POLL: Knowing What You Know Now, Which Wars Would You Approve?

[strummingram]

Yep, Ft. Sumter, the South attacked first.

Wrong. That's just wrong. Do you know where Fort Sumter is located? It's IN the South. That was a warning... GET OFF MY PROPERTY! The US Troops were told to get out. They refused. You can try to justify that all you want, but that was not firing first. And, I believe the US Army was sent into Virginia as a formal attack on Manassas, Virginia. The USA refused to allow the southern states to secede. That refusal was the first shot! ALL of states entered into the federation under the premise that they could leave. They all agreed to that. Washington DC reneged on the deal. Blame DC and Lincoln and those who had too much vested in the revenue generated by the South to let it go peacefully. Don't blame South Carolina for telling them "Get off our land" once they'd left the federation.

 

[strummingram]

That just protects the wealth. Slaves were more valuable if you couldn't dilute their numbers by importing more. It locked in an advantage to those who already owned and kept the poor whites poor, but they liked it anyway because they had another group to focus their anger towards.

Even if that were true. How does that "keep poor whites poor?" I mean, you act as if the only thing that generated revenue in the South was owning slaves. It was extremely lucrative, but you're implying that every white person in the antebellum south had one objective: own African slaves. That's quite a leap.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Of the 20th Century, only World War II posed a real threat to the USA. Japan attacked our Navy and Air forces. Then Germany declared war ON US. Kinda hard to remain neutral there. However, I do believe that had the USA stayed out of World War I, there wouldn't have been a World War II.

Regardless, of those in the poll, we had no business in any of them... at all. In fact, most of the Middle East conflagrations were borne out of our own meddling earlier on. Indigenous people will defend their homes... even if it means using terrorism on the home soil of who they view as the culprit. I'm not condoning the acts of terror, but I'm not surprised when they happen, and I understand WHY they did happen.

Agree on all points.

Even the Asian theater of WWII probably could have been avoided. The US was basically trying (and succeeding to a worrisome degree if you were Japan) to control the western Pacific shipping lanes. This posed a very real threat to the energy- and resource-scarce Japanese empire. It's hard to know but if we had negotiated a comfort level with Japan over those needed resources, there might never have been a Pacific war. Which is not to say that Japan might not have invaded Korea or China, but we could easily have looked the other way if they had left the Philippines and other areas that we cared about alone.

The interesting questions are always whether things would have been better or worse if we had stayed out of those wars. Alternate history novelists have fun gaming out those scenarios. But it's hard to know. Most of the time when we look back on things we forget about the losers. To use a minor example, it's popular to point to how Chile developed a relatively thriving economy a decade after Pinochet's US-backed coup. Which is only partly true but even to the extent it is true it doesn't count the tens of thousands of people Pinochet slaughtered and displaced on the way to imposing a Washington Consensus economy.

 

[strummingram]

Agree on all points.

Even the Asian theater of WWII probably could have been avoided. The US was basically trying (and succeeding to a worrisome degree if you were Japan) to control the western Pacific shipping lanes. This posed a very real threat to the energy- and resource-scarce Japanese empire. It's hard to know but if we had negotiated a comfort level with Japan over those needed resources, there might never have been a Pacific war. Which is not to say that Japan might not have invaded Korea or China, but we could easily have looked the other way if they had left the Philippines and other areas that we cared about alone.

The interesting questions are always whether things would have been better or worse if we had stayed out of those wars. Alternate history novelists have fun gaming out those scenarios. But it's hard to know. Most of the time when we look back on things we forget about the losers. To use a minor example, it's popular to point to how Chile developed a relatively thriving economy a decade after Pinochet's US-backed coup. Which is only partly true but even to the extent it is true it doesn't count the tens of thousands of people Pinochet slaughtered and displaced on the way to imposing a Washington Consensus economy.

Yep. And, since you've been looking to Carlin recently. I think he did a very insightful satire on our foreign policy. "Can you name ANY white people we've ever bombed? The Germans! That's right. And, you know why? They were trying to CUT-IN OUR ACTION! 'You wanna take over the world? Bullshit! That's OUR f*ckin' job!' "

 

[unIowa]

WWJD please include:
1. The War on Drugs
2. The War on Poverty
3. The War on Obesity
4. The War on Women

 

[naturalmwa]

Wrong. That's just wrong. Do you know where Fort Sumter is located? It's IN the South. That was a warning... GET OFF MY PROPERTY! The US Troops were told to get out. They refused. You can try to justify that all you want, but that was not firing first. And, I believe the US Army was sent into Virginia as a formal attack on Manassas, Virginia. The USA refused to allow the southern states to secede. That refusal was the first shot! ALL of states entered into the federation under the premise that they could leave. They all agreed to that. Washington DC reneged on the deal. Blame DC and Lincoln and those who had too much vested in the revenue generated by the South to let it go peacefully. Don't blame the South for telling them "Get off our land" once they'd left the federation.

