Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Martlet on May 31, 2004, 01:56:42 PM
-
Mark Steyn (http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn30.html)
-
Good read, thanks.
-
An analogy between the occupation of Iraq and the U.S. civil war...
Now that's a stretch. Guess it's good if it sells papers. :aok
-
Actually, its a comparison of individual facets of war in general, and those two in particular.
What makes it a stretch?
-
it's pain-free, squeaky clean and over in a week
Thanks, enjoyed reading that.
-
Interesting read...bit shrill at the end though.
But that's the difference between then and now: the loss of proportion...They had hellish setbacks but they didn't lose sight of the forest in order to obsess week after week on one tiny twig of one weedy little tree.
Actually, I think the difference between the this invasion and those wars is the casus belli, as Tom Clancy recently pointed out...the reason for Iraq's invasion was ambiguous.
Missouri may be the show me state, but I think that motto goes well for the US in general. We are a very individualistic culture. Luckily very few are sheep-like citizens who will follow politicians anywhere and take every word they speak as the honest truth. Americans for the most part want to be convinced of the truth without ambiguity.
The Civil War was not an ambiguous war. The South ceded from the Union. WWII was not an ambiguous war. The Japanese attacked us and the Germans declared war on us.
Americans will support unambiguous wars to the end. For unambiguous wars, Americans will endure every setback and honor every last life given as justified.
Vietnam was an ambiguous war...and so is Iraq.
-
I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the writer of the article. Though his ancestors may have fought for a noble cause, it's almost like he's saying soldiers of the Confederacy didn't. It bothers me that the Confederacy has to always be portrayed as the bad guy. Almost as if he's comparing Iraq with the Southern Confederacy. Or, more properly, drawing a comparision between Jefferson Davis and Saddam Hussein. That offends the hell out of me. I guess I don't understand the article. But it didn't make too much sense to me.
Les
-
allways been conflicted about the civil war..
on the one hand, slavery was a human rights violation. On the other... States rights was a good cause.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman
An analogy between the occupation of Iraq and the U.S. civil war...
Now that's a stretch. Guess it's good if it sells papers. :aok
Will your ideology blind you in every instance?? How could you so widely miss the point. Amazing!!
Thanks for posting that Martlet.
-
It seemed to me that part of his messages is that government shouldn't be held accountable. At least that is what I glean amongst the rhetoric. ;)
"want the outcome of a war, and the fate of a nation, to hinge on one freaky jailhouse"
That statement is amazing. It is both one of the most overstated, yet at the same time, the most understated statement I've ever seen in an essay.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
allways been conflicted about the civil war..
on the one hand, slavery was a human rights violation. On the other... States rights was a good cause.
lazs
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
It bothers me that the Confederacy has to always be portrayed as the bad guy. Les
I am from the belief that anyone who takes up arms against the US Government is the bad guy...
-
I am too Red Tail. Are you aware Alabama has more soldiers per state serving in Iraq, that any other US state?
Do you base your belief on what's going on today, or what happened 130 years ago?
Les
-
So, if the US government became too powerful and took away people's rights - anyone who took up arms against the government in an attempt to bring it back to where it should be is an enemy?
-SW
-
Why in the Hell did we go into Germany after Pearl Harbor was attacked?
Some dumb Demo. Pres must have had an agenda to take over the world or something. I mean Hitler had nothing to due with 12-7-41 did he?
I tell ya there was no link to Hitler at all, the war in Europe was unjust.
-
All the North had to do was impose economic embargos on the South and wait.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
All the North had to do was impose economic embargos on the South and wait.
Untill they starved!!
-
The North had a vested interest in the slave trade. They built the ships. If anyone thinks the North is without sin, I have a bridge in Brooklin I'd like to sell 'em.
And now, I think I'll try to exit gracefully without starting another civil war.
Les
-
Actually, Leslie, one big reason the North supported the war was because they needed the Southern cotton for their mills. They were very afraid that the Confederacy would deal with Britain, thus the embargo.
-
Originally posted by Scootter
Why in the Hell did we go into Germany after Pearl Harbor was attacked?
