Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: denizen48 who wrote (126488)	12/5/2009 7:36:37 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 543262

<history depends on the narrator> But that is intrinsic to history and not a characteristic of Wiki. My only point was that we have bias in ANY paper or commercial encyclopedia and it would be on a shelf for 20 years or more, unchallenged. If you go to the Wiki article on the Boxer Rebellion, you'll get a pretty good assessment of what was going on. The one on Viet Nam is pretty good. A treatise on GWB or Clinton is going to suffer from a bias due to the lack of objectivity. The first time I'd ever heard that Peal Harbor was not a complete surprise was in "Tora, Tora, Tora!" That was 40 years after the fact and it was "leaked" in a film. Now, as an adult with more knowledge and study of the period, I can tell you Pearl Harbor was certainly NOT a surprise attack in the sense that nobody could have guessed it. Weeks earlier, the US had been involved in a blockade on Malaysian crude. We were an oil exporter ourselves and felt that our own embargo would be a direct provocation, however we were messing with alternative supplies. If that had happened to us, China or Russia today, could anyone claim surprise if attacked a few weeks later? Not hardly.