WOULD YOU SACRIFICE YOUR FAMILY FOR THIS WAR?

[Guest BengalBacker]

[quote name='sneaky' date='Aug 22 2005, 12:17 AM']"Spewing rhetoric based on half truths and catch phrases seldom sways people to your side."---------------------------BengalBacker 08/21/05
Practice what you preach.
[right][post="135544"][/post][/right][/quote]

That's a paraphrase of a quote usually attributed to Churchhill, but it's origins are debated.

I only use it to explain how perspectives change. Since I'm a dope smoking(until the last year) atheist who likes porn, I don't really fit into the "conservative" mold.

You asked what changed me, and that's a short way of saying that when you get a family that you're responsible for, and you lose some of the naivity of youth, you begin to see the world differently.

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='BengalBacker' date='Aug 22 2005, 12:37 AM']That's a paraphrase of a quote usually attributed to Churchhill, but it's origins are debated.

I only use it to explain how perspectives change. Since I'm a dope smoking(until the last year) atheist who likes porn, I don't really fit into the "conservative" mold. 

You asked what changed me, and that's a short way of saying that when you get a family that you're responsible for, and you lose some of the naivity of youth, you begin to see the world differently.
[right][post="135554"][/post][/right][/quote]


See.........Why couldn't you have said that before? Instead you came of all defensive and shit. Your explaination makes a lot of sense. As a single person with no kids, your explanation has me thinking........."hmmm I never looked at it like that."

Since I'm a drug free christian, who also likes porn (I have issues, Im working on it though) I dont really fit in the "self righteous" mold.

Just when I was begining to think you were a total @#*#$$........

It just proves that when people respect and actually listen to each other with open minds that common ground and interests can be found.

[Guest BengalBacker]

[quote name='sneaky' date='Aug 22 2005, 12:59 AM']See.........Why couldn't you have said that before? Instead you came of all defensive and shit. Your explaination makes a lot of sense. As a single person with no kids, your explanation has me thinking........."hmmm I never looked at it like that."

Since I'm a drug free christian, who also likes porn (I have issues, Im working on it though) I dont really fit in the "self righteous" mold.

Just when I was begining to think you were a  total @#*#$$........

It just proves that when people respect and actually listen to each other with open minds that common ground and interests can be found.
[right][post="135558"][/post][/right][/quote]


Well, if we're going to try to be reasonable, I'll address some of your original points.

Your quotes will be in bold.


[b]To answer my own question............NO.

I too would never sacrifice my family and loved ones for any war. As far as sacrificing myself, there are only a few circumstances where I would lay down my life, but dying overseas in a land where the people and culture hate us to protect the interests of corporate America.........NO.[/b]

You said any war. I took that as disrespecting those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. When you said "to protect the interests of corporate America", that's one of those phrases you hear from the far left with no thought given to the fact that corporate America's interests are directly tied to our interests.

[b]I love America. I love pussy too. Im not willing to die for either one of them. [/b]

Then be thankful there are people who are willing to die for America, or you wouldn't be here.

[b]It always trips me out when I hear people talk about "freedom". I hear people talking about fighting for "freedom" and dying for "freedom", does anybody really know what the fuck "freedom" really is. The type of freedom that America talks about is subjective not absolute. Subjective freedom is a democracy, absolute freedom would be anarchy. [/b]

Actually, we're a republic. That means we vote every so often for who we want to run things. Do you have a better idea?

[b]In 1776 America bore "freedom", but for the people who look like me, physical "freedom" didnt come until 1864. It took another 100 years for those same people to get civil "freedom".[/b]

Yup. For a long time America was a nation that allowed slavery, while pretending to be about freedom for all. Can't get much more fucked up than that. Fortunately, a lot of people saw the lunacy in it and fought a war that sometimes pitted brother against brother to end it. Some whites enslaved blacks. Some whites gave their lives to free them.

[b]Now we want to give the Iraqi people some "freedom". So we go in their country with our missles and guns, and we've killed some "evil do-ers", and we've killed some innocents but thas just a small technicallity cause we are trying to give them some "freedom". We've stormed in the residents homes, and arrested some suspected "evil do-ers" and we've put them in jail without trial, some of them guilty, some of them innocent, all in the name of "freedom". We are the "Freedom Fighters".[/b]

The freedom of the Iraqi people is not the sole purpose of being there. Their freedom is not only in their best interest, but the best interest of the rest of the world, including us. Dictatorships are only good for dictators. We had many reasons to go into Iraq. The freedom of their people is only one of the reasons, not the only one.


