|
|
|
|
#1
12-19-2005, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] also if you use that logic then you can't really justify the American Revolution [/ QUOTE ] Different situation. [/ QUOTE ] For one, how so? For two, did you read the rest of my thread? How can you actually justify Lincoln's actions, causing the death of over a half million men, based on "preserving the union." 
|
|
#2
12-19-2005, 02:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
For one, how so? [/ QUOTE ] If I have to explain how the Revolutionary War and the Civil War's start were different, then I'd be wasting my time if I tried. But since I know that won't satisfy you: American Revolution Civil War
|
|
#3
12-19-2005, 02:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
Ok, here is a synopsis. In both cases, a group of people was tired of being ruled by another group of people. In the case of the American Revolution, it was the King/Parliament. In the case of the Civil War, it was the Northern mob (remember, democracy is mob rule). So you believe that the colonists were more justified in opposing British power than the Confederates were in opposing Northern power? Why is this?
Also, you still have not answered my question about Lincoln. How do you justify killing over a half million men to "preserve the union"?
|
|
#4
12-19-2005, 02:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
The justification is quite simple really. Keeping the southern territory was in the best interests of the United States. In the case of the Revolutionary War, it was in the best interests of the Americans to be independent, and in the best interests of the British to keep their colonies. The current administration perceives that it is in our best interests to take Iraq.
What other justification do you need? If the country is cut in half, then the chances of being destroyed by other enemies doubles. The Confederacy would have eventually gained much more power and presented a real threat to the Union. Then when the United States loses a big war, somebody like you will say that Lincoln was a bad president because he failed to protect the union, which led to its eventual defeat. There are no "morals" or any such thing that govern whether wars are right or not. On a global scale, the world is essentially anarchy, and therefore, no justication is ever even needed to do anything, since nations do not have to answer to anybody. So stop saying that killing so many people is the reason that Lincoln was a bad president, and DO tell us why it was not in the best interests of the United States.
|
|
#5
12-19-2005, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
The justification is quite simple really. Keeping the southern territory was in the best interests of the United States. In the case of the Revolutionary War, it was in the best interests of the Americans to be independent, and in the best interests of the British to keep their colonies. The current administration perceives that it is in our best interests to take Iraq. What other justification do you need? If the country is cut in half, then the chances of being destroyed by other enemies doubles. The Confederacy would have eventually gained much more power and presented a real threat to the Union. Then when the United States loses a big war, somebody like you will say that Lincoln was a bad president because he failed to protect the union, which led to its eventual defeat. There are no "morals" or any such thing that govern whether wars are right or not. On a global scale, the world is essentially anarchy, and therefore, no justication is ever even needed to do anything, since nations do not have to answer to anybody. So stop saying that killing so many people is the reason that Lincoln was a bad president, and DO tell us why it was not in the best interests of the United States. [/ QUOTE ] The ultimate "might makes right" post. Don't worry about whether an act is criminal or not, if it works to YOUR benefit, and you can get away with it, then do it. Awesome. Thank you for illustrating the real evil of statism.
|
|
#6
12-19-2005, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
The ultimate "might makes right" post. Don't worry about whether an act is criminal or not, if it works to YOUR benefit, and you can get away with it, then do it. Awesome. Thank you for illustrating the real evil of statism. [/ QUOTE ] A crime is only comitted when there is a law that is broken. There are no ACTUAL laws in the international arena. Therefore, it follows that there are not really any crimes. International laws and the UN are not actually laws in my opinion, since they do not have any effect on any but the weakest states. I find it hard to believe, that in a web-forum populated by so called "anarchists", that there would be all this talk about the Civil War being immoral and criminal. Newsflash: when there is anarchy, might ALWAYS makes right. If that was not the case, then the United States would not invest 25% of its total GDP in the military. Don't ever underestiamte the persuasive power of a big gun. I may be getting side-tracked here, but if there is ever a state where there is actual anarchy, like some of the people on this forum advocate, it would collapse very quickly. Inside, there would be a Hobbesian slaughter, and either a new government would be formed, or another country will come in and take over. THAT is why government is necessary, and saying that "so-and-so was a bad president because he did too much" won't win over that many supporters. Presidents are bad when they do things that are detrimental to the country, not when they do too much.
|
|
#7
12-19-2005, 03:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
A crime is only comitted when there is a law that is broken. [/ QUOTE ] So before anybody wrote down "thou shall not kill" it was right and just to murder? But after someone wrote it down it was suddenly not OK? [ QUOTE ] I find it hard to believe, that in a web-forum populated by so called "anarchists", that there would be all this talk about the Civil War being immoral and criminal. [/ QUOTE ] Why? Possibly because you have a limited view of anarchy. Not all anarchists desire chaos. [ QUOTE ] Newsflash: when there is anarchy, might ALWAYS makes right. If that was not the case, then the United States would not invest 25% of its total GDP in the military. Don't ever underestiamte the persuasive power of a big gun. [/ QUOTE ] What you're saying is might makes might. Duh. [ QUOTE ] I may be getting side-tracked here, but if there is ever a state where there is actual anarchy, like some of the people on this forum advocate, it would collapse very quickly. Inside, there would be a Hobbesian slaughter, and either a new government would be formed, or another country will come in and take over. [/ QUOTE ] Why? It is possible for people to cooperate voluntarily to defend against aggressors. What magic does government bring to this effort? [ QUOTE ] THAT is why government is necessary, and saying that "so-and-so was a bad president because he did too much" won't win over that many supporters. Presidents are bad when they do things that are detrimental to the country, not when they do too much. [/ QUOTE ] Bank robbery is good, *as long as you're the bank robber.*
|
|
#8
12-19-2005, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
In both cases, a group of people was tired of being ruled by another group of people. [/ QUOTE ] There's much more to it than just being "tired" of being ruled by another group of people. Before the American Revolution, the colonists had little to no representation. Before the Civil War the South DID have representation. [ QUOTE ] How do you justify killing over a half million men to "preserve the union"? [/ QUOTE ] It was better for the U.S.'s future. It won't make sense to you because you don't accept the premise that some government is okay, so further argument is pointless.
|
|
#9
12-19-2005, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In both cases, a group of people was tired of being ruled by another group of people. [/ QUOTE ] There's much more to it than just being "tired" of being ruled by another group of people. Before the American Revolution, the colonists had little to no representation. Before the Civil War the South DID have representation. [/ QUOTE ] So what? Representation binds them absolutely? [ QUOTE ] When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. [/ QUOTE ] How can a nation founded on this idea oppose the voluntary seperation of any group?
|
|
#10
12-19-2005, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
So what? Representation binds them absolutely? [/ QUOTE ] Not absolutely. 50.1% of the country can't make slaves of the other 49.9%, even if made law. [ QUOTE ] How can a nation founded on this idea oppose the voluntary seperation of any group? [/ QUOTE ] Can we be sure that all those in the South wanted such seperation?
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
