Why was England so interested in conquering Ireland?
I don't know how to break out the individual answers so I am putting my responses to your points in bold and italics.

(07-30-2009, 01:15 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote:
(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: Your portrayal of the US failings, however, is frivolous.  We fought a bloody civil war to end slavery and have worked as hard or harder than any country to correct its consequences.

Well, that proves my point. One cannot truly say that "such and such people did this", because it is nothing more than convenient shorthand to incorporate the inhabitants of a nation into a fictional personal entity.

Maybe, maybe not.  One can say 'such and such people did this" if they are being accurate.  Some of the comments posted re the British are quite accurate and in context.  If your criticism is that there is another side to the British criticisms, offer that side.  Embracing unfair criticisms of the US doesn't support your view that the criticisms of the British are unfair.

(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: The delay in US entrance to both world wars was based on an isolationist tendency that was/is not immoral in itself, to say the least, …

And? Does it make it less true?

Yes.  You present it as though it was immoral for the US to have delayed entry to the two world wars.  It wasn't.

(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: … and it's objectively true that US entrance titled the balance in both cases (not to disminish the sacrifice of our allies, esp in WW2).

Which is why I did not write: "and now act as if the Second World War could not have been won without them". Indeed, it could not; but neither could the US have won the war without their allies. Many Americans seem oblivious to this.

We agree re the Second World War.

(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: Your portrayals of Vietnam and Iraq are narrow, pejorative, out of context, and grossly one-sided.

As are the above portrayals of historical English behaviour.

You didn't say, "If one wanted to present unbalanced, inaccurate view of the US one could say....etc. etc."  You presented your diatribe as though it was true.  Again, an untrue diatribe that you have embraced doesn't support your claim that the attacks on the British are unfair. 

(07-30-2009, 01:05 PM)epalinurus Wrote: Although it's more than arguable that the principle at bottom in all these wars is the same, you'd have us believe that the US was immoral for fighting the world wars "too late," and immoral for fighting the other two wars at all.

Well, I certainly would not count those points in the US's favour.

I don't get your point here.  The principle of entering all four wars was arguably the same.  You can't condemn the US for getting in too late in the first two, while saying they shouldn't have done the last two at all, unless you want to differentiate the last two wars.

Again, I agree that there is more to British history than the negative side shown by some of the posters.  I don't think the comments were meant as definitive historical exposition, but were just a bit of "trash the oppressors" humor by some FEs of Irish ancestry.  But maybe no joke is completely untrue.  Anyway, I don't care if you present a one sided, out of context, or untrue view of US history as a supposition to make your point that some of the criticisms are not balanced, etc.  I do mind a bit if you present the one sided, out of context, or untrue US history as singular fact.


Messages In This Thread
Re: Why was England so interested in conquering Ireland? - by epalinurus - 07-30-2009, 01:57 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)