Facts are on my side. You're wrong as usual because as usual you do no research to inform your opinions. Ft. Sumpter was federal property.

“Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

The south fired the first shots (real shots, not rhetorical ones) at the federal property. After that, the north held the moral high ground and could justify a response no matter how you feel about the constitutionality of secession. Manassas was months later.

 

[strummingram]

More insight from Carlin on American obsession with War:

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Yep. And, since you've been looking to Carlin recently. I think he did a very insightful satire on our foreign policy. "Can you name ANY white people we've ever bombed? The Germans! That's right. And, you know why? They were trying to CUT-IN OUR ACTION! 'You wanna take over the world? Bullshit! That's OUR f*ckin' job!' "

View embedded media

Thanks for posting that. I had seen the very end as part of another clip but not the excellent first part.

 

[strummingram]

Facts are on my side. You're wrong as usual because as usual you do no research to inform your opinions. Ft. Sumpter was federal property.

“Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

The south fired the first shots (real shots, not rhetorical ones) at the federal property. After that, the north held the moral high ground and could justify a response no matter how you feel about the constitutionality of secession. Manassas was months later.

Yeah, you can player Lawyer Ball all you want. Get off my property. Here's a warning "POW!" Now leave! They left every other installation. They stayed there to get some attention by gunpowder to get the average person to buy-in to sacrificing lives if it got worse... when they invade the South!That's not moral high ground. That's forcing the owner to shoot and claiming victimization.

That "moral high ground" bullsh*t doesn't exist in War either, okay? War is nothing but old wealthy men getting young poor men to fight each other over the wealth and potential wealth of a given piece of real estate. Peddle that morality sh*t somewhere else. Again, the reasons South Carolina and the southern states left were abhorrent, but they had the right to secede.

 

[strummingram]

An even better summation of American Foreign Policy in 40 seconds:

 

[naturalmwa]

Even if that were true. How does that "keep poor whites poor?" I mean, you act as if the only thing that generated revenue in the South was owning slaves. It was extremely lucrative, but you're implying that every white person in the antebellum south had one objective: own African slaves. That's quite a leap.

The same way illegal immigrants keep poor citizens poor. A slave picks that cotton for less than a free white guy. That free, but poor white laborer isn't going to get hired to do the job because of slavery. Remember the reason the north wanted to end slavery wasn't because they loved black people. It was because they couldn't compete with free labor. The civil war was in large part related to labor rights which was also the basis of the fledgling Republican party and why they used to be the good guys.

 

[strummingram]

The same way illegal immigrants keep poor citizens poor. A slave picks that cotton for less than a free white guy. That free, but poor white laborer isn't going to get hired to do the job because of slavery. Remember the reason the north wanted to end slavery wasn't because they loved black people. It was because they couldn't compete with free labor. The civil war was in large part related to labor rights which was also the basis of the fledgling Republican party and why they used to be the good guys.

Okay, okay. The labor chain... gotcha.

The North didn't "love black people." It's important to refer to things correctly. Abolitionists loved black people. Or, they at least saw them as more equivalent human beings than most other white people, north and south. Most abolitionists flourished in the North. The abolitionists were incredibly brave and incredibly instrumental in getting the rest of America to view the African slaves as genuine human beings. The "North" was benefiting financially from Slavery, too! That's why it came to war. People in power don't invest lives, property, munitions and money unless something tangible is at stake. They rarely get that involved over mere immorality. Especially when they're getting paid for the immorality indirectly themselves. Fortunately for the abolitionists, their objective gained ground and the profits from the immorality finally got reached a tipping point. It's a shame hundreds of thousands had to die and 10 times that had to be displaced and put into decades of poverty to undo the immorality.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

WWJD please include:
1. The War on Drugs
2. The War on Poverty
3. The War on Obesity
4. The War on Women

Good idea. Give me a few more and I'll start another poll. Or you could do it.

War on Christmas
War on Christianity
War on Families
War on Marriage

 

[unIowa]

Good idea. Give me a few more and I'll start another poll. Or you could do it.

War on Christmas
War on Christianity
War on Families
War on Marriage

Holy crap I almost forgot about all of these. Our domestic wars seem to outpace our foreign based wars...we have no hope.

 

[naturalmwa]

Good idea. Give me a few more and I'll start another poll. Or you could do it.

War on Christmas
War on Christianity
War on Families
War on Marriage

We need 10 right? How about War on Guns and War on Terrorism?