[b]Then there is the matter of "our freedom" and how the war is for the freedom of americans and those who love democracy. "The war on terror" is to make sure we americans are safe. Safe from what? In case you have not heard, America is the most violent country in the world. Fact is, there is a greater chance of your next door neighbor killing you than any "terrorist".[/b]

You have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than your neighbor killing you. What's your point? We shouldn't try to stop things like 9/11 from happening?


[b]Now dont get me wrong, the events of 9/11 was one of the worst atrosities the world has ever seen, but that was a mass murder by sadistic madmen, not a miltary authorized attack from a foreign government like the politicians and the media want you to believe. The irony is, that "terrorism" isnt a middle eastern, muslim creation at all. "Terrorism" was born right here in the good ole U.S. of A by christians right here in the land of "freedom". Yep, yep its true, but they wernt called "terrorists" of course, cause that term didnt exist back then. They called themselves the Ku Klux Klan. They did stuff like snatching an unsuspecting innocent black man and hang him or shoot him or both. No different when "terrorists" kidnap an american and cut off his head, same principal. Sometimes the klan they would just plant bombs in churches so when little black girls would go to Sunday school they'd get blown to smitherines. Thats probably where these "terrorists" of today got the idea of bombing people. Those klan guys didnt particular like the ideal of "freedom" just like Jihad. The klan was also very religeous too, they like putting burning crosses in black folks yards. You know I think those Jihad are pretty religious too. But I digress.....so what are we fighting over there for? Oh thats right......."freedom". You know "freedom" is kinda like women, You cant live with it and you cant live without it.[/b]

So because the Klan existed, we shouldn't try to fight terrorism?????

What is your point? Do you want the terrorists to destroy America because we used to allow slavery and the klan used to lynch people?

[Guest BengalBacker]

I'll address this from your other post too.

[b]Supposedly the USA has been the land of "freedom" for nearly 250 years now. But "freedom" here has been historically an exclusive privilege. How long have african-americans had "freedom" ?[/b]

I already addressed that, just including it now for context.

[b]Or women for that matter? Women have rights and "freedom" right? Yet, many want to take away their rights to their own body away by outlawing abortion. As if pregnant woman become hubs for babies and bearing children supersedes any right or desire if she opposes it. Maybe its murder, maybe its not. if it is murder, then thats a matter between that woman and her God. She will ultimately have to deal with that. A nation hell bent on the support of "freedom" shouldn't be trying to impose such laws. [/b]

I actually think abortion should remain legal. To reduce the argument to a woman's right to do what she wants with her body is ludicrous though. Abortion is much more than that, and to argue it's between her and her God could be used if she killed her 2 year old.


[b]What about the "freedom" of homosexuals? Just because most (like myself) believe its not normal and it (homosexuality) contradicts the teaching of christianity, doesn't mean that they don't deserve the same "freedom" as everybody else. Why can't gay people get married if they want to? Gay people pay taxes too,.... right? [/b]

I actually don't care much either way. I would be more supportive of civil unions that have all the legal ramifications of marriage, simply because "marriage" is supposedly a religious and legal union. My wife and I are both atheists though, and I guess that's hypocritical. I actually would prefer we were in a civil union without any religious aspects inferred. We were married by a judge in an office though, so I don't feel too hypocritical about it.

[b]This is the land of "freedom"..... right? Yes, chritianity opposes homosexuality, but do you have to be a christian to have "freedom" here? Last time I checked the U.S. was a secular government not a faith based government. I thought that made us different from the Taliban.....you know, the guys we are fighting.[/b]

No argument from me. Religion should stay the hell out of my government.

[b]One final example of "freedom" in this country. I believe the House of Representatives are proposing an amendment to the Constitution to ban "flag burning". Now personally, I find this to be the prime example of what I'm talking about.[/b]

I agree. We don't need a constitutional ammendment banning flag burning.

[b]Lets see....its legal to offend blacks, women,gays, jews, or anybody else in this country (provided its done in accordance to the law) but they don't want you to burn a flag cause that would offend all that fought and died for this country so that we could have the "freedom" to offend blacks, women, gays, jews, or anybody else in this country. Sounds kind of counter productive to me.[/b]

Or white people, or bald people or fat people, or ugly people, or rednecks, or rich people, or smelly people, or stupid people.... Blacks, women, gays and jews aren't the only people who can be offended.

[Guest ONYX]

BengalBacker, my comments will be in CAPS.




