May 12, 1949

[EternalFantasies]

In a week will be the anniversary.

Has anyone ave Oliver Stones' Untold history of the US?

It does seem commie oriented at times, especially in his interpretations of WW stuff, but generally ives much good history with old footage, parts of speeches... he does focus on the important parts, and I like his approach to really comb a critical point in history from a variety of angles and without boring you out.

Here's a line:
"US & NATO officially arm all western Europe including Germany, install nukes in Germany, and declare western Europe as first line of defense and potential launch pad for WWIII".




I personally think anyone who knows any history, and understood the patterns and the power elements at play and understood the priorities in the world and how the various strategies and tactics made by these elements were made, when, and what status they are today, knows what's next.

Let's hope WWIII already started, and not going to.

 

[OldJourno]

I remember when I had my first beer.

 

[EternalFantasies]

I remember when I had my first beer.

Was that the night before?

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

Is Oliver Stone doing his rendition?

I have one of his JFK movies w/Kevin Costner in it. Good stuff.

 

[EternalFantasies]

He's narrating it yes.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

I like some of his stuff and am somewhat of a history buff. Guess I'll have to see how fact based this one is.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I like some of his stuff and am somewhat of a history buff. Guess I'll have to see how fact based this one is.

How "fact based" do you think JFK is?

 

[EternalFantasies]

How "fact based" do you think JFK is?

Are you saying this documentary is not fact based either?

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

How "fact based" do you think JFK is?

Enough to make it believable for most. That New Orleans CIA/FBI/Intelligence scene had me going pretty good as to how it all made sense in the Stones version.

I wuz like - WTF kind of shit is going on here?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Are you saying this documentary is not fact based either?

I'm saying Oliver Stone is the second to last person I would look to for an objective treatment of the substance and motivations behind the facts of world or American history. Michael Moore is the last.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Enough to make it believable for most. That New Orleans CIA/FBI/Intelligence scene had me going pretty good as to how it all made sense in the Stones version.

I wuz like - WTF kind of shit is going on here?

Jim Garrison conducted one of, if not, THE most malicious criminal prosecutions in American history. There was not a single thread of credible evidence linking Clay Shaw to the assassination of President Kennedy. Shaw should have sued Garrison's ass off.

Fifty four plus years following Kennedy's assassination, conspiracy theorists continue to rely, as they did then, on theories about how the assassination MIGHT have happened and who MIGHT have been responsible based primarily on possible motive.

Those theories are woefully lean on supporting evidence of how the assassination actually happened and who did it in alignment with the theories themselves.

THAT is the history.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

The timing is perfect. It'll be interesting to see how much controversy this creates.

 

[EternalFantasies]

I'm saying Oliver Stone is the second to last person I would look to for an objective treatment of the substance and motivations behind the facts of world or American history. Michael Moore is the last.

I hear ya. Hence my comments on his interpretations, and emphasis on the facts parts.

He doesn't change the facts, he just sometimes interprets them from his point of view. Sometimes he interprets well. One must be critical watching it; but its still nicely done to watch.