Political Potlock I

clark · 2006-08-30 10:57:22

If media is biased, and media is generally the source (tm) of information, then how does anyone really know what the truth is?

you get a cookie if you shrug and realize you don't. No one does.

It's like someone turned off the logic portion of minds everywhere.

You're all predisposed to believe whatever it is you want to believe. Listening to you complain that others are biased because they don't spout your own biased view is just inane.

fact - one group of gith with another group of yahoo's.
fact - people not really involved in the actual fighting die.
fact - each side blames the other side.

everything else is just the prisim you use to understand the who what where and why.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-30 12:33:36

That is because the Media is our source of information, they are the information gatherers, I am not, I just form my opnion base on the information they supply, and they better be as unbiased as possible, I don't want to hear about them doctoring their photographs by some other media source or bloggers, If I do, that means the professional Media is not being professional, and it seems to me that Reuters has been distorting the facts to make a terrorist group, Hezbollah look good, and to make Israel look bad. It is one thing for Israel to look bad because of its own actions, but quite another for it to look bad because the Media deliberately makes up false stories, doctors pictures and presents a biased spin to make Israel look bad. Its not a matter of my opinion versus their opinion, they are a supply of information, it is their responsibility to make sure their editorial opinion doesn't get mixed in with the facts they report. It is not up to Reuters to solve the Middle East conflict the way they think it should be solved, it is their responsibility to get the facts straight, if they can't do that, they don't deserve to be in business. You'd better believe that it makes a difference if the Media reports the facts as they are, or it they dress up the facts and make up facts of their own to support their position about what should be done about Israel.

dicktice · 2006-08-30 16:24:28

Okay, I tried, but I've run out of rebuttals regarding unifying all the religions around a no-go reward (fill in the place) after death to intentional harm-inflicting suicide bombers. But, you desenters will have to admit, Osama and Co. are unifying the the democracies of the World, however reluctantly, in mutual self defence against this kind of attack by the terrorist forces.

idiom · 2006-08-30 22:24:25

Have a read of Unrestricted Warfare. Its a fascinating book. It reckons the world isn't particuarly unifying around anything, we are just moving into a new style of warfare, one that mostly takes place away from battlefield. Now currency speculation is considered just as much a weapon as a cruise missile.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-31 02:05:43

Let try it. I speculate that maybe the British pound will drop in value to two cents on the American dollar tomorrow. Did I start a panic now?

I think people speculate on currency because they want to make a profit, not because they want to wage war.

idiom · 2006-08-31 06:06:13

Then you are ignoring a valuable weapon and an entire battlefield.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-31 16:51:22

For anyone to act on other than one's economic interest is bound to be expensive, and might as well be futile. If a country were to hold onto dollars while the value of the dollar is rising and then suddenly sell them all in an attempt to cause a sell off, that country may find that it has just lost alot of money. He may temporarily depress the value of the dollar and the other investors seeing sound fundamentals in the economy will reguard this as a buying opportunity, will buy the dollar at the depressed exchange rate and drive the value back up. Now the country trying to conduct this type of monetary warfare just lost some money in an attempt to sabotage the dollar that failed. Investors will almost always have more money than the country attempting this sabotage, and if they see sound reasons to buy the dollar, and they'll see some other country, that doesn't like the US, selling dollars all at once, they'll say, "Oh wonderful, heres my chance to make additional profits as these dopes are dumping dollars for no good reason. Well their stupidity is my gain." In general people buy dollars because they want to buy American goods. People who attempt to wreck an economy by selling dollars abruptly will usually fail, they have to buy the dollars first. In order to buy enough dollars to have an effect on the exchange rate, it will cost them alot of money, money that may otherwise go into weapons systems, and if they sell the dollars they have all at once, they won't get as much money back as they would have had they sold them gradually. If the US economy is not weak, then foreigners buying and selling dollars will only cause small blips in market currecny fluxuations that are soon forgotten. investors tend to act in response to market fundamentals rather than in panic because Libia is selling large amounts of dollars for some reason they can't fathom.

idiom · 2006-09-01 00:38:07

The Southeast Asian crash was generally linked to private investors messing with slightly bubbled economies.

