To: Shellybenoit
It sets up the Cold War period with the mistaken explanation that both sides were aggressors. On page 983 it says "both sides believed that they needed to stop the other side from extending its power, rather than a what it was, a battle between the Soviet side wanting to expand its communist philosophy across the world and the west trying to prevent the takeover."The operative phrase here is both sides believed and I find nothing wrong with that description. This article is without merit, whatever shortcomings the book has.
15 posted on
03/11/2010 11:21:32 AM PST by
Misterioso
(To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion. -- Ayn Rand)
To: Misterioso
This article is without merit, whatever shortcomings the book has. I concur. The textbook may very well suck, but you wouldn't know it from anything shown at the link.
35 posted on
03/11/2010 12:22:20 PM PST by
Sloth
(Civil disobedience? I'm afraid only the uncivil kind is going to cut it this time.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson