It doesn't matter. B didn't kill C, nor even conspire to kill C. B just withheld info that might have prevented C's death.

A is convicted of murdering C.

Would C be accused of killing A?

Is it any different in government? (This is not a rhetorical question. I really don't know the answer.)

Quote

And maybe I was wrong, but the idea that the government knew about the attack ahead of time and didn't act to stop it is most definitely the stuff of conspiracy web sites. Indeed, the conspiracy that it would take to keep this knowledge quiet is the stuff of which such legends are formed.

Accusations have already been made, and I don't necessarily believe them. That's why I ask for the opinions of people like you. I don't know much about anything. I did read Richard Clarke's memoir titled,
Against All Enemies, 2004. He was Bush's chief of counterterrorism and adviser to three Presidents before him. He gives an account of his work in the White House on Sept. 11, coordinating the US's response to the terrorist attacks in Bush's absence. He claims he was surprised when, right after the attacks, Bush and Rumsfeld seemed to focus upon attacking Iraq. He states, "Nothing America could have done would have provide al Qaeda and its new generation of cloned groups a better recruitment device than our unprovoked invasion of an oil-rich Arab country." He says he advised the President and Collin Powell of this because, already, on September 11th, Rumsfeld was urging the President to bomb Iraq in response to the attacks. Clark felt that after 30 years in national security, he would have some influence, but he was ignored. He seemed to think that he could do the most good by working from within the government and waited almost a year after Iraq was invaded to resign.

Maybe he's lying and just wrote the book to make a lot of money, but he just doesn't sound that way.

Quote

But I do believe that in a relatively open society, as we have, nothing of this nature can be hidden for long. Real evidence would come out eventually, if for no other reason than that people are pretty bad at keeping secrets for a long time. And the bigger the secret, the faster people tend to spill it.

You're right. If what Clarke says is true, it took him about 2 1/2 years to get his message out. Daniel Ellsberg explains in "The Next War" an article in Harpers, Oct. 2006, that he regrets his delay in releasing "The Pentagon Papers." He says that in 1964, he had all the information necessary to prevent the US from going into Vietnam. (Okay, I know NOTHING about Vietnam.) Apparently a Senator named Morse was one of two who voted against the Tonkin Gulf resolution because he believed that Johnson would treat the resolution as a congressional declaration of war, even though he had assured congress that he sought "no wider war." Morse told Ellsberg that, had he given the documents to him at the time, the Tonkin Gulf resolution would never have gotten out of committee. Ellsberg claims that the Tonkin Gulf episode was a deliberate deception, and says that it took him 7 years to come forth with evidence that could have saved 50,000 American lives. It seems he felt loyalty to his government and was reluctant to tell secrets he'd sworn to keep.

Quote

If we are going to place quotes, one of my favorites is "never attribute to malice, that which is adequately explained by stupidity" - Robert J. Hanlon.

I like this quote. It seems largely true. I use quotes a lot because I have no personal knowledge of much of anything.

Quote

That we could not connect the dots together and figure out that the 9/11 attacks was going to occur was mild stupidity. The idea that the government DID put the dots together and chose to ignore it for their own purposes is surely on the side of malice.

Maybe. Well, I'm not so sure it's malice. Again, it could just be human nature. I think Bush and his supporters believe that what they're doing is right (no matter by what means). I've given up trying to guess what is in other people's brains. Hussein and bin Laden probably think they're right. Anyway, Ellsberg, in his ariticle, went on to say, "Philip Giraldi, a former CIA official, reported in "The American Conservative" a year ago that Vice President Cheney's office had directed contingency planning for 'a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons' and that 'several senior Air Force officers' involved in the planning were 'apalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objection.'"

I hope you can tell me that this is all nonsense. I really don't want to be drafted into WWIII.

(apologies to BTHSnews gang. i see that this statement may sound "eccentric" and is possibly an overly dramatic leap, but there are countries with alliances to Iran. it didn't take much to start WWI, basically a bunch of alliances. i'm not trying to be radical/confrontational/oppositional/provocative/or a know-it-all. i really do have this fear and i don't want to overlook something that may catch us by surprise. also, i tried to be concise, but it's still a long post )

Thanks

[TechrEvolution]

Retina, on Jan 30 2007, 03:21 AM, said:

NickC makes a fair point. We have to learn to have faith that our government won't hurt us.

I mean, look at the events of Tiananmen Square, 1989. If the people hadn't lost faith in their government and decided to protest, they wouldn't have been attacked!

Or, better yet, at the you.S. Constitution, the preamble of which states a purpose to "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty." Our very constitution tells us that our country will protect us! There's certainly not anything in there - let alone in the founding of this country - to suggest we should challenge our government.