Elements of financial warfare would always be linked with other fields of attack if not with open war. Possibly the most effective weapon being used against Al Qaeda at the moment is seizure of assets and close tracking of funds transfers. Its a bit early to tell. The same tactics are being used against Hamas, how they will turn out is yet to be seen.

It would be extremely difficult to disrupt a major economy directly, however a cascade recession could be feasibly setup by private (non-state) interests using terror, currency dumping and various infrastructure attacks in a co-ordinated fashion.

What effect on the American warmachine would a hack into Halliburtons accounts create?

Could China's sustained exchange rate bias be considered a form of non-military warfare? Although its obviously not crushing Americas economy it may be retarding it from its potential in Chinas favour.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-01 09:39:50

Start a war with the United States you pay a price, you cannot get off scot free. If someone tries a non-military conflict, we can always escalate in into a military one and bring the other side down with us as well. There was always that temptation through out the cold war of "Maybe we can get that shot in and escape retaliation." You remember how Israel reacted to the hostage taking at their borders, that is something called, "the straw that broke the camels back." There are some people that seem to think that you can keep adding straws onto the camels back and so long as you add it one straw at a time, the camel can support millions of tons of straw on its back. The key thing your talking about is whether some enemy can attack us without our knowing that we are being attacked, and if we don't notice this attack, the damage can't be all that great, and there is that other risk.

As far as we know the Great Depression wasn't an attack on Germany, but it did weaken Germany somewhat, enough to get Hitler into power and we know what damage he wrecked on the world economy. If China precipitates a recession, they might really be sorry at the reaction they get from us. If you destabilize a countries economy, you also destabilize a countries political situation and for a country as well armed as we are, that can be very dangerous for all concerned, including China.

DonPanic · 2006-10-14 09:49:39

Start a war with the United States you pay a price, you cannot get off scot free. If someone tries a non-military conflict, we can always escalate in into a military one and bring the other side down with us as well.

haHa, big muscles, You
The US Army toughtly tries to replace end contract soldiers to serve in Iraq.
You can waste a country by air war, but if you have to control lands, that a big problem. By the way, are you quite sure that the US army does control Iraq ?

You remember how Israel reacted to the hostage taking at their borders, that is something called, "the straw that broke the camels back."

Yes, man, Tsahal destroyed innocents'homes and cities, didn't get rid of shia milicias, didn't get the hostages back, suffered too many losses to the israeli public opinion which wants the commenders to be prosecuted, CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP

If China precipitates a recession, they might really be sorry at the reaction they get from us.

As far as I know the asiatic mind and strategic concepts, China will keep as good relationships with USA until they will be the world leading nation, as long as it will take. When done, China will take back control over Taiwan, as sure as Kansas is a part of USA.
Now, the largest part of the US debt is hold by foreigners, if there is a mistrust in dollar, the US Dollar might not even worth the paper price it's printed over.

dicktice · 2006-11-11 17:56:08

By the time China "takes over Taiwan" I predict there will be little to distinguish them from Taiwan. You are so ... 1900's DonPanic. The times they are a'changing, and tsk, tsk, your outmoded prejudices are a bit obious, I'm afraid..

DonPanic · 2006-11-12 05:12:45

By the time China "takes over Taiwan" I predict there will be little to distinguish them from Taiwan. You are so ... 1900's DonPanic. The times they are a'changing, and tsk, tsk, your outmoded prejudices are a bit obious, I'm afraid..

I'm not, large majority of Taiwan chineses feels they are chinese, there aren't such differences between a Shangai or a Taipei inhabitant, much taiwanese businessmen have heavy investments in continental China, so that the economic and cultural links remain much stronger than you think.
Chineses are born trademen, if staying a reluctant province of China becomes much more interesting than turning to be an hostile foreign dwarf China 2, Taiwaneses wich favour business, esay travels to see separated families members and stop to support the independentist parties in Taiwan.
That's XXIrst century realpolitic, Mr Dicktice, and I'm quite sure that today's continental China leaders don't lack political realism.

You have here datas on taiwaneses investments in continental China showing that Taiwan is in good ranking among top foreign investissors

dicktice · 2006-11-12 08:54:53

My meaning exactly: they will be indistinguishable, commerce-wise, thus avoiding the "takeover" you aluded to in your post. So we see eye-to-eye. Great photo by the way. How do you do it?