"You said any war. I took that as disrespecting those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. When you said "to protect the interests of corporate America", that's one of those phrases you hear from the far left with no thought given to the fact that corporate America's interests are directly tied to our interests."

YES I DID SAY "ANY WAR" WAS NOT WORTH SACRIFICING MY FAMILY. THAT IS MY BELIEF. FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I DONT SEE WHERE DOES THAT COME OFF DISRESPECTFUL TO ANYONE WHO HAS "MADE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE".
I RESPECT THE WARRIOR NOT THE WAR. I HAVE THE UPMOST ADMIRATION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE FOUGHT FOR AND DIED FOR FREEDOM AND JUSTICE IN THIS COUNTRY AND ABROAD. AS FAR AS CORPORATE AMERICA IS CONCERNED IT IS MY OPINION THAT IF IRAQ HAD NO OIL WE WOULDNT BE THERE. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ONLY UPSIDE OF INVADING IRAQ WOULD BE THE POSSIBLE CONTROL OF OIL. I BELIEVE NOT ONE DROP OF OIL IS WORTH THE LIFE OF ANY AMERICAN SOLDIER. CORPORATE INTEREST OR ANY INTEREST WITH ECONOMICAL VALUE DOES NOT MERIT PUTTING OUR SOLDIERS IN HARMS WAY....PERIOD.


"Yup. For a long time America was a nation that allowed slavery, while pretending to be about freedom for all. Can't get much more fucked up than that. Fortunately, a lot of people saw the lunacy in it and fought a war that sometimes pitted brother against brother to end it. Some whites enslaved blacks. Some whites gave their lives to free them"

SLAVERY WAS NOT THE ONLY REASON THE CIVIL WAR STARTED. MANY HISTORIANS BELIEVE THAT FREEING THE SLAVES WAS A STRATEGIC MILITARY TACTIC TO HELP THE UNION DUE TO ITS EARLY DEFEATS BY THE CONFEDERACY. THE EMANCIPATION PROCLIMATION CAME 3 YEARS AFTER THE WAR BEGAN. YES THERE WERE WHITES THAT GAVE THIR LIVES TO HELP SLAVES. MANY OF THEM WERE HANGED CAUSE THAT WAS THE PENALTY FOR HELPING SLAVES ESCAPE.


"The freedom of the Iraqi people is not the sole purpose of being there. Their freedom is not only in their best interest, but the best interest of the rest of the world, including us. Dictatorships are only good for dictators. We had many reasons to go into Iraq. The freedom of their people is only one of the reasons, not the only one."

FIRST THE PRESIDENT TOLD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SADDAM HUSSAIN HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND THAT A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE WAS NEEDED.BUSH WAS MANIPULATING THE UNHEALED WOUNDS LEFT FROM 9/11.
THERE WAS NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ. THEN HIS SPIN DOCTORS TURNED IT INTO "THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ". YOU ARE RIGHT FREEDOM OF THEIR PEOPLE WAS NOT THE ONLY REASON WE WENT TO IRAQ, THE OTHER REASON AND MAIN ONE WAS........OIL.

"You have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than your neighbor killing you. What's your point? We shouldn't try to stop things like 9/11 from happening?"

MY POINT WAS THAT THE "WAR ON TERROR" WAS THE SELLING POINT TO CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT IT WAS OK TO ATTACK A COUNTRY THAT HAD NO INTENTIONS TO ATTACK US. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT THAT SADDAM HUSSAIN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
OF COURSE WE SHOULD TRY TO PREVENT ALL ACTS OF TERROR. IF CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO WORKED IN NATIONAL SECURITY WERE COMPETENT DOING THEIR JOBS JUST MAYBE 9/11 WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.


"So because the Klan existed, we shouldn't try to fight terrorism?????

What is your point? Do you want the terrorists to destroy America because we used to allow slavery and the klan used to lynch people? "

MY POINT IS TERRORISM IS NOT NEW. DONT BE SILLY, I DO NOT WANT THE TERRORIST TO DESTROY AMERICA. AMERICA FINALLY GOT ITS HEAD OUT THE SAND AND STOOD UP TO ITS TERRORISTS. AMERICA FIXED AMERICA. IRAQ NEEDS TO FIX IRAQ. IF THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ TRULY WANT TO BE FREE, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT IN A LITTLE MORE EFFORT. AMERICA CAN HELP THEM BUT IT SHOULDNT HAVE TO FIGHT THE BATTLE FOR THEM. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT LEADERS IN THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY NEED TO STAND UP AND TO ISLAMIC JIHAD ANE OTHER RADICAL TERRORIST GROUPS THAT HIDE BEHIND ISLAM THAT THEY WILL NOT STAND FOR IT.