Because Germany declared war on you.
Some dumb Demo. Pres must have had an agenda to take over the world or something. I mean Hitler had nothing to due with 12-7-41 did he?
No he didn't, I sure he would have prevented it if he could have. But unlike the Iraqi government and Al-Quada, Germany and Japan had an alliance.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
I am too Red Tail. Are you aware Alabama has more soldiers per state serving in Iraq, that any other US state?
Do you base your belief on what's going on today, or what happened 130 years ago?
Les
I base my belief that anyone taking up arms against the US Government is a bad guy, 130 years ago, or 130 seconds ago. Doesn't mean past bad guys, including Japan, Germany, Italy, or Russia are still bad guys, but they were then, and one must accept that.
-
They had a lot of crummy decisions and bureaucratic screwups worth re-examining, but they weren't a nation that prioritized retroactive pseudo-legalistic self-flagellating vaudeville over all else.
My favorite quote from the article
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Because Germany declared war on you.
No he didn't, I sure he would have prevented it if he could have. But unlike the Iraqi government and Al-Quada, Germany and Japan had an alliance.
dont be a tard, I was using sarcasm
I am quite aware he declared war on us, my post was a troll.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
The North had a vested interest in the slave trade. They built the ships.
Les
IIRC the importation of slaves had been stopped for decades prior to the civil war. Ships had nothing to do with it.
-
You are right, Mt, 1838 to be exact.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
IIRC the importation of slaves had been stopped for decades prior to the civil war. Ships had nothing to do with it.
tell that to Cinque and John Quincy Adams.
-
sandie... I have read that quote and allways felt that Lincoln was being a little dishonest in it. I am sure that he personally felt the way he spoke to a point but... He knew that he really didn't have a choice and that it wasn't really his decision to make.
He could have simply let the south have whatever they wanted on condition that they not leave the Union but ... the issue was states rights and the loss of federal power.
I believe that slavery is a human rights issue and that time would have solved the problem without a war. Slavery in civilized countries was all but abo;lished by then anyway and the industrial revolution was just around the corner.
The federal government was wrong so far as states rights was concerned.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I believe that slavery is a human rights issue and that time would have solved the problem without a war. Slavery in civilized countries was all but abo;lished by then anyway and the industrial revolution was just around the corner.
lazs
I agree. I like the quote simply because it highlights the fact that slavery wasn't Lincoln's primary concern. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that our school system in California seemed to gloss over the civil war. The slavery issue was highlighted (probably because I was in grade school in the 60's and 70's while the civil rights movement wasn't such a distant memory). That, or I wasn't paying attention. Quotes like this didn't find their way to our textbooks, IIRC.
Nowadays, I've learned enough to wonder if Lincoln was indeed right. I'm sure I can get an earful from our brothers in the south on this. ;)
-
Originally posted by Lizking
You are right, Mt, 1838 to be exact.
The "Clotilde" was the last slave ship to land in Mobile, Alabama. The slaves were set free to settle an area known as Africa Town, modern day Plateau, about 3 miles north of downtown Mobile.
Les
-
"States Rights" is just spin. Right to keep slaves is what it means. Slavery was the issue and no amount of revisionist BS can change that.
-
Another difference is that people who had lost no one in a war would never have dreamed of critisising in print how the people behave who lost loved ones in that war. I doubt the writer sees that.
Its like the writer thinks that the people who lost those three didnt hate the war for it..or get mad at thier president for it. He doesnt know any such thing of course. By assuming they behaved in a way that makes his comparison valuable for his political point maybe he is doing them a great disservice. I doubt the author sees that though.
-
They began "revising" in about 1854, then MT.
-
You're right MT. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is what started the war.
Les
-
Pre-emptive revision!
:)
Actually... you should read the declaration of secession by Alabaman E. S. Dargan.
I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery.
This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.
(my favorite part... if they are freed.. then what?)
Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! This being the alternative, I cannot hesitate for a moment what my duty is. I must separate from the Government of my fathers, the one under which I have lived, and under which I wished to die. But I must do my duty to my country and my fellow beings; and humanity, in my judgment, demands that Alabama should separate herself from the Government of the United States.
