BruceVC

I want to raise something else around my overall point about most events in history being irrefutable and cant or shouldnt be rewritten I will use Gromnirs example around Lee as it supports my point. The question " was Lee a good general " , this is completely subjective and would involve nuance and deep analysis of the various battles he won or lost to come to some answer..and you still wont get agreement. This is normal with this type of historical question Personally I think he was an excellent general and I also dont think you should take down his statue in places like Virginia because it creates unnecessary invective and feeds both real and irrational fears of Southern culture and history being undermined But going back to Gettysburg, there should be no dispute around whose victory it was because we know the North won through comprehensive historical data and the actual outcome, I hope this makes sense ?

Okay but the South regarding Gettysburg as some sort of " victory ", which I find hard to believe, is not same as looking back and rewriting history Gettysburg was a Northern victory, this is irrefutable as are most events like this when we study history

Another massive issue with Argentina is its constant and historical behavior of not wanting to pay international debts, its really bad and effects its credibility in the financial market But worst than that is not paying its Bonds debt and bondholders, this is like borrowing money from a bank and then refusing to pay back the loan. Its akin to stealing. I think this has been paid in most cases but again this adds to the credibility issue https://www.reuters.com/article/argentina-debt-ruling-idUSL1N12U24R20151030 http://static7.businessinsider.com/ap-argentina-pays-down-much-of-its-debt-us-judge-drops-orders-2016-4

But most events and outcomes of history dont get rewritten usually, they irrefutable. Intent and anecdotal evidence without corroboration can be subjective but so many things of history cannot be rewritten or they would be revisionist. For example who won battles, who was a particular president, when laws were created, why monuments were erected, when groups of people arrived in certain distant lands ...the list is endless

I found an amazing Toasted Sandwich cafe 5 minutes walk from, it specializes in toasted cheese and Im ecstatic http://www.meltcafe.co.za/ Also tonight we going to a French theme restaurant that focuses on off cuts and uses the whole animal in its meals, take a look at the dinner menu. Im planning on having Ox Heart or Sweetbread for dinner https://www.latete.co.za/#menu

Im unclear on what you suggesting in this post. My initial reading is I should, or my family should, contribute funds towards the restoration of Notre Dame? We are not French and my family in the UK are English. Some of my family in the UK have donated towards supporting important UK historical projects through NGO like maintaining WW1 sites . For example this Delville wood memorial we have always assisted with maintaining through private funding as do many other South Africans http://www.greatwar.co.uk/somme/memorial-delville-wood.htm

Most of the wealthy families will definitely commit to what they committed to for several reasons I apologize if what I am about to say is offensive or condescending, I really dont mean to be, but the reason why you are cynical about this money is you dont understand or care about healthy patriotism or a belief in the importance of things that are historically significant Notre Dame is France and France is Notre Dame, the money and tax breaks become meaningless if symbols like this cannot be restored because of a lack of money. France is one of the wealthiest countries in the world with a rich and important history, Notre Dame is part of this. What is the point of having money if you will not spend it on your own families legacy You would be correct if the French somehow didnt care about the future of there children and that doesn't make sense

Very good question, I am really arguing the flawed referendum that Putin created to " decide if Crimea should be part of Russia". Its synonymous with a pattern of how Russia has created this old USSR border and carved up other countries like Georgia to suit them Here is a good article that summarizes this and highlights the legal argument but yes you right, my historical argument is not the best way to make my point https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/14/crimean-referendum-illegal-international-law But just for interest, Tartars outside Ukraine were excluded from the vote. There were also only 2 choice and neither one was " stay part of the Ukraine " https://www.huffpost.com/entry/crimeas-technically-flawe_b_4992908

I had to laugh at the Neville Chamberlain analogy, some comparisons people make of us to historical figures could be relevant but most are tenuous at best but egregiously inaccurate in most cases. This is one of them

Yes, yes Zora as long as you dont use your normal approach of revisionist history and pseudo-geography to make the point that Crimea is part of Russia, its not. Its part of Ukraine and nothing will ever change that, so what Putin needs to do is return Crimea to Ukraine and stop thinking he can carve up countries to create some unnecessary " USSR " border because he is insecure about perceived NATO encroachment Failing that Russia will never get the important sanction relief they need to help there failing and weak economy, the Russia bear needs to respect international laws ...you know how it works

Im confused, are you saying that Johnson couldnt have become president...is that what you saying

Also most of these wars were legitimate and necessary, for example you needed to fight various proxy wars against the USSR during the Cold War in order to effectively bankrupt them and slowdown the global spread of " Mother Russia " and prove that Communism was a failed and flawed ideology I will add that the majority of wars after 9/11, especially Afghanistan, were also necessary....Islamic extremism is real and AQ attacked the USA. This type of belligerence cannot simply be ignored

I am not sure if you ever watched The Strain, its about Vampires and was entertaining. The main Vampire, called " The Master " also talks about knowing and watching humanity for thousands of years but the difference is he wants to destroy all mankind or turn them into Vampire food

I am considering watching this series, I havent watched any episodes. How would you guys rate it, without spoiling the story what is good\bad about it ?