"Or white people, or bald people or fat people, or ugly people, or rednecks, or rich people, or smelly people, or stupid people.... Blacks, women, gays and jews aren't the only people who can be offended"

I SAID...... "so that we could have the "freedom" to offend blacks, women, gays, jews, or anybody else in this country." THE "ANYBODY ELSE" COVERS THE FAT, BALD, UGLY, REDNECK, RICH, STUPID, AND SMELLY PEOPLE TOO.


"I actually don't care much either way. I would be more supportive of civil unions that have all the legal ramifications of marriage, simply because "marriage" is supposedly a religious and legal union. My wife and I are both atheists though, and I guess that's hypocritical. I actually would prefer we were in a civil union without any religious aspects inferred. We were married by a judge in an office though, so I don't feel too hypocritical about it."

CONSIDERING YOU ARE AN ATHEIST, YES THAT IS VERY HYPOCRITICAL OF YOU.


"Then be thankful there are people who are willing to die for America, or you wouldn't be here."

I CONCEDE THE FACT THAT IF NOT FOR THE SACRIFICES OF THOSE BEFORE ME, MY WAY OF LIFE COULD BE VASTLY DIFFERENT. AND AS I SAID BEFORE I ADMIRE AND REPESCT THAT. BUT GOING AS FAR TO SAY THAT I WOULDNT HAVE EVEN HAVE EXISTED IS A STRETCH.

[Guest oldschooler]

VERY good points Backer...I agree with you 100%.

And to sneaky...you need to be thankful that you
live in a Country where you can let OTHERS fight
your battles for you while you sit around and bitch
about it. And I found it very ironic that you brought
slavery up in this thread...didn`t war END slavery ?
I guess you wouldn`t have let your family
fight in that war either ? :roll:


[img]http://www.protestwarrior.com/images/home_images/the_sign.jpg[/img]

[Jason]

Would I sacrifice my family for this war? No.

HOWEVER

If a child of mine VOLUNTEERED in the service, I would encourage and support him/her in that decision, and if he/she were to die, I would grieve, but I would be proud of the sacrifice, and would not go off on the President.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote][img]http://www.protestwarrior.com/images/home_images/the_sign.jpg[/img][/quote]

[i][b]This sign literally makes my Brain hurt it is so nonsensical and rediculous.

--> Ending slavery, Nazism, fascism, and Communism

--> First off, War is the mechanism that brought about all 4 of those things.

(Slavery) It was Portugese waging war into Africa and constructing trading posts, and then whites waging war with the Native Americans to wipe them out for the open land, and then African tribes waging war against eachother, and trading prisoners, along with Europeans doing their own capturing through war in Africa.... that brought about Slavery in the United States (which is the signs implication) Slavery in Roman times and in Egyptian times was also a result of War where the losing army would become slaves of the victor.
As for American civil war, ending slavery was not even a motivation, Lincoln only brought it out as a last resort to turn the tides of the War. Abolitionists like the great John Brown had been rallying against Slavery for years, (he was executed as you guessed it "a terrorists of the US govt" for trying to free the slaves. History has revised it to sound more noble by saying a war to free the slaves... this however is bullshit... and the hope after the war by even Lincoln was that upon being freed they would go back, and stay the fuck away from whitey

(NAZISM) Once again brought about by War. You have World War I which leaves Germany in shambles, this makes the US and Britian & France place harsh reparations on Germany. This creates poverty. This then allows this Messianic whacko who proclaims that he is a servant of Christ Hitler (wonder who that sounds like) - He then cpaitalizes off of already existing anti-semitism and uses War to propagate National Fascism and take over the government there. Then he uses war to take over neighboring countries. Yes War defeated Nazi Germany but in its place for most of the Eastern Bloc was an even worse dictator in Stalin. We call it Communism but it was rampant tyrannical cronyism with an iron fist that killed millions. This leads right to (communism) on the sign which I take they implie the USSR = Which Ironically was brought down without an Actual War.... but through waiting the other side out. Also throughout this time you had skirmishes by small players (vietnam etc) but never the 2 sides going to war. War also brought about communism in Cuba it didn't end it. War brought about communism in Vietnam, and cambodia and China it didn't end it. Also Nazism and fascism are ths same thing.... But I guess they are implying Italy who was fascist but not Nazis. in that case Mussolini used War to hold onto power and to oppress, then we didn't bring him down with war, we got him to change sides and do more war with us.