DonPanic · 2006-11-12 09:04:27

KMT still remains the main Taiwan's political party

Great photo by the way. How do you do it?

You find a picture adress on the web, copy it, press img insert the adress then press img again

dicktice · 2006-11-21 07:47:08

I'm sorry to be dense, but what is img?

Rxke · 2006-11-22 02:14:26

one of the 'buttons' above the errr... 'letterbox' in which you type your answers to post them. You can mouse over it to see how to use it..

[img]some direct http:// link to a pic[/img]

(I disabled BBCode in this post otherwise you wouldn't see the code but the Bulletin-board rendering-engine would try to actually put up a picture called http:/link to a pic, heehee

RobertDyck · 2006-12-05 08:08:48

Moving discussion from "Apropos".

And America loses if the Democrats choose to keep their campaign promises of ending the war on a tight schedule of 4 to 6 months regardless of the outcome, because the outcome will most likely be a defeat for America if you go that route.
George Bush does have one card left to play: If the Democrats defund the War, then George Bush and Dick Cheney can then resign, thus leaving President Nancy Pelosi to lose the war, and then ... and then a new republic challenger will run against Nancy Pelosi and say she deserves to be defeated because she is a loser, she was the olny female Preseident to deliberatly lose a war.

America lost the war before they even started.

Remember the US task force against Iraq in 1991 was led by US General Norman Schwarzkopf? President George Bush Sr. gave the military the command to ensure they had a clear objective, that the war would not go on and on like other conflicts, and would not become bogged down like Vietnam. They did, they succeeded. When General Schwarzkopf said the war was over, time to go home, that meant the war was over, time to go home. One would think you would listen to an American general. But no, some bright spark in Washington decided to they liked the fact Iran had enlisted the help of the Kurds in the Iran-Iraq war and wanted to do the same. Then after the war was over the obvious occurred: the Iraq government punished them for not only aiding the enemy in time of war, but actively combating against their own government in time of war. That's treason. The American punishment for treason is death so don't be surprised when a brutal regime like Iraq executed them brutally. Then someone in Washington decided to help the Kurds, and did actually ask the UN to create a no-fly zone over northern Iraq. The UN said no, but Washington decided to declare the no-fly zone anyway and ordered the military to enforce it. That's as much a defiance of the UN as anything Iraq did. When Iraq defended themselves, the American military engaged in raids against Iraq. The 1991 war was justified and authorized by the UN, but again when General Schwarzkopf said it was over, that meant it was over. After al-Qaeda attacked on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush decided to attack Iraq. Iraq was not involved, did not fund al-Qaeda, in fact Osama bin Laden offered al-Qaeda's help during the 1991 war. Osama wants the entire Arab world to be ruled by fundamentalist Islam, he hated the secular regime of Saddam Hussein. To put a fine point on it, Iraq was the enemy of your enemy; by attacking Iraq you aided al-Qaeda. When the US asked the UN Security Council's permission to invade Iraq, they said no. In fact the president of the Security Council said if the US attacked, the UN may have to take active measures to stop them. That was very dangerous; luckily no member of the Security Council wanted to defend Saddam. It does mean the US invasion of Iraq has no more justification that then Iraq invasion of Kuwait. When the invasion did occur, the people of Iraq expected US forces to come in, take out Saddam, and get out. They expected Iraq would be left for the people of Iraq themselves to rebuild their own government; not a long-term occupation. Now the people of Iraq are fighting against what they see as a foreign occupation, and a puppet government installed by that occupier. The current government of Iraq has no hope of survival; Iraq is already in a civil war, as soon US forces withdraw that government will fall. There's nothing you can do to stop it, the only question is when. How long do you want to participate in the Iraqi civil war? How long do you want to wait before the installed puppet government in Iraq is taken down by the Iraqi people? Remember I believe in democracy; that means the people of Iraq must decide what form of government they want, how it's structured, and who the officials are. Any foreign power has no right to any say in the matter; particularly not one that invaded with it's military. Some Americans think the fact they invaded gives them the right to dictate the government and first choice for rebuilding contracts. That's backwards, the fact that America invaded means they have no right to any say, no right to any benefit, and last pick for any rebuilding contracts. It's time the world starts to treat war as a crime, not something glorious.