-
What South Carolina stated as a cause of secession and therefor the civil war.
PP 25 of "DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH INDUCE AND JUSTIFY THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION."
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
-
Thank you Holden.
-
That is like saying the civil rights movement was about bus seats.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
That is like saying the civil rights movement was about bus seats.
That's like saying Hitler was just working within the laws of his country to protect Arian rights.
-
Yes it is- all three are incorrect.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Pre-emptive revision!
:)
Actually... you should read the declaration of secession by Alabaman E. S. Dargan.
I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery.
This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.
(my favorite part... if they are freed.. then what?)
Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! This being the alternative, I cannot hesitate for a moment what my duty is. I must separate from the Government of my fathers, the one under which I have lived, and under which I wished to die. But I must do my duty to my country and my fellow beings; and humanity, in my judgment, demands that Alabama should separate herself from the Government of the United States.
Here's what really happened.
Secessionist gov. and leg. called for elections to a convention Jan. 7, 1861.
Cooperationists opposed immediate secession. In preliminary votes, cooperationist resolutions opposing immediate secession were narrowly down by a count of 53-46. However on Jan. 11, following news that Mississippi and Florida had seceeded and that South Carolina had respected Federal efforts to relieve Ft. Sumptor, the convention adapted an ordinance of secession by a vote of 61-39.
The United States Senate refused to consider Crittenden's proposal, killing the plan to resolve the secession crisis. Six Southern Democrats refused to vote. The entire Republican party opposed consideration of the Crittendon Compromise, and was the major reason for the Compromise's failure.
A Peace Convention was called by Virginia on Jan. 19 to avert war by finding a compromise to restore the Union. Seven seceeding states boycotted the Peace Convention. Also Arkansas, California, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnisota did not send representatives.
The Montgomery Convention convened on the same day as the Peace Convention. Delegates were moderates and not ardent secessionists. The delegates rapidly put together a provisional constitution, which was adopted four days later.
*http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Dilemmas/DJan16.html
-
The southern states where traitors and sherman had the right idea on how to treat traitors.
That article is lol btw.
-
Yeah, I know it sucks. Give me a break will ya?:D
Les
-
Originally posted by Scootter
dont be a tard, I was using sarcasm
I am quite aware he declared war on us, my post was a troll.
No, you're the tard for being a troll and mispresenting yourself.
-
nevermind.
Some arguements are just not worth getting into
-
Still disagree MT. If you want to resume the argument, go dig up the old thread and re-read it. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Still disagree MT. If you want to resume the argument, go dig up the old thread and re-read it. ;)
I read it. I won. :D
-
In your own mind, anyway. That will have to suffice, I guess. :D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
No, you're the tard for being a troll and mispresenting yourself.
I must be a tard as I can't figure out what the heck you mean by me misrepresenting myself. I point out the parallel between the old cry "no link to S.H. and 9/11 so why are we there" this was done with my toung firmly planted in my cheek.
go back and reread if you must
here
Scootter said
"Why in the Hell did we go into Germany after Pearl Harbor was attacked?
Some dumb Demo. Pres must have had an agenda to take over the world or something. I mean Hitler had nothing to due with 12-7-41 did he?
I tell ya there was no link to Hitler at all, the war in Europe was unjust."
This is driping with sarcasm and as far as I can see no misrepresentation on my part.
The point must have been over your head sorry, ;)
I was responding to how times have changed in the last 60 years.
Read "The raise and fall of the Luftwaffe" by David Irving,
this will give you some insite as to how prisoners were treated after the war and during the occupation, it was just as bad then.
But you see things were differant then I suppose.
We need more studying of History and less CNN and Fox News doing our thinking for us IMHO.
Now go out and have yourself a good day:D
-
Okay.
*goes off to have a good day*
-
Originally posted by Scootter
Read "The raise and fall of the Luftwaffe" by David Irving,
this will give you some insite as to how prisoners were treated after the war and during the occupation, it was just as bad then.
He's a certified lying sack of ****.