Comments on: History not taught

By: Ian Poulton

Ian Poulton — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:59:24 +0000

Chomsky is against US involvement in Iraq and cites the British stories to attempt to show that America’s main partner laid the foundations for American policy.

But he admits that there are no documents to show the British did what Churchill suggested (and Churchill could have suggested all sort of things when he had had a couple of glasses) and the quote from a by then ageing David Lloyd George doesn’t add much to the case.

By: Les Plant

Les Plant — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:16:26 +0000

Just because the British used those tactics in another time does it give the Americans the excuse to use them a hundred years later, are the yanks justifying what they are doing by blaming us? Peter you are right, power of the press to brainwash the masses!!

By: Liz Hanna

Liz Hanna — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:30:24 +0000

And on an entirely different subject… Congratulations! Am really pleased - all the hard work is suddenly worth it!

By: Baino

Baino — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:03:38 +0000

I don’t doubt it may have been discussed as a possible scenario and I believe that Churchill did contemplate the use of Mustard Gas on the ‘arabs’. Lets face it, foreign entities have been assisting governments in the middle east for ever on one way or another. I’ll have to get me history books out! Peter’s right, unsubstantiated claims still get published and it’s no big deal to retract in 5 point times roman.

By: Peter Poulton

Peter Poulton — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:43:16 +0000

Problem is anyone can make any claims they like providing they can be neither proved nor disproved.
As with journalism front page banner headlines, if they are proved incorrect two small lines at the bottom of a collumn on the back page as an apology