 

[strummingram]

Never solve it, just declare War on it. That way, politicians, and the entities that are really responsible for the problems, can both profit from it and people who support the politicians argue with each other over how badly the politicians aren't solving it... so they elect the same politicians over and over.

 

[naturalmwa]

"POW!" Now leave!

There you go, that was my point all along too.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

We need 10 right? How about War on Guns and War on Terrorism?

Now we have to eliminate one (or 2) if we want to leave room for "none of the above" and/or "all of the above." Which would you ditch?

 

[naturalmwa]

Now we have to eliminate one (or 2) if we want to leave room for "none of the above" and/or "all of the above." Which would you ditch?

Well if you keep guns they are all nominally domestic issues. But if you keep terrorism you are likely to stir the pot more and I like that. Terrorism also nicely dovetails with the Christianity complaints and could spark a religious debate which I also like. So Terrorism gets my vote.

 

[strummingram]

There you go, that was my point all along too.

No one has the "moral high ground" there. If I obtain property and you're on it without my consent. Then I say "Get off my property!" You decide to stay, and I fire a shot in the air or near you... who has the moral high ground? Your family comes and burns down my house because they wanted to get the land, too. There's no moral high ground at all. It's just people being greedy or being obstinate and greedy. You can throw in some Lawyer-ese statement that was cooked-up by the US Government to proclaim they were in the right to stay there, but people seceding aren't going to care. Then you send your whole army into their land elsewhere and everywhere else and you claim "they started it?" Whatever makes you feel right, I guess.

 

[naturalmwa]

No one has the "moral high ground" there. If I obtain property and you're on it without my consent. Then I say "Get off my property!" You decide to stay, and I fire a shot in the air or near you... who has the moral high ground? Your family comes and burns down my house because they wanted to get the land, too. There's no moral high ground at all. It's just people being greedy or being obstinate and greedy. You can throw in some Lawyer-ese statement that was cooked-up by the US Government to proclaim they were in the right to stay there, but people seceding aren't going to care. Then you send your whole army into their land elsewhere and everywhere else and you claim "they started it?" Whatever makes you feel right, I guess.

Um, this is actually an argument for my position. The Federal government owned the property in question. That "lawyerese" was written by South Carolina on July 9th 1840. Research it, you don't have to believe me, but that will save you time in the future. I got you dead to rights, but its fun watching you come to grips with a new world view.

 

[DarkThunder#61]

Well let's look at it this way. Had the South won the Civil War (which is apparently for the best according to posters on here now....), I guess we could take solace in the fact that the SEC would've been nowhere near as dominant as they were over the last decade or so in college football.

Kentucky would not have the dream teams they've had in basketball. Duke would not be a blue blood...or North Carolina for that matter. In fact, with separate governments on the contiguous American states, my guess is we'd probably see a very different look to college athletics in general across the country.

Perhaps that would've benefitted Iowa even more in the long run. Damn you northern states for winning the war!!!

 

[Nat Algren]

Of the 20th Century, only World War II posed a real threat to the USA. Japan attacked our Navy and Air forces. Then Germany declared war ON US. Kinda hard to remain neutral there. However, I do believe that had the USA stayed out of World War I, there wouldn't have been a World War II.

Regardless, of those in the poll, we had no business in any of them... at all. In fact, most of the Middle East conflagrations were borne out of our own meddling earlier on. Indigenous people will defend their homes... even if it means using terrorism on the home soil of who they view as the culprit. I'm not condoning the acts of terror, but I'm not surprised when they happen, and I understand WHY they did happen.

Another solid post, Strum. I would add that Roosevelt had baited Japan for over a year with economic sanctions (an act of war) for refusing to heed FDR's warning to get out of China. Henry Stimson wrote in his diary 1 month before Pearl Harbor about how they would maneuver Japan into firing the 1st shot. Our ability to read their cables and the absence of our 2 aircraft carriers in the Pacific raise suspicions they knew it was coming.

Fighting Germany wasn't going to be an easy sell, as NYC was the 3rd largest German city behind Berlin and Hamburg. Having declared war on us right after PH made it easy.

 

[Nat Algren]

Facts are on my side. You're wrong as usual because as usual you do no research to inform your opinions. Ft. Sumpter was federal property.

“Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

The south fired the first shots (real shots, not rhetorical ones) at the federal property. After that, the north held the moral high ground and could justify a response no matter how you feel about the constitutionality of secession. Manassas was months later.

That resolution was recorded in 1840. South Carolina seceded in 1860. So, what was written became null and void post secession. The North COULD NOT lay claim to property in a state that is no longer part of that country. It was property of the CSA. Buchanan understood this.

 

[naturalmwa]

That resolution was recorded in 1840. South Carolina seceded in 1860. So, what was written became null and void post secession. The North COULD NOT lay claim to property in a state that is no longer part of that country. It was property of the CSA. Buchanan understood this.

