The idea that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming has, unfortunately, been used by some individuals with unsavory political affiliations. My own view of the matter is that it was probably a good thing in the long run, as no war has ever been so morally cut-and-dry as WW2--however, it says something of who FDR was, I think. It has been years since I studied this seriously, but this article from the Institute for Historical Review does a very nice job of summarizing the debate, and the history of the debate.
The phrase "mouthpiece of American imperialism," comes from an Al Jazeera executive recently interviewed on the Daily Show, describing how he is recieved in the Arab world. The documentary Control Room deals with this extensively, I understand (though I'm still trying to find some way to see it). Arab leaders hate the network, which has helped its popularity greatly. Their popularity stems primarily from the vivid debates they start, by allowing all sides to be represented. While I do watch CNN every morning as I get ready for work and regularly scan the AP news wire, I've come to use Al Jazeera's English edition increasingly as a news source. It is a very different view of things, that's certain, but I've not yet found any consistent bias except in their willingness to let the other side--whether they're terrorist murderers or imperialist conquerors--have their say.
I was going to let this lie, but there's just too much FUD in here.
Salis, are you a historian? I am the erstwhile editor of an electronic historical periodical on post-Roman Britain; I am preparing to relaunch it in the coming months as a peer-reviewed journal. I have presented at academic conferences. I don't just read history obsessively, I actually practice the craft. And while my knowledge of WW2 is not as great as other periods, I know what a consensus means and how it's formed. I didn't claim there was one yet on FDR's pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor; I said one was forming. Primarily from younger historians who are working solely from primary sources, and lack the hero-worship of the G.I. Generation. I don't know if it's true or not, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest it.
I addressed Hitchens' main point. His primary thesis is a straw man argument: that Moore's actual opinion does not gel with the opinion Hitchens would like to project on Bizarro Moore from the parallel dimension where things happened differently. Hitchens projects onto more policies and answers that Moore does not give. Moore asks questions; Hitchens sticks answers in his mouth and then points to how contradictory the answers he supplies for Moore are.
I said Moore's treatment of pre-war Iraq was suspect. However, is your contention that no child in Iraq ever flew a kite? Saddam was a heinous mass murderer, but no dictator, no matter how cruel, can be oppressing everyone all the time. Saddam was very nice to the Sunnis, for example. Most of Saddam's genocide was committed in the 1980s and 1990s, and while the terror of the Fedayeen cast a pall over all Iraqi life, the sun still shined on Baghdad during the day, and there were still far more moments of peace than of strife. In every country on earth, no matter how despotic, most people are just trying to get by.
You need to do a lot more reading on Al Jazeera. They are hated in the Arab world for being pro-American. Only in America are they considered propaganda for terrorists; most of the world considers them the opposite. This says something about journalistic integrity and objectivity when both sides hate you.
Moore's three Bush-esque sentences were highly suspect. The shootings at planes patrolling the no-fly zone, however, is the strongest argument against their literal truth. Whether these constitute an "attack on America," i.e., an act of war, is debatable. I do not take either side of that debate, and I find those three sentences very misleading. But, like Bush's claims of ties between al-Qaida and Saddam, they are literally true. It's a very fine line of deception that Moore walks for three lines like a highwire.
That it's better to get Saddam before he gets WMD's is a very different (and much better) case than the argument that he had WMD's. You should definately be working for the White House, Salis; you're much smarter than they are!
I don't like Saddam, and I take his removal as the silver lining of this situation; a situation that has plunged Iraq into chaos and threatens to tear the region apart in horrific civil war, has strengthened al-Qaida more than they could have ever imagined, and begun the neoconservative campaign for the Pax Americana (a cause they have outlined publicly in detail many times). It may have doubled the size and power of al-Qaida and planted the seeds of a new Roman Empire, but it did get rid of Saddam. There is at least that. But with other tyrants far worse than him at large, I take little consolation in that.
I nowhere insult Hitchens. I did not lower myself to the logical fallacy of the ad hominem, especially as so much of my argument relied on pointing out the logical fallacies in Hitchens' argument. I challenge you to cite a single, solitary line in my rebuttal where I insulted Hitchens. I made many pointed remarks about the weakness of his argument, but I never commented on the man himself except to put to bed the contention that this was a "lib fight
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming has, unfortunately, been used by some individuals with unsavory political affiliations. My own view of the matter is that it was probably a good thing in the long run, as no war has ever been so morally cut-and-dry as WW2--however, it says something of who FDR was, I think. It has been years since I studied this seriously, but this article from the Institute for Historical Review does a very nice job of summarizing the debate, and the history of the debate.
