Jim;

Something I began when I was ten years old was reading non-fiction. I quickly learned that there was great disagreement about any event that ever occurred. When studying a battle or war as an example I found it interesting to read from a minimum of five authors each from a different country. First I would read from authors of the two belligerent countries and then from authors of other countries reporting the event.

It is amazing how accounts vary according to who writes it. You have to be careful of the relationship of authors and his/her prejudices towards any topic. We can look at an event as far as statistical, political, and military analysis, as well as many other forms.

We get into a problem of what happened and what is true and what is not with any event. To some people an event will be positive or negative. Both viewpoints are valid. There cannot be just one viewpoint.

The more I read and the more research I did on any event the greater the questions of what was true. I came to the conclusion that my opinion was just as valid as any one else’s. I obtained my degree in History after completing engineering college, and was going to teach but decided to stay in engineering. I taught our son and daughter History from my perspective, which is accurate as far as details but with a great sense of humor. I place a bend upon History, which criticizes motives, and with great emphasis upon human failings. By the way our son Brian just graduated from college a few days ago and his major is History, and he will go on to teach that subject.

We can say who “won” a battle or war but the facts and motivations may not be clear. The facts are distorted due to so many factors. If you are never affected by a serious event you are lucky. Many of us get to read of or watch presentations of events, which in all probability are biased regardless of the source.

I enjoy watching the BBC and DW (German news) as well as the Spanish news stations. The news, content and presentation are very different than our U.S. News.

Statistics are something I greatly enjoy. Then I plug in the human factor by approaching events by observing what the leaders and what the common man did. I find the common man to be of most interest after you understand what orders the leaders gave and why. Things behind the scenes are of great interest to me.

Here is just one statistic looking at United States military activities:

In World War II an average of 400 M1 shells were expended to kill one enemy.

In Vietnam an average of 65,000 M-16 shells were expended to kill one enemy.

Is there a point to this statistic? Sure there is! Give it any meaning you wish.

It does not matter if we observe an event from afar or participate in it as far as understanding “what happened”. My contention is it depends. It depends upon how you wish to present or interpret the event. It has nothing to due with reality. Most events cannot be fully understood and what remains is who won, who lost, and there may be concern for the aftermath.

Remember Sergeant Schultz from Hogan’s Heros? “I know nothing”! was one of his expressions. That is the extent of my knowledge, “I know nothing”! :)

In reality (my reality) I know what I believe.

Tom



>Last night I watched a TV show titled "Panama - the deception". It was about government and press (mainly U.S., but others too) statements and coverage during that war.
>
>I must say that, until seeing it, I personally had always viewed the Panama "war" as a small action where U.S. forces left a near-by base and surrounded Noriega and waited for him to cave to ultra-loud music. In other words, I had understood exactly what it was desired that I understand by 'the powers that be'.
>
>I had NO idea at all that there were some 25 targets across several cities and towns and that somewhere between 2,500 - 4,000 Panamanians were killed and that over 20,000 were left homeless because their homes were deliberately burned (whole city blocks in the capital). I had no idea that the U.S. military have excavated and filled mass graves around the country. I had no idea that thousands were arrested and detained for months (some over a year) without representation of any kind, mostly on the say-so of the puppet leadership that was installed by the U.S. BEFORE the military fired its first shot.
>
>All in all it served to remind me that, especially when it comes to war, neither governments nor the press can be trusted. The documentary did point out that the press was very very tightly constrained by the military (which was totally unknown at the time by viewers/readers like me), much as we later witnessed in the Gulf War.
>
>Makes one wonder what the REAL story is behind Iraq (the story leading to the action in Panama was very "interesting", to be sure) and what calamities are in store for the people of Iraq.