Top Ten Outrages of the Past Half Millenium

[Imran Siddiqui]

So, because the outcome was favorable/desirable in your opinion, the methods used to accomplish that outcome doesn't matter?

AND brilliant. Without him, the war may have gone much, much different. Remember, his taking of Atlanta was Lincoln's Christmas Gift, which sent his numbers skyrocketing when people thought McClellan may have won in 1864.

So, because the outcome was favorable/desirable in your opinion, the methods used to accomplish that outcome doesn't matter?

Well not doesn't matter, but is definetly overshadowed by the favorable outcome.

[Al B. Sure!]

Our strategy with the Native Americans was successful and now we have space for suburbia - does the end justify the mean?

i dont get it... usually when someone asks if the ends justified the means, the ends is a positive thing. i'm lost...

[Imran Siddiqui]

the ends is a positive thing.

Yeah, suburbia. Better than that hole in the ****ing ground that we out to bulldoze over and build a parking lot, Philadelphia that you live in.

[Q Classic]

wait, imran... you mean you weren't the one with the baby girl? huh?

and albert, that's not why i said the burning of atlanta was bad. i said it was bad because atlanta didn't build properly like chicago did, and because they missed brett rhutler and scarlet o'hara.

[Al B. Sure!]

What did Sherman do that was so bad. from what ive read, the worst thing he did, from a war crimes standpoint, was send captured confederates out to clear a minefield (by basically walking across it and digging occasionally) but none of them died so it came to nothing. so what else was so bad? Comandeering private property without giving proper receipts? burning down some factories and plantations?

[Q Classic]

albert, i'm not saying the burning was bad. i'm saying that what happened afterwards, which sherman didn't really have much part of, was bad. his burning of atlanta led to:

1. rebuilding it--but with no strong leadership, it became a smear across north georgia.
2. that damned gone with the wind story, which is so much crap.

[GePap]

Oh wow, Sherman burned down a city! What a monster!

Wat, the people were not still in it? He didn't loot and piullage for days killing everyone until the river ran red with blood and people could walk ankle deep in it? He didn;t go in, behead all the men, make piles of their heads, and draggged the women and children into slavery? He didn;t salt the fields around the city? nor burn the crops and crop stores?

Then honestly, what Sherman did ranks WAY, WAY, WAY down in the scale of real wartime terror- the only difference is that Sherman was the only one to ever do it to a bunch of Americans on American soil- as far as for Civil war terror, what went in in Missiouri and Kansas during the war is way worse.

And all these acts are rather generic compared to the history of war before or after.

[Kuciwalker]

GePap - read Q's post.

[Q Classic]

ok, see, you guys here don't seem to realize that in the list i've made of the worst atrocities of all time, let's see what they were:

1. braves not winning the world series in '91.
2. braves sucking in the postseason.
3. occupation of korea.
4. sherman burning atlanta.
5. gone with the wind.

only #3 is a real complaint. jeebus, if you guys can't seem to take a joke.

[GePap]

Phoneix is a far worse example of endless spreading cancers-that and LA, and no one burned those down early.

beside, the Atanta legacy could be solved with a simple thermonuclear device.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
only #3 is a real complaint. jeebus, if you guys can't seem to take a joke.

HELLO!

"Your so vain, you think this song is all about you, your so vain, your so vain, you think this song is all about you, don't you, don;t you?"

Notice how Verto made some serious comments about Sherman-thus making serious comments A-OK.

[Berzerker]

Why are some posters mentioning the genocide of N American Indians and ignoring the rest of the hemisphere? Hell, the Spanish were butchering Indians twice as long if not longer...

[Q Classic]

so i see. he missed the point, too. especially since when i brought it up it was followed by that entire rhett butler thing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why are some posters mentioning the genocide of N American Indians and ignoring the rest of the hemisphere? Hell, the Spanish were butchering Indians twice as long if not longer...

Plenty of people have mentioned the rest of the Americas-in fact, my number 1 was the annahilation of the NA, which means all native Americans (unless that means only N American natives-but then that is your issue, not mine ).

Q- making a joke about something does not all of a sudden make all serious discussion on a topic moot! Besides, you know there are crazy southerners for whom that is not a joke addition.

[Q Classic]

look. ranking "the worst outrages of the past millenium" is an exercise in masturbation without the satisfying conclusion. why?

what's the most tragic outrage to you might be a small scale thing compared to what someone else considers. say your mother is killed right before your eyes by a drunk driver running her over. the drunk driver gets to go free, because he convinces the jury that it was some diabetic ****. is that not a great outrage? now say that none of your relatives had any part in the holocaust--they weren't in the ovens, in the camps, or pushing people in. to them, sure, it's a tragic history. but it's all it is. it's text and photographs, intangible. the blood that splattered into their face from their squished mother? that's tangible.

life sucks. so does the world. ranking the hell that the world puts people through in scale of what's worse than something else...

it's like tasting sixty different kinds of foul diarrhea and then ranking them in vileness.