If both President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney resigned, the presidency would fall on House Speaker Dennis Hastert. The line of succession after him is Senate President Pro Tem Ted Stevens, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr., etc.
Reference: US Constitution online
The House Majority Leader isn't in line, so Nancy Pelosi can't become president. I'm Canadian, why is it necessary for me to look this stuff up for an American? What did clark say again?

This is one of the advantages of a parliamentary democracy. If the House looses confidence in the head of government, a federal election is called. It's called a vote of non-confidence. There is the quirk that if the Prime Minister resigns, the majority party in the House holds a leadership convention. The new leader is automatically appointed Prime Minister without a federal election. However, it's Canadian tradition that when that happens an election is called in just a few months, usually 3 months.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-05 10:56:22

Moving discussion from "Apropos".
And America loses if the Democrats choose to keep their campaign promises of ending the war on a tight schedule of 4 to 6 months regardless of the outcome, because the outcome will most likely be a defeat for America if you go that route.
George Bush does have one card left to play: If the Democrats defund the War, then George Bush and Dick Cheney can then resign, thus leaving President Nancy Pelosi to lose the war, and then ... and then a new republic challenger will run against Nancy Pelosi and say she deserves to be defeated because she is a loser, she was the olny female Preseident to deliberatly lose a war.
America lost the war before they even started.

Did the United States lose the War the Same way Hitler Lost World War II, with Hitler in a bunker of his bombed out Capital with the German Armed forces mostly destroyed?
Did the United States lose the War in the same manner as the Confederate States of America, when Lee Surrendered his Army to Grant?
If not, then the United States did not really lose this war in any military sense, our armed forces were not destroyed and the United States was not conquered! What did happen is that we were betrayed from within, by the US Media that wanted to see us lose, and who used their biased coverage of the war to undermine support of the war at home to such a degree that Democrats would be elected in both houses of Congress. The full story of the War was not gotten out, only the selected portions of it, that favored the undermining of moral and boosted and encouraged the enemy to fight on and harder. The Media, it seemed to me was always more concerned about who was in power in the corridors of Washington rather than who won the War. Since victory in Iraq meant victory for the Republicans, the Media therefore wanted to see the United States lose like in Vietnam. The Vietnam Antiwar movement has always been the Democrats preffered path to power. But America's dissatisfaction has always been that we weren't winning, not that were weren't losing. The only people who would like to see America lose are the Democrats, that is how they get into power, and losing is easier for them than winning as they have no military competance for achieving actual military victories on the battleground, and that is why the Iraq study group contains no Generals or military experts, what they were really look for was a palitable way to lose the war, something the American Public wouldn't mind and which would be a slave to their pride as they forced American forces to retreat!

Remember the US task force against Iraq in 1991 was led by US General Norman Schwarzkopf? President George Bush Sr. gave the military the command to ensure they had a clear objective, that the war would not go on and on like other conflicts, and would not become bogged down like Vietnam. They did, they succeeded. When General Schwarzkopf said the war was over, time to go home, that meant the war was over, time to go home. One would think you would listen to an American general. But no, some bright spark in Washington decided to they liked the fact Iran had enlisted the help of the Kurds in the Iran-Iraq war and wanted to do the same.

Well, that's because we are a democracy with civilian leaders, not a military dictatorship!
All this Schwarzkopf "hero worship", seems so unseemly for a liberal like yourself. Find a military expert that supports your conclusions and then you go on to suggest that he should be treated like he was God, and that everyone should listen to him. Would you want General Norman Schwarzkopf running the United States of America?

Then after the war was over the obvious occurred: the Iraq government punished them for not only aiding the enemy in time of war, but actively combating against their own government in time of war. That's treason.

Treason against Saddam Hussein, not against Iraq! The Kurds were fighting for their freedom. I don't happen to think that Saddam Hussein was Iraq as apparently you do from that statement

The American punishment for treason is death so don't be surprised when a brutal regime like Iraq executed them brutally.

It was just protecting its power nothing more.

RobertDyck · 2006-12-05 20:05:03

The war against Iraq was over once it was kicked out if Kuwait. What's right is right, it doesn't matter who said so. I just quote Norman Schwarzkopf in the hope that an American will listen to another American.