= My head hurts now... realizing that people look at that sign and think "yeah tell em" [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//30.gif[/img]

[/b][/i]

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 22 2005, 09:03 AM'][i][b]This sign literally makes my Brain hurt it is so nonsensical and rediculous.

--> Ending slavery, Nazism, fascism, and Communism

--> First off, War is the mechanism that brought about all 4 of those things.

(Slavery) It was Portugese waging war into Africa and constructing trading posts, and then whites waging war with the Native Americans to wipe them out for the open land, and then African tribes waging war against eachother, and trading prisoners, along with Europeans doing their own capturing through war in Africa.... that brought about Slavery in the United States (which is the signs implication)  Slavery in Roman times and in Egyptian times was also a result of War where the losing army would become slaves of the victor. 
As for American civil war, ending slavery was not even a motivation, Lincoln only brought it out as a last resort to turn the tides of the War.  Abolitionists like the great John Brown had been rallying against Slavery for years, (he was executed as you guessed it "a terrorists of the US govt" for trying to free the slaves.  History has revised it to sound more noble by saying a war to free the slaves... this however is bullshit... and the hope after the war by even Lincoln was that upon being freed they would go back, and stay the fuck away from whitey

(NAZISM) Once again brought about by War.  You have World War I which leaves Germany in shambles, this makes the US and Britian & France place harsh reparations on Germany.  This creates poverty.  This then allows this Messianic whacko who proclaims that he is a servant of Christ Hitler (wonder who that sounds like) - He then cpaitalizes off of already existing anti-semitism and uses War to propagate National Fascism and take over the government there.  Then he uses war to take over neighboring countries.  Yes War defeated Nazi Germany but in its place for most of the Eastern Bloc was an even worse dictator in Stalin.  We call it Communism but it was rampant tyrannical cronyism with an iron fist that killed millions.  This leads right to (communism) on the sign which I take they implie the USSR = Which Ironically was brought down without an Actual War.... but through waiting the other side out.   Also throughout this time you had skirmishes by small players (vietnam etc) but never the 2 sides going to war.  War also brought about communism in Cuba it didn't end it. War brought about communism in Vietnam, and cambodia and China it didn't end it.  Also Nazism and fascism are ths same thing.... But I guess they are implying Italy who was fascist but not Nazis.  in that case Mussolini used War to hold onto power and to oppress, then we didn't bring him down with war, we got him to change sides and do more war with us. 

= My head hurts now... realizing that people look at that sign and think "yeah tell em"  [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//30.gif[/img]

  [/b][/i]
[right][post="135633"][/post][/right][/quote]




Ummm say what you want about the U.S. being the cause
for all that was and is wrong with this world...
But you can not deny that war DID END those things.
Nuff said... [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//30.gif[/img]

[Guest oldschooler]

Oh and as far as

[quote]History has revised it to sound more noble by saying a war to free the slaves... this however is bullshit... and the hope after the war by even Lincoln was that upon being freed they would go back, and stay the fuck away from whitey[/quote]

I guess things that happened in 1830 and in the 1850`s
coupled with the election of 1860 and Lincoln's victory that was the
signal for the secession of South Carolina , and the states
that follwed South Carolina that were Mississippi, Florida, Alabama,
Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas...
all of which were slave owning and trading states...but I guess they
were just "revised" too ? :roll:


Here you need to start reading with your head out of your ass...


[url="http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0857365.html"]http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0857365.html[/url]

[url="http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0857366.html"]http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0857366.html[/url]

[Guest steggyD]

And US had better plans for Germany and Europe after WW1, but the rest of Europe was not listening. So you can blame old colonial Europe for Hitler and Nazis, not USA.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote]And US had better plans for Germany and Europe after WW1, but the rest of Europe was not listening. So you can blame old colonial Europe for Hitler and Nazis, not USA.[/quote]

[i][b]I said USA, Britian, and France.... those were the 3 primary victors that imposed the reparations... although of course the United States would not get the buk of reparations or need them, our country recieved no damage structurally.... you all just focus in on the US part.... I wasn't even implying that it was primarily a US cause because I don't think it was....

however the Slavery in America is a US event.... as for the Soviet Bloc I mentioned the bad parts about that as well.... I think you all just zero in on the word US and don't even start reading till you see that word.[/b][/i]


[i][b]as for the Civil War info... not really sure where you are going with that... it is a documented fact that Lincoln himself did not have any intention of emancipation at the outset of the Civil War... The Confederacy themselves were allowing Blacks to also sign up and fight for them if they choose. Emancipation was a strategic move by Lincoln not a moral one... however it was the right decision and a brilliant one strategically and a just one ...... Much too late in my opinion but better late than never I guess. [/b][/i]

[Guest oldschooler]

BJ you make me laugh in a pathetic kind of way.
EVERYTHING with you always turns out to be the U.S.`s
fault. I posted a pic that said the war ENDED slavery
and you want to argue about wars started slavery and that
the Civil war wasn`t about slavery.
But the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863
in the middle of the war...

