Author Topic: Recalling a time when setbacks didn't deter us. (Read 1078 times)

Martlet · « **on:** May 31, 2004, 01:56:42 PM »

Maverick · « **Reply #1 on:** May 31, 2004, 03:44:53 PM »

Good read, thanks.

Sandman · « **Reply #2 on:** May 31, 2004, 06:03:17 PM »

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.

Martlet · « **Reply #3 on:** May 31, 2004, 06:05:23 PM »

Actually, its a comparison of individual facets of war in general, and those two in particular.

What makes it a stretch?

Toad · « **Reply #4 on:** June 01, 2004, 12:32:45 AM »

Quote

it's pain-free, squeaky clean and over in a week

Thanks, enjoyed reading that.

crowMAW · « **Reply #5 on:** June 01, 2004, 06:34:33 AM »

Interesting read...bit shrill at the end though.

Quote

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.

Leslie · « **Reply #6 on:** June 01, 2004, 08:00:48 AM »

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

lazs2 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 01, 2004, 08:27:09 AM »

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

storch · « **Reply #8 on:** June 01, 2004, 09:32:36 AM »

Quote

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.

Will your ideology blind you in every instance?? How could you so widely miss the point. Amazing!!

Thanks for posting that Martlet.

Thrawn · « **Reply #9 on:** June 01, 2004, 10:46:41 AM »

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.

Sandman · « **Reply #10 on:** June 01, 2004, 10:50:58 AM »

Quote

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

Quote

"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.

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 01, 2004, 11:03:52 AM »

Quote

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...

Leslie · « **Reply #12 on:** June 01, 2004, 11:17:17 AM »

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

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #13 on:** June 01, 2004, 11:29:22 AM »

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

Scootter · « **Reply #14 on:** June 01, 2004, 11:32:03 AM »

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.

Author Topic: Recalling a time when setbacks didn't deter us. (Read 1078 times)

storch