South Carolina didn't dissolve. They signed the transfer of ownership in 1840. They had no claim to the property in 1861 when they attacked first. As a libertarian, you should understand property rights better.

 

[KitingHigh]

That resolution was recorded in 1840. South Carolina seceded in 1860. So, what was written became null and void post secession. The North COULD NOT lay claim to property in a state that is no longer part of that country. It was property of the CSA. Buchanan understood this.

Save your typing. It doesn't matter how deep you bury Narural's arguments and straw men. He will still claim victory. He's like that character in Monty Python still trying to fight after all his limbs are cut off.

 

[Nat Algren]

Um, this is actually an argument for my position. The Federal government owned the property in question. That "lawyerese" was written by South Carolina on July 9th 1840. Research it, you don't have to believe me, but that will save you time in the future. I got you dead to rights, but its fun watching you come to grips with a new world view.

What's funny is you always claiming you oppose war and support the little guy. Yet, here you are again supporting a blood-thirsty tyrant lusting for a larger central government. It was no longer referred to as These United States. It became The United States. Power was consolidated into the hands of a few, which is why Lincoln is celebrated by government types.

 

[Nat Algren]

Save your typing. It doesn't matter how deep you bury Narural's arguments and straw men. He will still claim victory. He's like that character in Monty Python still trying to fight after all his limbs are cut off.

That's funny. I remember that bit.

 

[naturalmwa]

Save your typing. It doesn't matter how deep you bury Narural's arguments and straw men. He will still claim victory. He's like that character in Monty Python still trying to fight after all his limbs are cut off.

Checkmate

 

[Nat Algren]

South Carolina didn't dissolve. They signed the transfer of ownership in 1840. They had no claim to the property in 1861 when they attacked first. As a libertarian, you should understand property rights better.

It's on South Carolina soil, is it not? You are consistent...consistently wrong.

 

[naturalmwa]

What's funny is you always claiming you oppose war and support the little guy. Yet, here you are again supporting a blood-thirsty tyrant lusting for a larger central government. It was no longer referred to as These United States. It became The United States. Power was consolidated into the hands of a few, which is why Lincoln is celebrated by government types.

I believe in wars of self defence. Can't let a bully steal your fort. The Civil War was a fight for the little guy.

 

[naturalmwa]

It's on South Carolina soil, is it not? You are consistent...consistently wrong.

No, its property owned by the federal government. How can you not understand property rights and claim to be a libertarian? Its like you just woke up.

 

[Nat Algren]

No, its property owned by the federal government. How can you not understand property rights and claim to be a libertarian? Its like you just woke up.

But, they were not part of that government post December 1860. Try to keep up.

 

[naturalmwa]

But, they were not part of that government post December 1860. Try to keep up.

That has no bearing on the status of owned property. You don't lose your land when a new government takes over. Please do try to keep up and understand how ownership works.

 

[Nat Algren]

I believe in wars of self defence. Can't let a bully steal your fort. The Civil War was a fight for the little guy.

Besides, it was a provisions depot. Lincoln wrote letters to his general dreaming up ways to get the South to fire the 1st shot. Not 1 person was killed. I believe a horse was killed. For this, Lincoln tore apart a country and presided over the death of 750K men, women and children. Comparatively speaking with today's population #'s, that is equivalent to 8.5 million dead. The end result was a consolidation of power that Hitler championed in Mein Kampf. You're in great company here. Hitler spoke of weakening the provinces to amass greater control.

 

[Nat Algren]

That has no bearing on the status of owned property. You don't lose your land when a new government takes over. Please do try to keep up and understand how ownership works.

Actually, you do.

 

[Nat Algren]

Save your typing. It doesn't matter how deep you bury Narural's arguments and straw men. He will still claim victory. He's like that character in Monty Python still trying to fight after all his limbs are cut off.

He's starting to take on the persona of Johnny Danger in Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby.

 

[naturalmwa]

Besides, it was a provisions depot. Lincoln wrote letters to his general dreaming up ways to get the South to fire the 1st shot. Not 1 person was killed. I believe a horse was killed. For this, Lincoln tore apart a country and presided over the death of 750K men, women and children. Comparatively speaking with today's population #'s, that is equivalent to 8.5 million dead. The end result was a consolidation of power that Hitler championed in Mein Kampf. You're in great company here. Hitler spoke of weakening the provinces to amass greater control.

So you admit they fired first? The rest tis' but a scratch.

 

[naturalmwa]

Actually, you do.

Hmm, how very statist of you. Nice.

 

[Nat Algren]

So you admit they fired first? The rest tis' but a scratch.

Having trouble seeing the forest through the trees, huh?