Anyway whether or not the Civil war was started to
actually END slavery is a deabte that I don`t care to get into
with you ...you already think you`re right. So what good would
it do to get into a pissing contest with you ?

And to at least try and stay on topic:
Like I said...say what you want about the U.S. being the cause
for all that was and is wrong with this world...
But you [b]can not deny[/b] that war DID END those things.
Nuff said...

[Guest BlackJesus]

[i][b]Old am I supposed to preface every post with God Bless America ?

Of course I brought up America because that is the nation in question that we are talking about....

if we all want to discuss economic reforms in Chile we can as well.... the poster was in reference to the United States.... thus that is why I addressed it's relevance to us nationally.

I am not even against War and am not a Pacifist... I was just pointing out the idiocy of the signs claims.... [/b][/i]

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 22 2005, 01:21 PM'][i][b]Old am I supposed to preface every post with God Bless America ?

Of course I brought up America because that is the nation in question that we are talking about....

if we all want to discuss economic reforms in Chile we can as well.... the poster was in reference to the United States.... thus that is why I addressed it's relevance to us nationally.

I am not even against War and am not a Pacifist... I was just pointing out the idiocy of the signs claims.... [/b][/i]
[right][post="135797"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Yeah you only do it when America is the topic :roll:

And the sign only claims that war ENDED those things.
Again that is something you can not deny...

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote]Would you sacrifice your family for this war[/quote]

[i][b]are we not talking about the War in Iraq with American troops ????

then you posted the sign in response telling sneaky that his family (since he is black, you obviously meant that they wouldn't have been able to fight in the civil war)

what other nation was I supposed to get out of this ?[/b][/i]

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 22 2005, 01:34 PM'][i][b]are we not talking about the War in Iraq with American troops ????

then you posted the sign in response telling sneaky that his family (since he is black, you obviously meant that they wouldn't have been able to fight in the civil war)

what other nation was I supposed to get out of this ?[/b][/i]
[right][post="135819"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/37.gif[/img]

[img]http://www.liberalarts.iupui.edu/history/resources/105/Images/lib/civil%20war/Black%20Union%20Soldiers.jpg[/img]


[img]http://www.rebelgray.com/BlackSoldiers_files/image002.jpg[/img]


Yes we were talking about the war in Iraq.
That is actually the topic of the thread.
But sneaky said he wouldn`t let his family fight
in ANY WAR...so I thought it was pretty ironic
and posted a sign that says that WAR ended slavery
and other bad shit...I wasn`t implying shit about his family
NOT being able to fight in the civil war since there were
blacks that DID fight in the civil war. (proof above)

Then you take that and go on an "AMERICA IS WHAT HAS CAUSED
ALL OF THE WORLD`S PROBLEMS" daily rant...

Anyway like it or not War is a necessary evil.
And the U.S. isn`t always responsible for that evil...

[Guest steggyD]

I have to agree with BJ and the like on the Civil War. There were many reasons for the war, but our history teachers always tell us that we fought to free slaves. It makes us look better, even though the North was still not all too friendly to the blacks. They probably just wanted them out of slavery in the farms in the South just to get them rolling cigars up North for a cheaper rate.

Anyways, the North was going the industrial route, while the South was still very much agricultural. This led to many different needs and wants between the two halves of the country, which led to seceession, which led to civil war.

My question is, was it really a civil war if the south seceeded from the union? That makes them two separate countries at that point, right?

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='steggyD' date='Aug 22 2005, 03:18 PM']I have to agree with BJ and the like on the Civil War. There were many reasons for the war, but our history teachers always tell us that we fought to free slaves. It makes us look better, even though the North was still not all too friendly to the blacks. They probably just wanted them out of slavery in the farms in the South just to get them rolling cigars up North for a cheaper rate.

Anyways, the North was going the industrial route, while the South was still very much agricultural. This led to many different needs and wants between the two halves of the country, which led to seceession, which led to civil war.

