Pacific

[fudgums]

It is my understanding that personal attacks are not allowed here in this forum.

No doubt you posted this photo in an attempt to be able to easily hide later what you posted.   However, I reposted the image in my reply to you, so the admins will be able to see that you indeed made a personal attack against me.

There is no way now for you to be able to conceal this fact.

.

You posted it twice, and no I won't edit my post.

*forgetting that this wasn't FW 

[TwinEng]

You posted it twice, and no I won't edit my post.

*forgetting that this wasn't FW 

Yes, I uploaded the image to another server.   So even if you were to delete the image from your photo account, a copy of it will still remain, showing the personal attack that you made against me.

.

[Delirium]

For pete's sake people... can't we have a nice debate?

No, instead we have labeling and bomb throwing instead of rational debate.

Pathetic, again the community in AH shows it cannot police itself.

[Karnak]

Sorry, but I do not bother to read such utter garbage.   Authors who want to re-write history to make the USA look to be no different than Japan in terms of morality or culpability are liberal trash in my mind.

.

You're delusional and have been lead very far astray by the modern "know nothings".  That is not to say that one should have so open a mind as to have it fall out, or to trust something just because it is from an "authority" on the subject, but saying that people who have studied a subject for years have no more validity than a loudmouth pontificating about it on the internet is the height of idiocy.

[trax1]

What happen to this thread, wasn't it supposed to be about the T.V series the Pacific?

[shppr01]

Yes, I uploaded the image to another server.   So even if you were to delete the image from your photo account, a copy of it will still remain, showing the personal attack that you made against me.

.

Imnot taking sides in this at all ,,,,But i did read th epost that fudgums wrote and in no way did I see your name. So , How do you know that was a personal attack when no mention of anyone wa sin the script?
Yes you have a right tro tell fudgums what you think of his post ,,,, But sending it to the admins is just childish in itself .M<ost people take care of thier own battles With the exception of a few kids I know of
Not meant to upset , just an adults point of view !

[rpm]

What happen to this thread, wasn't it supposed to be about the T.V series the Pacific?

And this was just the first episode.

[gyrene81]

What happen to this thread, wasn't it supposed to be about the T.V series the Pacific?

Well, ya know...some people would argue with a fence post if they thought they were right...even though they may be misinformed. 



I liked the first episode. I can tell it's not going to be "just another Band of Brothers"...those guys all started out the same way, unsure and unknowing...by episode 10 those of us who choose to watch the entire series may have a small inkling of what they learned by the time it ended.

You critics need to set aside your preconceived notions as to what you expect to see, and watch the story completely before making any judgments.

[Rino]

You tell me your yardstick for credibility and I'll see if I can find something for you then.  How about my opinion by itself?  Probably not good enough either.   

     I've seen quite a few profs on TV that were talking out their butts about history.  I remember one from
Ohio State that claimed we wasted all our money on defense during the Cold War because "the Russians
had NO intention of invading Europe."  I guess all those tanks were going to be turned into pillboxes 
Armor is an offensive weapon system, fire and movement are it's strengths.

     So this guy may or may not be credible...haven't seen him.  But he doesn't get a pass from me simply due
to his job title.

[Die Hard]

By that logic we had intentions of invading the Soviets since we had tanks in western Europe. After all, tanks can only be used for offence right? 

[Eagler]

And this was just the first episode.

and its all your fault LOL

[Stoney]

     I've seen quite a few profs on TV that were talking out their butts about history.  I remember one from
Ohio State that claimed we wasted all our money on defense during the Cold War because "the Russians
had NO intention of invading Europe."  I guess all those tanks were going to be turned into pillboxes 
Armor is an offensive weapon system, fire and movement are it's strengths.

     So this guy may or may not be credible...haven't seen him.  But he doesn't get a pass from me simply due
to his job title.

That's fine--I'll ask you the same question that you quoted then.  What's the yardstick for credibility?  If, in making an argument, I reference a source that I deem to be credible, then identify that source so that anyone else can read what he wrote and judge for themselves whether or not its credible, and then form my argument using that source as reinforcement, I think that's what usually is considered a cogent argument.  You guys don't have to agree with me, but don't simply dismiss his work, just because you've seen some so-called "expert" on the Discovery channel blathering about some topic.  I'm talking about a recognized historian that's considered an expert by peers.  Sort of like if I quoted Stephen Ambrose in a discussion about Dwight D. Eisenhower...

[Delirium]

That's fine--I'll ask you the same question that you quoted then.  What's the yardstick for credibility? 

Credibility is not reinforced by denouncing a US/NATO build up during the Cold War simply because the historian has the luxury of hindsight (using Rino's example).

A good historian is able to view the world accurately from the eyes of the participants at the moment in question. An even better historian and storyteller can make someone without knowledge of the period see the same and understand the outcome of the event.

Will the Pacific be the storytelling I'm hoping it will be? Only time will tell...

[TwinEng]

Imnot taking sides in this at all ,,,,But i did read th epost that fudgums wrote and in no way did I see your name. So , How do you know that was a personal attack when no mention of anyone wa sin the

Well, as you can see, he has since edited the post.  In the original post, he quoted not just one but two of my earlier posts inside his post, and then he said that the text within that image was in specific response to both of them.   That reference was the only thing that I quoted from his message, besides the image.   There is absolutely no question that the personal attack message in that image was being directed personally at me, as he originally quoted TWO of my posts in the message.   And what is up with hiding a personal attack by posting it as an image within a message?   That seemed rather bizarre to me for him to go to such extreme lengths.   It is clear that he is trying to get around the forum rules against making personal attacks, by later editing his post to remove the attack.  Since I had copied the image, though, he could not hide the fact that he had sent that.

So I am sorry, it was clearly as direct a reference as one can possibly make towards another person.

I honestly don't understand what beef he has with any of my posts, as he has not really explained himself.   Was he upset with my long post about Marine Sgt John Basilone ( one of the Marines being profiled in the Pacific ), honoring his amazing heroism during the war?   Or did he have some complaint about my post all about the Browning M1917A1 machine gun, detailing its history and extraordinary achievements?

Of is he upset with how I have defended the United States Marines and the United States of America, regarding our behavior in WWII?  My position is simply that we fought a completely just war in the Pacific in WWII.   Statements like the ones Tom Hanks made last week that US Troops were racist and ignorant are completely unfair, in my opinion.  He even used those terms during the Pacific press events to describe our soldiers currently fighting in Afghanistan.   I'm sorry, but that is being disrespectful to our brave soldiers that are risking their lives to protect our country, in my opinion.

So I'm sorry, but the USA was indeed the "good guys" in the war, and the Japanese were indeed the "bad guys".    They were just as evil and inhuman as the Nazis ever were.  WWII was a just and noble fight for the United States of America.   The Japanese deserved everything that they got.

That is my viewpoint of the war.

.

[Shuffler]

You tell me your yardstick for credibility and I'll see if I can find something for you then.  How about my opinion by itself?  Probably not good enough either.   

I'm not argueing your opinion or the MIT fellas.

I'm only pointing out that being an MIT professor means nothing in the real world.