75th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor

[Travis In Austin]

2 hours ago, oldtimer said:

Except that by definition, the causes are political.  Man is a political animal.

I'm not so sure I agree with you on this, which is rare.  Fascist or tolaterian regiems don't go to war based on a "political" decision do they?  I'm talking I. The strictest sense of the word "political."  They will be in power regardless if they go to.war or not.  It is for territory and power isn't it?  Or a historical border dispute?  

[oldtimer]

War is simply the sharp end of the diplomatic stick.  The conquest of territory and power is a means of extending political influence and control.

[Travis In Austin]

2 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

History is an interrelated and long term continuum.

Absolutely.  But relatively modern history, and certainly current events, get everyone inextricably intertwined with politics.  

[jimjimbo]

10 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

Why would you need to mention something current in discussing to Crusades or the history of the Suez Canal?  I forgot, to try and drag in current foreign policy and politics.

Foreign policy?  You mean, there is one?

[Gilbert]

11 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

Edited by Moderator:  Off topic and discussed religion which is violation of ToS

 

 

 

Some things never change........  I'm missing you Zen, come join me in the Blue sewer, there's only Keith and not much happening.

 

And in keeping with the theme of this thread,  I would like to add that the marriage to my first wife, on Dec. 7th 1982, went down like the Arizona on year 3. Thanks for posting Wolfy.

 

 

[Travis In Austin]

1 minute ago, jimjimbo said:

Foreign policy?  You mean, there is one?

I don't know, it can't be discussed here and this is where I get of my info so I am hopelessly misinformed. 

[oldtimer]

Just now, dwilawyer said:

Absolutely.  But relatively modern history, and certainly current events, get everyone inextricably intertwined with politics.  

Yes.  So if war broke out within the next minute, we should not be allowed to discuss it here, per the tos.

[Travis In Austin]

2 minutes ago, Gilbert said:

 

Some things never change........  I'm missing you Zen, come join me in the Blue sewer, there's only Keith and not much happening.

 

And in keeping with the theme of this thread,  I would like to add that the marriage to my first wife, on Dec. 7th 1982, went down like the Arizona on year 3. Thanks for posting Wolfy.

 

 

A December wedding, don't hear.that much.

[Gilbert]

4 minutes ago, jimjimbo said:

Foreign policy?  You mean, there is one?

 

Yes, finally. There is one now.

[Gilbert]

1 minute ago, dwilawyer said:

A December wedding, don't hear.that much.

 

It ended in a Spring divorce 1985!..... and one hellofa great hunting trip.

 

[Travis In Austin]

2 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Yes.  So if war broke out within the next minute, we should not be allowed to discuss it here, per the tos.

If you could keep it non political.  But you political animals can't seem to help yourselves.

[jimjimbo]

Just now, Gilbert said:

 

Yes, finally. There is one now.

Yes, Chuck Barris and The Gong Show....

[Travis In Austin]

3 minutes ago, jimjimbo said:

Yes, Chuck Barris and The Gong Show....

I though he worked for the CIA?

[oldtimer]

Just now, dwilawyer said:

If you could keep it non political.  But you political animals can't seem to help yourselves.

That is exactly my point, grounded in philosophy and the history of man.  There is no real separation.  In fact, war exacerbates the political with greatly increased propaganda.  During WWII for example this was even seen in cartoons.

[jimjimbo]

1 minute ago, dwilawyer said:

I though he worked for the CIA?

He still does, and the FBI.

[Travis In Austin]

2 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

That is exactly my point, grounded in philosophy and the history of man.  There is no real separation.  In fact, war exacerbates the political with greatly increased propaganda.  During WWII for example this was even seen in cartoons.

Let's put it in a different context.  Hurricane Harvey thread, no politics.  Real forum members in Harm's way with people responding.  People discussing facts as best they know, shooting for accuracy.

 

No spin.

 

 

 

 

 

[oldtimer]

1 minute ago, dwilawyer said:

Let's put it in a different context.  Hurricane Harvey thread, no politics.  Real forum members in Harm's way with people responding.  People discussing facts as best they know, shooting for accuracy.

 

No spin.

 

 

 

 

 

Right.  Discussion of part without discussion of the whole.  However, war is a lot different than a weather disaster, so my theorem stands.  One is inherently political, the other is only tangentially political in nature.

[jimjimbo]

9 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

Let's put it in a different context.  Hurricane Harvey thread, no politics.  Real forum members in Harm's way with people responding.  People discussing facts as best they know, shooting for accuracy.

 

No spin.

 

 

 

 

 

So, shall we be able to talk about what's happened in Puerto Rico after their devastating hurricane and the ongoing misery of those people after the (response) of the US Government to their own citizens?  Likely not.

[oldtimer]

1 minute ago, jimjimbo said:

So, shall we be able to talk about what's happened in Puerto Rico after their devastating hurricane and the ongoing misery of those people after the (response) of the US Government to their own citizens?  Likely not.

Tangential.

Now let's see the context postulated by Travis and raise the theorem.  Who was in control of the hurricane, or any hurricane, or any other weather disaster?  No one.  Who at least in the USA has the stated power to declare war, and who is the commander in chief?  We all know the answer.  So which is inherently political and which is not?

[jimjimbo]

3 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Tangential.

Eh, not really, but I'll let you slide.....