My question is, was it really a civil war if the south seceeded from the union? That makes them two separate countries at that point, right?
[right][post="135843"][/post][/right][/quote]

the north had enduntured servants and i was taught about them in school... they did make them sound better than slaves, even though if you look it up and the history behind the servants, its the same thing except they had false hope... i can't answer for certain that the objective of the civil war was to free slaves... but i have always been under the impression that it wasn't the main objective... like this war, it was faught for many reasons...

but i see OS's point too... if you look at the cause = it wasn't for that... if you look at the effect though = it was the reason that the ball got rolling... either way, lincoln should be looked at as the man that got it started... i beleive it was ben franklin though that almost debated their freedom through the constitution... that dude had balls

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='steggyD' date='Aug 22 2005, 03:18 PM']I have to agree with BJ and the like on the Civil War. There were many reasons for the war, but our history teachers always tell us that we fought to free slaves. It makes us look better, even though the North was still not all too friendly to the blacks. They probably just wanted them out of slavery in the farms in the South just to get them rolling cigars up North for a cheaper rate.

Anyways, the North was going the industrial route, while the South was still very much agricultural. This led to many different needs and wants between the two halves of the country, which led to seceession, which led to civil war.

[b]My question is, was it really a civil war if the south seceeded from the union? That makes them two separate countries at that point, right?[/b]
[right][post="135843"][/post][/right][/quote]

it would have depended on who won the war, i guess... they TRIED to succeed and if we didn't have a war, it would have been two seperate countries... since we did go to war, we had to call it a torn country... that is my take... plus states like kentucky didn't go on either side per say... i guess we were our own country too

[Jamie_B]

[url="http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ihy970224.html"]http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ihy970224.html[/url]

[quote]Unresolved Conflicts
Lincoln's Early Ideas on Slavery


Sarah-Eva E. Carlson
Clonlara School, Rockford

On the surface, Abraham Lincoln's beliefs on race and slavery seem firm and defined. But inside, his heart and his mind battled unresolved conflicts. Lincoln's views changed prior to 1860 only because, as he progressed in years, he became more aware of the truths of slavery and the dangers of both its existence and its elimination.

Young Abraham Lincoln had minimal knowledge of the South's "peculiar institution." He saw little of it as a child. Therefore, his stance developed mainly through what he saw and experienced as an adult. Mary Todd Lincoln, his wife, was a good source on the issue. She had much first-hand contact with slavery and told him stories of her childhood in a slave-owning family.

Lincoln's career as an attorney afforded him additional experience with the slavery issue. As one historian wrote, "to be a lawyer in the Illinois of Lincoln's day was to know something about the Negro." Lincoln's first slavery case, Bailey v. Cromwell, went before the Illinois Supreme Court in 1841. Lincoln was retained by David Bailey, who had purchased a slave girl, Nance, from Mr. Cromwell. When the note by which she had been bought fell due, Bailey refused to pay, saying that Nance had left after six months and that Cromwell had not yet produced her papers. Lincoln argued that Nance was free under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Illinois Constitution, both of which forbade slavery. He also said that Bailey's promissory note was void, because it was against the law in Illinois to buy a human. Lincoln's legal victory here was one of the greatest of his 250 cases.

Lincoln's second slavery case, Matson v. Rutherford, occurred in 1847. Lincoln was retained by Robert Matson who sued Gideon M. Ashmore and Hiram Rutherford. Ashmore and Rutherford had helped one of Matson's slave families (the Bryants) run away from his land in Illinois, where he employed the Kentucky-based slaves from spring until after the fall harvest. Lincoln argued that if the Bryants had been brought to Illinois permanently, then they would have been free under the Northwest Ordinance. But since they were only seasonal workers, they were not free. The circuit court ruled for the Bryants's freedom.

The common opinion is that neither the Matson nor the Bailey case indicate anything of Lincoln's views about slavery because his business was law, not morality. These two cases, however, apparently opened his eyes to the realities of slavery. He saw first-hand the abuse and cruelty directed toward slaves. Even his position on both sides of the slavery question in these cases was consistent with his later view that slavery probably could not be abolished where it existed, but under no circumstances should it be extended.

Lincoln's law partner, William Herndon, also affected Lincoln's ideas. Herndon subscribed to proslavery newspapers that declared "what once was an evil, now is good." Herndon also purchased a copy of George Fitzhugh's Sociology for the South, which argued that slavery was preferred to free labor because of the protection it provided. To this Lincoln later responded, "Although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself." Herndon also read a variety of abolitionist materials that he undoubtedly shared with Lincoln.

