MacArthur en Moffies

(1/2) > >>

xavier (October 12, 2010, 20:16:02 PM):
Rwenzori Re: MacArthur Ek haal aan; “You revere MacArthur even though he had to be relieved of his command in Korea.”

You do not seem to ask the key question: Why? I thought this is the key to scepticism? I suppose I'm wrong.
President Harry S Truman had 2 run ins with MacArthur and lost both in the American Voter's view. In the second. President Trueman wanted his friend to be the Presidential Candidate to take over from him in '53. So when MacArthur criticised him openly for limitting MacArthur's fightback to the 38th parallel. President Trueman's Ego was bruised and in retribution he saw his opportunity to hurt the Presidential ambitions he thought MacArthur had, and fired him. With dismal results as MacArthur apparently never wanted to be President. See Following Quote from wikipedia about the dismissal:
“ The Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur was among the least politically popular decisions in presidential history. Truman's approval ratings plummeted, and he faced calls for his impeachment from, among others, Senator Robert Taft. The Chicago Tribune called for immediate impeachment proceedings against Truman: “

Now compare MacArthur's achievements in Japan, or did you not understand the conceptual value of his achievements, compared to the little egobruising political claptrap at age 72 that you consider so important – In my view there is no comparison. Look inside your soul and ask: What really drove me to be so nitpicking? Do not answer me, answer yourself inside. I'm not interested.

Toe ek Moffie seks grappenderwys beskryf het, het ek 'n stelling gemaak oor wat in my persoonlike gedragskeuses die geval is. Ek dink nie ek was voorskrywend oor andere se gedrag nie. Altans ek het dit nie so bedoel nie. So, as iemand my woorde as gedrag dikterend of kritiserend ervaar het vra ek om verskoning. Sover dit my aangaan gee ek nie 'n bliksem om wat jou keuses is nie. Jy het die volste reg om te maak net soos jou persoonlike gedragskode jou toelaat. Jy hoef nie aan my gedragskodes te voldoen nie. Nie om vir my te werk nie, nie om my vriend te wees nie, ook nie my vyand nie. As Gay, Gatgabba of hoe jy jouself ookal beskryf, het jy na my mening die volste reg om te lewe soos jy wil en moet almal hierdie reg erken. Ek dink dit was Chamberlain wat gesê het woorde tot die effek dat hy tot die dood toe die siening van sy opponent in die debat sal opponeer MAAR sy reg om 'n teenoorgestelde opinie te huldig tot die dood toe sal beskerm. Ek ook. Ek hoop jy verstaan die konsepte.
Mefiante (October 12, 2010, 22:04:13 PM):
Ek dink dit was Chamberlain wat gesê het woorde tot die effek dat hy tot die dood toe die siening van sy opponent in die debat sal opponeer MAAR sy reg om 'n teenoorgestelde opinie te huldig tot die dood toe sal beskerm.
Dit was Evelyn Beatrice Hall se woorde maar die gewone knap aanhaling (“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”) word dikwels verkeerdelik aan Voltaire toegeskryf.

'Luthon64
rwenzori (October 13, 2010, 05:07:47 AM):
Look inside your soul and ask: What really drove me to be so nitpicking? Do not answer me, answer yourself inside. I'm not interested.

1. I ain't got no soul.

2. Probably because you're a bit too anal.

3. Yet you post a whole big story.

4. You might also remember that MacArthur wanted to drop nukes on the Chinese, which was really not a clever plan.

xavier (October 13, 2010, 06:05:14 AM):
1. I ain't got no soul.
OK your Mind or that part of you that helps you decide this is Good and this is Bad

2. Probably because you're a bit too anal.

Please define, Superficially and at first look I find this insulting without apparent reason.

3. Yet you post a whole big story.

Is that not the purpose of this site? To DISCUSS interpretation of Facts in order to get a better picture in your mind?

4 "Nuke" Yes maybe at 72 he was past it and needed to retire.

So let me summarise what I understand you to be telling me: Just because you consider me "anal" and because of a few spelling errors the Book is crap. And because MacA did not serve until death and wanted to drop nukes but did not, you are prepared to disregard the good that he did? You know if I had known you better I might have considered labelling you an AA as you avoid dealing with facts and concepts and easily resort to "violence". If you wand a quick and dirty summary of what I mean by AA refer to the presentation that can also be downloaded free from my website.
rwenzori (October 13, 2010, 06:24:50 AM):
2. Probably because you're a bit too anal.

Please define, Superficially and at first look I find this insulting without apparent reason.

No time to respond to all of your post, but here is a definition of "anal" as related to your "nitpicking", again from my OED:

Quote
3 Psychoanal. Of, pertaining to, or designating the second stage of Freud's suggested process of libidinal development (lasting from about the age of eighteen months to three years), dominated by toilet training; displaying character traits such as obsessive orderliness, parsimony, or obstinacy that are thought to result from fixation at this stage.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page