You also talk about the Civil War as if it was something glorious. I challenge you to go into Georgia and say that; or any state of the Deep South.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-06 01:07:34

The war against Iraq was over once it was kicked out if Kuwait. What's right is right, it doesn't matter who said so. I just quote Norman Schwarzkopf in the hope that an American will listen to another American.
You also talk about the Civil War as if it was something glorious. I challenge you to go into Georgia and say that; or any state of the Deep South.

Where was the word "glorious" in this sentence?
Did the United States lose the War in the same manner as the Confederate States of America, when Lee Surrendered his Army to Grant?
But now that you mention it, there was some glory in abolishing slavery, and the point was the South was truly defeated, their Press stood foresquare in support of the Southern Cause of secession and slavery, and we had to defeat them by destroying their army. The Civil War was the only example where some Americans suffered defeat and actually lost a war.

We "Lost" Vietnam mainly because some of our politicians felt that forcing that War to deliberately be lost by our side was a cheap and easy way to get elected. Clearly the public wasn't happy about the War's prolongued nature, but their was two things that could be done about it, one was to find a "Ulysses S Grant" that knew the right strategy for winning it, and the other more easier thing for the Democrats is to deliberately lose the war so we could get out of it. Being a loser is a winning formula for many democrats, losing wars becomes addictive for them, and whenever there is a new War, they always look for ways that the War cannot be won. I'm just an old fashioned American I guess, I prefer my side to win. Most of the people we fight against are really bad anyway. You have terrorists on the otherside and our losing means their winning and those "pacifists" that want us to lose are actually helping out the terrorists with their propaganda.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-06 01:11:50

You have here datas on taiwaneses investments in continental China showing that Taiwan is in good ranking among top foreign investissors

What the heck?! That looks like an Orion Spaceship with a pusher plate on the bottom! Its about the right size for one too. What are those Chinese up to, I wonder? Is that really an office building, or are they trying to beat us to Mars?

RobertDyck · 2006-12-06 07:27:09

Where was the word "glorious" in this sentence?
Did the United States lose the War in the same manner as the Confederate States of America, when Lee Surrendered his Army to Grant?
But now that you mention it, there was some glory in abolishing slavery, and the point was the South was truly defeated, their Press stood foursquare in support of the Southern Cause of secession and slavery, and we had to defeat them by destroying their army. The Civil War was the only example where some Americans suffered defeat and actually lost a war.

The United States did not win the Civil War, the northern states did. The southern states lost. That's the nature when you have a civil war, the United States as a "single nation united under God" lost. The cost was horrendous. And it wasn't fought over slavery. I worked in Colonial Heights, Virginia, for 6 months. I lived in the town of Chester. Both are suburbs of Richmond. Try talking to southerners about the War. Most southerners will tell you the War was fought over the right to secede, not slavery. President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill into law permitting slavery to continue. Actually it wasn't fought over either issue, it was about power and money. Lincoln was the first northern president, and it was a time when most congressmen came from the north for the first time in American history. After the south ruling since Independence, northern congressmen abused their authority. They imposed new heavy taxes on industries that only exist in the south. The south was resentful over loosing power, but taxes on their industry undermined the power base of rich businessmen. Did you know the south was proceeding with a Supreme Court case to support their right to secede? They were going to leave peacefully. However, some general in the south said military bases in the south would go with them, but Abraham Lincoln said no. Imagine the south seceding to become a separate country but the north maintaining a military base within their territory? Not going to happen. Unfortunately, President Lincoln sent reinforcements from the north into Fort Sumter, which resulted in the southern general invading to capture it, which resulted in all-out Civil War.

History of the American Civil War became very important to me in 1995 when Canada held its second referendum over Quebec separation. There was a referendum in 1980 but the Parti Québécois claimed it wasn't fair, they demanded another. PQ leader at the time, Jacques Parizeau, claimed Canadian military bases would become part of Quebec when they separated, including the CF-18 fighter jets stationed there. He actually went to soldiers stationed in Quebec trying to convert their loyalty to a separate Quebec. One rich businessman in Winnipeg put an ad in the newspaper to recruit officers for a private battalion to force Quebec to remain part of Canada. Canadian federal law prohibits a privately held military, so I'm sure the police quietly had a talk with him, but his ad made the front page. All this duplicated events that lead to the American Civil War. Luckily, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien chose to campaign to convince Quebec voters to choose to stay in Canada rather than some military confrontation. You have no idea how close we came.

