|
|
#31
12-19-2005, 01:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
The US had forces in CS teritorry and refused to remove them. Are you guilty of a crime if you find a trespasser on your territory and act to remove him? [/ QUOTE ] They were in U.S. territory when the CS declared them CS territory. Would you be trespassing if while you were standing somewhere someone came up to you and said "I claim that spot you're standing on. Get off."? [ QUOTE ] Lincoln had no intentions of ending slavery. [/ QUOTE ] He also had no intentions of letting it spread into new territories. [ QUOTE ] Slavery is a side issue. It existed all over the world, and ended (on a large scale, at least) world wide without bloody multi-year conflicts. [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps it ended world wide because of our bloody multi-year conflict? 
|
|
#32
12-19-2005, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] He murdered 600,000 americans in a war of conquest against a nation that espoused the same concepts the US originally did with the Declaration of Independence. [/ QUOTE ] Technically, the South started the war at Ft. Sumter. And that "nation" espoused slavery, something you don't seem to like. [/ QUOTE ] Read this (also if you use that logic then you can't really justify the American Revolution). [ 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) -"Honest" Abe Lincoln [/ QUOTE ] Lincoln's secondary motive was to free the slaves. He had this odd primary motive of forcing people (a large group at that) to be a part of his nation, even if they wanted no part of it. I think he dressed it up with some "preserving the union" rhetoric. This, in my estimation, is the equivalent of my girlfriend breaking up with me, me then invading her home, raping and killing her, then sleeping next to her dead corpse.
|
|
#33
12-19-2005, 01:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] He murdered 600,000 americans in a war of conquest against a nation [/ QUOTE ] Do you become a nation just by declaring yourself to be a nation? If so, I'd like to announce the formation of a new nation - coming soon. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] So you don't justify the American Revolution?
|
|
#35
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."
|
|
#36
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
|
|
#37
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"?
|
|
#38
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.
|
|
#39
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.
|
|
#40
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