I think there is something in the Constitution that advises the American people to overthrow the Federal government if it really gets out of hand.

[djharkavy]

TechrEvolution, on Jan 31 2007, 10:38 PM, said:

I think there is something in the Constitution that advises the American people to overthrow the Federal government if it really gets out of hand.

The Declaration of Independence comes closest...

Quote

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

[techkid]

djharkavy, on Jan 31 2007, 10:44 PM, said:

The Declaration of Independence comes closest...

Since the Declaration of Independence is not law, all it can be in this case is a suggestion of what to do if the Federal Government gets out of hand. The problem with this is that since it's only a suggestion, the people who overthrow the government (if it ever should happen) would not be able to justify their actions based on the Constitution (unless there is a part of the constitution that does indeed refer to overthrowing the government, I haven't read the constitution in a while).

[Josh]

techkid, on Feb 1 2007, 01:02 AM, said:

Since the Declaration of Independence is not law, all it can be in this case is a suggestion of what to do if the Federal Government gets out of hand.

As opposed to the Constitution, which clearly lays out how to stage a revolution, right? You totally missed the idea that the other posters in this thread were talking about ideals. Who gives a damn if the Declaration of Independence isn't legally binding in any way?

techkid, on Feb 1 2007, 01:02 AM, said:

The problem with this is that since it's only a suggestion, the people who overthrow the government (if it ever should happen) would not be able to justify their actions based on the Constitution (unless there is a part of the constitution that does indeed refer to overthrowing the government, I haven't read the constitution in a while).

If someone or some group is going to overthrow the government, do you think will attempt in any way to justify their actions on the Constitution?

Do yourself a favor and don't respond.

[NickC]

ZoSo, on Feb 1 2007, 05:28 PM, said:

Do yourself a favor and don't respond.

That was not necessary. Everyone has a right to respond even though you dont agree with their points or if they are wrong.

[zaccariah2005]

you guys make me so excited about taking American history.

So, what did you guys think about the 2007 State of the Union address?

[Josh]

NickC, on Feb 1 2007, 08:38 PM, said:

That was not necessary. Everyone has a right to respond even though you dont agree with their points or if they are wrong.

I missed the part where you had any authority on this site. This one wasn't even about disagreeing, he was just plain wrong.

Now we can get back on topic. If you have valid inquiries about administrator or moderator behavior, you should contact another administrator, and not post them here.

[NickC]

ZoSo, on Feb 1 2007, 10:53 PM, said:

I missed the part where you had any authority on this site. This one wasn't even about disagreeing, he was just plain wrong.

You are correct, I dont have any authority on this site at all. I was just expressing my opinion based on a vulgar message released. Isn't forums the place where you can express your opinions? But anyway, what ever, not worth my time.

[Josh]

Did you miss the part where I said to keep this off the forums?

Although you can post your opinion here, we have rules, and you must stay within their boundaries.

Cease posting about this here; this is your final warning. Back on topic.

[TechrEvolution]

ZoSo, on Feb 1 2007, 10:53 PM, said:

I missed the part where you had any authority on this site. This one wasn't even about disagreeing, he was just plain wrong.

If you have valid inquiries about administrator or moderator behavior, you should contact another administrator, and not post them here.

You seem to think that a lot of people are "just plain wrong." Backing up your point is a good place to start. Simply shutting down whatever thread that carries a post you personally don't like is a habit shared by you and another moderator. I did contact a third administrator, easily the finest student writer on these boards. Even then, promises were made, but not kept. Your guidelines give moderators every possible choice, but provide posters with none.

[Josh]

TechrEvolution, on Feb 1 2007, 11:06 PM, said:

You seem to think that a lot of people are "just plain wrong." Backing up your point is a good place to start. Simply shutting down whatever thread that carries a post you personally don't like is a habit shared by you and another moderator. I did contact a third administrator, easily the finest student writer on these boards. Even then, promises were made, but not kept. Your guidelines give moderators every possible choice, but provide posters with none.

I'm pretty sure I did back up my point in the original post, when (1) I said that the previous posters were talking about ideals, and (2) I pointed out how revolutionaries have no reason to care what's law -- their very actions are the antithesis to established law.

Moving on, the only reason the moderators have been strict with the rules lately is because many users are ignoring us when we aren't, namely when we tell them to get back on topic or stop spamming. When users are responsible by themselves, we don't have any need to be such strict moderators, or sometimes even moderate at all.

There are many threads that have posts we "don't like." But there is one thing that we absolutely do not tolerate on the forums, and that is publicly challenging moderating procedures on the forums. These forums have had many people do it over the years. It comes off as trying to make a scene, and oftentimes, it is. Do it in private through PMs, or don't do it at all.

This thread is now locked.