The phrase "mouthpiece of American imperialism," comes from an Al Jazeera executive recently interviewed on the Daily Show, describing how he is recieved in the Arab world. The documentary Control Room deals with this extensively, I understand (though I'm still trying to find some way to see it). Arab leaders hate the network, which has helped its popularity greatly. Their popularity stems primarily from the vivid debates they start, by allowing all sides to be represented. While I do watch CNN every morning as I get ready for work and regularly scan the AP news wire, I've come to use Al Jazeera's English edition increasingly as a news source. It is a very different view of things, that's certain, but I've not yet found any consistent bias except in their willingness to let the other side--whether they're terrorist murderers or imperialist conquerors--have their say.
I was going to let this lie, but there's just too much FUD in here.
Salis, are you a historian? I am the erstwhile editor of an electronic historical periodical on post-Roman Britain; I am preparing to relaunch it in the coming months as a peer-reviewed journal. I have presented at academic conferences. I don't just read history obsessively, I actually practice the craft. And while my knowledge of WW2 is not as great as other periods, I know what a consensus means and how it's formed. I didn't claim there was one yet on FDR's pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor; I said one was forming. Primarily from younger historians who are working solely from primary sources, and lack the hero-worship of the G.I. Generation. I don't know if it's true or not, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest it.
I addressed Hitchens' main point. His primary thesis is a straw man argument: that Moore's actual opinion does not gel with the opinion Hitchens would like to project on Bizarro Moore from the parallel dimension where things happened differently. Hitchens projects onto more policies and answers that Moore does not give. Moore asks questions; Hitchens sticks answers in his mouth and then points to how contradictory the answers he supplies for Moore are.
I said Moore's treatment of pre-war Iraq was suspect. However, is your contention that no child in Iraq ever flew a kite? Saddam was a heinous mass murderer, but no dictator, no matter how cruel, can be oppressing everyone all the time. Saddam was very nice to the Sunnis, for example. Most of Saddam's genocide was committed in the 1980s and 1990s, and while the terror of the Fedayeen cast a pall over all Iraqi life, the sun still shined on Baghdad during the day, and there were still far more moments of peace than of strife. In every country on earth, no matter how despotic, most people are just trying to get by.
You need to do a lot more reading on Al Jazeera. They are hated in the Arab world for being pro-American. Only in America are they considered propaganda for terrorists; most of the world considers them the opposite. This says something about journalistic integrity and objectivity when both sides hate you.
Moore's three Bush-esque sentences were highly suspect. The shootings at planes patrolling the no-fly zone, however, is the strongest argument against their literal truth. Whether these constitute an "attack on America," i.e., an act of war, is debatable. I do not take either side of that debate, and I find those three sentences very misleading. But, like Bush's claims of ties between al-Qaida and Saddam, they are literally true. It's a very fine line of deception that Moore walks for three lines like a highwire.
That it's better to get Saddam before he gets WMD's is a very different (and much better) case than the argument that he had WMD's. You should definately be working for the White House, Salis; you're much smarter than they are!
I don't like Saddam, and I take his removal as the silver lining of this situation; a situation that has plunged Iraq into chaos and threatens to tear the region apart in horrific civil war, has strengthened al-Qaida more than they could have ever imagined, and begun the neoconservative campaign for the Pax Americana (a cause they have outlined publicly in detail many times). It may have doubled the size and power of al-Qaida and planted the seeds of a new Roman Empire, but it did get rid of Saddam. There is at least that. But with other tyrants far worse than him at large, I take little consolation in that.
I nowhere insult Hitchens. I did not lower myself to the logical fallacy of the ad hominem, especially as so much of my argument relied on pointing out the logical fallacies in Hitchens' argument. I challenge you to cite a single, solitary line in my rebuttal where I insulted Hitchens. I made many pointed remarks about the weakness of his argument, but I never commented on the man himself except to put to bed the contention that this was a "lib fight