Which Wars Did You Support?

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm currently fighting the Battle of the Bulge.

I support THAT war...and am currently on active duty

[GPK]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

I support THAT war...and am currently on active duty

you two are nuts....although I already knew that.

Although me thinks this working at Starbucks isn't gonna help my fat gut much either

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by T3B

you two are nuts....although I already knew that.

Although me thinks this working at Starbucks isn't gonna help my fat gut much either

OMG; I didn't know your second job was at Starbucks!

I am both proud and embarrassed to say I help pay Kev's wage virtually every day... curse you, Starbucks, and your chai tea deliciousness...

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Not after this weekend... I made Christmas cookies. Eight thousand Christmas cookies. Of which I've eaten four thousand.

Hey Genuine Risk,
Please put your favorite cookie recipe in the cookbook.
Thanks.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I respect what you are saying but it does seem that there are times when there is no choice. Let's take World War II for example. Hitler was gobbling up Europe. If we didn't get involved, Germany would have taken over the world.

Rupert,
WW II was a continuation of WW I. The conditions imposed in its aftermath brought on the desperation for the German people. Like them, those that reside in our own country have a deep sense of "nationalism". It's a very good play...something that many have been willing to give their lives for.
Yes, Hitler was a very bad, fanatical despot. No arguement.
Just realize that he played the market that invested their hopes in his strategy. Read back through the threads and see how many that post here feel the same way about their own nation.
Speaking of "taking over the world", if you've read Gwen Dyer's book, "WAR",
the motivations for participation are well stated, as are the tactics.
His work puts the intent in a historical context. He also documents many conflicts. You'll just have to read it to see the commonality of the present.
Speaking of which (the present), have you had a chance to read Frank Rich's book, "The Best Story Ever Sold"? It might be worth your time, since you asked the question.
Here's a link to a book review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/bo...rssnyt&emc=rss

[Downthestretch55]

Said better than I could.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1218-32.htm

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
WW II was a continuation of WW I. The conditions imposed in its aftermath brought on the desperation for the German people. Like them, those that reside in our own country have a deep sense of "nationalism". It's a very good play...something that many have been willing to give their lives for.
Yes, Hitler was a very bad, fanatical despot. No arguement.
Just realize that he played the market that invested their hopes in his strategy. Read back through the threads and see how many that post here feel the same way about their own nation.
Speaking of "taking over the world", if you've read Gwen Dyer's book, "WAR",
the motivations for participation are well stated, as are the tactics.
His work puts the intent in a historical context. He also documents many conflicts. You'll just have to read it to see the commonality of the present.
Speaking of which (the present), have you had a chance to read Frank Rich's book, "The Best Story Ever Sold"? It might be worth your time, since you asked the question.
Here's a link to a book review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/bo...rssnyt&emc=rss

I could write a separate book on practically every war we've ever fought and title each one "The Best Story Ever Sold". In every war, our leaders give us a justification as to why the war is necessary. In other words, they are "selling us" on the war. In every one of these cases, it would be easy to come up with a counter-argument as to why the story we were sold was misleading. I don't think that proves anything. You could say the same thing about anything.

I'll give you an example. I could say that burglar-alarms are the "best story ever sold". Then I could give you all these reasons as to why the arguments in favor of burglar alarms are misleading. I could say that burglar alarms don't really make you safer and that they won't prevent you from being burglarized. I could say that there is less than a 1% chance that your house will get burglarized this year even if you don't have an alarm. Etc, etc, etc.
I could conclude that burglar alarmsa re nothing more than a big scam.

Anyway, you get my point. I could write a book as to why burglar alarms are unnecessary and explain why many of the arguments in favor of them are misleading. Would my book prove anything? Not really. The book would give some good counter-arguments and it would tell you why some of the arguments that the burglar-alarm industry makes are somewhat misleading. But the book would not prove that burglar alarms are unnecessary.

Anyway, the point is that you could write a book called "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" on practically anything that is sold. And if you did your research, I'm sure you could come with some good arguments against the product being sold. But this wouldn't prove anything. It wouldn't prove that the product is not good. And it would not prove that the sellers of the product did anything wrong.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I could write a separate book on practically every war we've ever fought and title each one "The Best Story Ever Sold". In every war, our leaders give us a justification as to why the war is necessary. In other words, they are "selling us" on the war. In every one of these cases, it would be easy to come up with a counter-argument as to why the story we were sold was misleading. I don't think that proves anything. You could say the same thing about anything.

I'll give you an example. I could say that burglar-alarms are the "best story ever sold". Then I could give you all these reasons as to why the arguments in favor of burglar alarms are misleading. I could say that burglar alarms don't really make you safer and that they won't prevent you from being burglarized. I could say that there is less than a 1% chance that your house will get burglarized this year even if you don't have an alarm. Etc, etc, etc.
I could conclude that burglar alarmsa re nothing more than a big scam.

Anyway, you get my point. I could write a book as to why burglar alarms are unnecessary and explain why many of the arguments in favor of them are misleading. Would my book prove anything? Not really. The book would give some good counter-arguments and it would tell you why some of the arguments that the burglar-alarm industry makes are somewhat misleading. But the book would not prove that burglar alarms are unnecessary.

Anyway, the point is that you could write a book called "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" on practically anything that is sold. And if you did your research, I'm sure you could come with some good arguments against the product being sold. But this wouldn't prove anything. It wouldn't prove that the product is not good. And it would not prove that the sellers of the product did anything wrong.

Rupert,
You certainly put thought into this response.
Did you read the links?
I won't get "longwinded". I'll just say that your burglar alarm anology is about like comparing an apple to an orange.
Burglar alarms don't kill people, they protect them.
Wars kill people, no one is secure.
When buying a product that sellers are selling, "Let the buyer beware".
'Nuf said.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Not after this weekend... I made Christmas cookies. Eight thousand Christmas cookies. Of which I've eaten four thousand.

you don't count them if you take one at a time off the plate and walk away while eating....or if you eat those that stuck together, or the ones who break in half. or the chips that fall by the wayside....