Lincoln believed in following the law and maintaining order. Thus, his public feelings were a mix of conservatism and radicalism. He supported enforcement of the law concerning fugitive slaves. Lincoln believed that social disorder and ignorance of the law were results of "abolition fanaticism." In a letter to a fellow Republican, Lincoln defined his position: "I suppose my opposition to the principle of slavery is as strong as that of any member of the Republican party, but I also suppose that the extent to which I feel authorized to carry that opposition, practically, was not at all satisfactory to that party."

Lincoln described his position against slavery as one of "toleration by necessity where it exists, with unyielding hostility to the spread of it, on principle." He was willing to accept slavery as long as it was contained. He stated that where slavery was lawful, it could not be challenged. Lincoln also did not want to give blacks citizenship. He proposed, originally, to send all former slaves back to Liberia. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 led him to conclude that "slavery and free society were absolutely incompatible." Yet, he still doubted that whites and freed blacks could live together.

Lincoln noted both the "delicacy" of eliminating slavery and the "evil" that could grow along with its elimination. He knew the danger of confronting slavery in the slave states. He felt such an act would put the Union in jeopardy, and the Union was of highest political importance to him. Still, he felt slavery might, over many years, be removed carefully with patience and wisdom.

Lincoln actually sympathized with the Southern position. Lincoln did not hold the South accountable or responsible for the existence of slavery. Rather, he felt the North would react the same way

24
ILLINOIS HISTORY / FEBRUARY 1997




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

if put under such circumstances. Before his presidency, Lincoln never mentioned a word or acted in any way to give the South the impression that he had intentions of starting a war over slavery.

In some ways, Lincoln disagreed with both the ways of enforcement and the principles of slavery, rather than its fundamental premises. Lincoln saw slavery as a product of violence, because the institution was maintained by force.

Lincoln became obsessed with the issue of slavery. He knew he was right. He wanted the words of God and the Declaration of Independence to be real for all people. In 1860 Lincoln stated, "I want every man to have the chance—and I believe a black man is entitled to it—in which he can better his condition." In the end, he felt it was his duty under the laws of the United States to see that all men alike were bestowed with the blessings of the United States, the blessing of freedom.—[From David Herbert Donald, Lincoln; Don E. Fehrenbacher, Prelude to Greatness; Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men; Robert W. Johannsen, The Frontier, The Union and Stephen A. Douglas; Benjamin Quarles, Lincoln and the Negro; William H. Town send, Lincoln and the Bluegrass; Elton Trueblood, Abraham Lincoln.][/quote]

[Jamie_B]

Also Lincoln opposed slavery on moral grounds, you can read up on the Lincoln/Douglas debates....

[url="http://www.ncfca.org/Pages/Debate/LDDebate.html"]http://www.ncfca.org/Pages/Debate/LDDebate.html[/url]

[quote]In 1858, Senator Stephen A. Douglas, an Illinois Democrat, faced a reelection bid. The Republican Party in Illinois nominated Abraham Lincoln to oppose him in the race for United States Senate. When Lincoln challenged Douglas to a series of debates of the issue of slavery in the territories (at that time, many of the western states were still territories,) Douglas accepted and named seven cities in Illinois to hold the debates.

While both Lincoln and Douglas were opposed to slavery, only Lincoln actively opposed the practice on moral grounds. Douglas argued that the issue of slavery would die down and eventually go away. Lincoln firmly believed that slavery was morally reprehensible and should be actively barred from the territories, although he did not advocate abolishing slavery in the southern states at this point.

Although Douglas won the seat in the U.S. Senate, Abraham Lincoln gained a place in the national spotlight that would later help him win the presidency of the United States. His stirring speeches against slavery during the Lincoln Douglas debates achieved national recognition and serve as an inspiration to the statesmen and debaters of today.[/quote]

You can read the debates here...
[url="http://www.nps.gov/liho/debates.htm"]http://www.nps.gov/liho/debates.htm[/url]

[Beaker]

States rights was the original conflict point of the civil war. Steggy wiins the slave rolled cigar.

[Jamie_B]

in addition Lincoln appointed Hannibal Hamlin (a forefather of mine) to be his 1st VP, Hamilin was a Radical Republican (were not only in favour the abolition of slavery but believed that freed slaves should have complete equality with white citizens.)

[url="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhamlinH.htm"]http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhamlinH.htm[/url]

[Guest oldschooler]

I wasn`t trying to put the topic
on whether or not the Civil War STARTED
because of slavery...although it was one of the reasons.
I was saying that the Civil War ENDED slavery...

And I think my point has been more than proven.



Meanwhile ...back at the ranch...