The northern portion of Quebec, Ungava, held their own referendum prior to the Quebec referendum. They voted 95% to separate from Quebec and remain part of Canada. The Cree voted 98% to remain part of Canada, and demanded they take the big hydro dams with them. That would mean Quebec would leave with only the territory they entered Confederation with, and they would loose all those valuable resources. Most dramatically, the English speaking half of Montréal wanted to remain with Canada as well. The Parti Québécois didn't like loosing the north, but there's no way they would accept loosing a chunk of Montréal. They tried to claim Quebec was indivisible, but the Canadian constitution doesn't have provisions for a province to separate either. Any argument that Canada is divisible also applies to Quebec.

The points I want to make are: if an American politician tried today to convince soldiers to switch loyalty like Jacques Parizeau did in 1995, he would be arrested for treason. Canada didn't, they left him alone. The night of the referendum he got drunk and made a statement that the loss was due to the "ethnic vote", meaning Quebecers who aren't of 100% French descent. That statement destroyed his political career so he effectively took himself out; any further action would only make him a martyr. Canada dealt with it peacefully. Well, mostly peaceful; Montréal did riot the night after the referendum. The other point is the United States did not "win" the Civil War. It cost more lives than any war up to that date, infrastructure was destroyed, and the principle of "land of the free" was also destroyed.

We "Lost" Vietnam mainly because some of our politicians felt that forcing that War to deliberately be lost by our side was a cheap and easy way to get elected. Clearly the public wasn't happy about the War's prolongued nature

The public wanted an end, the politicians followed. You have it backwards. I was born in 1962, I lived through "flower power". It was a grassroots movement by young people, mostly baby boomers who didn't want to die in a far off war to support the power of an elite few. America was founded on the principle of freedom and self-determination, military force to enforce imperial power overseas is what they fought to get away from, the war in Vietnam meant America became exactly what independence fought against. Furthermore, the American war of Independence was a guerrilla war, consequently many Americans know how a poorly equipped but determined local population can defeat an imperial military. The people of Vietnam fought a guerrilla war against America. Those who studied history knew the Vietnamese people would win as much as America won against England. There were several attempts to win a military victory, don't think there wasn't every attempt to win. President Richard Nixon went all in.

By the way, an "old fashioned American" would be an isolationist.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-06 09:00:35

Where was the word "glorious" in this sentence?
Did the United States lose the War in the same manner as the Confederate States of America, when Lee Surrendered his Army to Grant?
But now that you mention it, there was some glory in abolishing slavery, and the point was the South was truly defeated, their Press stood foursquare in support of the Southern Cause of secession and slavery, and we had to defeat them by destroying their army. The Civil War was the only example where some Americans suffered defeat and actually lost a war.
The United States did not win the Civil War, the northern states did. The southern states lost. That's the nature when you have a civil war, the United States as a "single nation united under God" lost. The cost was horrendous. And it wasn't fought over slavery. I worked in Colonial Heights, Virginia, for 6 months. I lived in the town of Chester. Both are suburbs of Richmond. Try talking to southerners about the War. Most southerners will tell you the War was fought over the right to succeed, not slavery. President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill into law permitting slavery to continue. Actually it wasn't fought over either issue, it was about power and money. Lincoln was the first northern president, and it was a time when most congressmen came from the north for the first time in American history.

Actually the first Northern President was President John Adams, he was the second president of the United States and he was from Massasschesetts.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-06 10:27:39

Where was the word "glorious" in this sentence?
Did the United States lose the War in the same manner as the Confederate States of America, when Lee Surrendered his Army to Grant?
But now that you mention it, there was some glory in abolishing slavery, and the point was the South was truly defeated, their Press stood foursquare in support of the Southern Cause of secession and slavery, and we had to defeat them by destroying their army. The Civil War was the only example where some Americans suffered defeat and actually lost a war.
The United States did not win the Civil War, the northern states did.

