Thread: Something Profound

"I know many are angry about this war & how our political leaders hyped intelligence that got us into this war. History cares more about how we got out of a war more than how we got in a war"
Geraldo Rivera
(Jerry Rivers)
Wanna discuss that? :whistling:

Originally Posted by Migi e!

"I know many are angry about this war & how our political leaders hyped intelligence that got us into this war. History cares more about how we got out of a war more than how we got in a war"
Geraldo Rivera
(Jerry Rivers)
Wanna discuss that? :whistling:

Gosh seems to me that hostory itself proves that a false statement........

Originally Posted by getreal

Gosh seems to me that hostory itself proves that a false statement........

How so?

Originally Posted by getreal

Gosh seems to me that hostory itself proves that a false statement........

How so?

Well I have studied in my life a bit of history and it seems that in each case studied that as much time was spent on the reason for going to war as was how the war ended. In the case of the world wars I & II I certainly remember more from history as to how and why the wars were started than how they were ended. Watching the histroy channel intself presents more of the whys for the wars than the how they ended. Even in history lessons in school the events leading up to the war seem more focussed or at least as much focussed on as to what led to the wars ending. So clearly to me history does not present as or at least a greater case for how the wars end than why they began. The never ending debates on Vietnam focus on why we should never have been there or on the flip side why we should have.

Agreed. My history teacher, this year and next year, almost never focuses on Battle X of any random war, but instead focuses on the causes and effects of the war. He says this is essential in critical thinking/analysis skills. One isn't really supposed to care whether Pearl Harbor happened in December 7 or 8, more of why Pearl Harbor happened and what were the implications of it.

Originally Posted by getreal

Well I have studied in my life a bit of history and it seems that in each case studied that as much time was spent on the reason for going to war as was how the war ended. In the case of the world wars I & II I certainly remember more from history as to how and why the wars were started than how they were ended. Watching the histroy channel intself presents more of the whys for the wars than the how they ended. Even in history lessons in school the events leading up to the war seem more focussed or at least as much focussed on as to what led to the wars ending. So clearly to me history does not present as or at least a greater case for how the wars end than why they began. The never ending debates on Vietnam focus on why we should never have been there or on the flip side why we should have.

That could very well be. However, ask Joe sixpack about Vietnam & most will say, "that's the war we lost"

I know a guy named Joe Sixpack, he's my Godfather. LOL


Ok, ok, I'll be serious now.

Originally Posted by ilikeGW

I know a guy named Joe Sixpack, he's my Godfather. LOL


Ok, ok, I'll be serious now.

LOL
Shame on you. :beatenup:

Originally Posted by Migi e!

That could very well be. However, ask Joe sixpack about Vietnam & most will say, "that's the war we lost"

Well, if Joe Sixpack defines the concerns of history, maybe Geraldo isn't a putz.