No, actually the United States did win, by preventing the Southern States from seceding from the Union, the Union was preserved and so the United States won.

The southern states lost. That's the nature when you have a civil war, the United States as a "single nation united under God" lost.

That can only happen if the Confederate States Won and achieved their independence, they didn't win and so the United States won by keeping itself together. I don't know what else you want, certainly making compromises with slavery was less than ideal.

The cost was horrendous. And it wasn't fought over slavery. I worked in Colonial Heights, Virginia, for 6 months. I lived in the town of Chester. Both are suburbs of Richmond. Try talking to southerners about the War. Most southerners will tell you the War was fought over the right to succeed, not slavery.

Well then that's a different bunch of Southerners than I know. For the most part Southerners tend to be more patriotic than many Northerners are, that was not the case during the Civil War, as they were the ones who were rebelling. It was about slavery you know, take away the slavery issue and there is no civil war. Now tell me honestly, who's more likely to fly the stars and stripes, someone living in the suburbs of Richmond Virginia, or someone living in San Francisco? San Francisco didn't even want to host a World War II Battleship, because they were antiwar, this shows a lack of appreciation they have for the Navy, which played a part in preventing San Francisco from being occupied by the Japanese.

President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill into law permitting slavery to continue. Actually it wasn't fought over either issue, it was about power and money.

Well, owning a slave is certainly a matter of power.

Lincoln was the first northern president, and it was a time when most congressmen came from the north for the first time in American history.

The Ironic thing is that Lincoln was actually a Southerner as am I.

clark · 2006-12-06 12:54:03

Example: Average American.

This is all quite facinating, and quite reaffirming. I stand by my previous cultural impressions.

I like this part best:

Well then that's a different bunch of Southerners than I know. For the most part Southerners tend to be more patriotic than many Northerners are, that was not the case during the Civil War, as they were the ones who were rebelling. It was about slavery you know, take away the slavery issue and there is no civil war. Now tell me honestly, who's more likely to fly the stars and stripes, someone living in the suburbs of Richmond Virginia, or someone living in San Francisco? San Francisco didn't even want to host a World War II Battleship, because they were antiwar, this shows a lack of appreciation they have for the Navy, which played a part in preventing San Francisco from being occupied by the Japanese.

I had to read it a couple of times, not out of interest, but at the unmitagated failure that is this attempt at english grammer. It's like one giant train wreck of stream of consiousness that manages to only hurt the innocent spectator.

And Rob, I thought canadians only got violent at hockey games!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2006-08-30 10:57:22

Re: Political Potlock I

#102 2006-08-30 12:33:36

Re: Political Potlock I

#103 2006-08-30 16:24:28

Re: Political Potlock I

#104 2006-08-30 22:24:25

Re: Political Potlock I

#105 2006-08-31 02:05:43

Re: Political Potlock I

#106 2006-08-31 06:06:13

Re: Political Potlock I

#107 2006-08-31 16:51:22

Re: Political Potlock I

#108 2006-09-01 00:38:07

Re: Political Potlock I

#109 2006-09-01 09:39:50

Re: Political Potlock I

#110 2006-10-14 09:49:39

Re: Political Potlock I

#111 2006-11-11 17:56:08

Re: Political Potlock I

#112 2006-11-12 05:12:45

Re: Political Potlock I

#113 2006-11-12 08:54:53

Re: Political Potlock I

#114 2006-11-12 09:04:27

Re: Political Potlock I

#115 2006-11-21 07:47:08

Re: Political Potlock I

#116 2006-11-22 02:14:26

Re: Political Potlock I

#117 2006-12-05 08:08:48

Re: Political Potlock I

#118 2006-12-05 10:56:22

Re: Political Potlock I

#119 2006-12-05 20:05:03

Re: Political Potlock I

#120 2006-12-06 01:07:34

Re: Political Potlock I

#121 2006-12-06 01:11:50

Re: Political Potlock I

#122 2006-12-06 07:27:09

Re: Political Potlock I

#123 2006-12-06 09:00:35

Re: Political Potlock I

#124 2006-12-06 10:27:39

Re: Political Potlock I

#125 2006-12-06 12:54:03

Re: Political Potlock I

Board footer