Which US Wars Were Justified?

[Ramo]

I was referring to Israel's more recent conflicts with the Palestinians/Lebanese, not the initial war.

[DarkCloud]

CHEGITZ-

chegitz- I have not read the book, but from what you say- it seems biased… However, I will ignore that. The Revolutionary war was fought by merchants- there WAS some class struggle; however, the merchants, upper class and middle classes chaired the Revolutionary War in America.

Washington WAS NOT elected general- he was the only candidate who showed up in a uniform for the job.

The social changes after the revolution were merely superficial- in the day to day world the 'peasants' (lower classes) no longer bowed to their 'betters (upper classes) when they passed them in the street.

Yes, you cold say the document of the declaration was for freedom- and yes, you would at least be 1/2 right- but Washington WAS NOT elected general of the army.

As well, the lower classes revolted (which is what began the war) because of the detrimental economic conditions they faced, having their farms seized because of debts, sick of indentured servitude and slavery, etc.

The lower classes did not revolt- the merchants led the Boston Tea Party (they bribed the guards of the ships rather than destroying the doors) the merchants (John Hancock) and large slave owners (George Washington, TJefferson) led the war effort.

Farms were seized because of debts more AFTER the war than before it.

People were not sick of slavery- Washington wanted slavery, Jefferson wanted it (Burr and Hamilton did not however [YEAH! Federalist Power!!!] and Federalists were more like the british than the supposedly 'liberal' democratic-republicans.)

Indentured servitude was NOT an issue in the war- the indentured servitude in the war was mostly ending at the time anyway- slavery was more profitable (servants commonly ran away) thus, they did not have much power.

Anyways, just look at the war- most of the American's leaders' were rich wealthy upper-classmen, Benedict Arnold, Lee, Madison, Monroe, etc.
-
Anyways, slavery didn't exist in Britain at this time, and yet it DID in america- what does that say bout the americans dislike of slavery? (Oh yes, they realized that it was immoral, and we do have documents, but the sheer fact that about 50% of the founding fathers owned slaves accounts for the fact that they wanted to keep slavery.)

[faded glory]

Darkcloud.

There was nothing our founding fathers could do about slavery. Yes T.Jefferson and G. Washington owned slaves. But I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who once said "The only good slave..is a well fed and healthy one".


Anyway back to slavery and why the FF could do nothing about it. The South was politically and economically stronger than the north during the framing of the constitution. Southern leaders had specifically warned the delegates not to discuss slavery. And if they did, the south would secede and the Union would not have been.

Also part of the comprise was the north needed the souths money to pay off war debts. So there was no choice for the north.

[Ramo]

The lower classes did not revolt- the merchants led the Boston Tea Party (they bribed the guards of the ships rather than destroying the doors) the merchants (John Hancock) and large slave owners (George Washington, TJefferson) led the war effort.

Ever hear of Bacon's Rebellion? The Regulator movement? The Boston Massacre? che is absolutely correct in that the lower classes significantly contributed to the revolution.

[faded glory]

concerning the Ethiopian-Eritrean war.


It was purely an accident. The city of Badme which the war was fought over had a population of about 1,000 and an economic value of about 30.00 us dollars a year.

In 1997 Eritrean armed forces backed by the Chezk army equipment moved into the city. There excuse was as follows:

Pre-Colonial maps from the 1930's (I will find them for you) Indicate that the city of Badme was well inside the then..province of Eritrea. But modern maps......for some reason showed that Badme...was actually in Ethiopia. The dillema was confusing. It would later turn out that there were actually 2 cities named Badme. The one in Eritrea was completly oblitered by the Italians in the 1930's and forgotten about. The one in Ethiopia...was now the one the Eritreans thought belonged to them(the second badme in Eritrea..had a tiny population of a few dozen Hence the confusion on why both cities werent on the local map).

So when Eritrean troops moved in to take what they thought, was theres it would be the begining of one of the most stupid and bloodiest wars in all of African history. By 1999.....300,000 had died on both sides and the front line looked like somthing out of world war I. Finally in early 2000.....Ethiopians broke through and forced a peace deal.

Its still a shaky situation.......there is still dispute over that city.

[orange]

I voted for all but Persian Gulf, Spanish American, Indian wars, and Vietnam.

I think the American revolution war borderline, but I voted for it as justified because eventually it would have happened no matter what, just came sooner because of some exaggeration.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Hoek
Why was the state of Israel created?

Like I said, not going into Israel. This discussion would then become completely about Israel, instead of the economic causes of wars. It would distract from this discussion instead of leading to understanding. I hope you can understand and accept that.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
CHEGITZ-

Lower case, please. I'm not important enough to warrent capital letters.

The Revolutionary war was fought by merchants- there WAS some class struggle; however, the merchants, upper class and middle classes chaired the Revolutionary War in America.

You didn't really read what I've written, did you? That is what I said. The war began as class struggle, but the ruling classes of the colonies, motivated both by the desire to rule their own country, be free of England's economic regulation, and fear of a leveller revolution took the lead of the revolt.

Washington WAS NOT elected general . . .

Didn't I write prior to Washington the officers were elected? Please, if you're gonna get on me about something, at least get right what I wrote.

The social changes after the revolution were merely superficial . . .

The abolition of indentured servitude and slavery in the North was not superficial. Aslo, the ending of the ban on settling West of the Appalacians helped indebted farmers and poor journeymen and freed indentured servants who could steal Indian lands and escape their debts and poverty in the East.

The lower classes did not revolt- the merchants led the Boston Tea Party (they bribed the guards of the ships rather than destroying the doors) the merchants (John Hancock) and large slave owners (George Washington, TJefferson) led the war effort.

And how many of these estemed gentlemen were involved in Concord, Lexington, Bunker (Breed's) Hill, etc. Thomas Paine wasn't upper class, and most of the people who agitated against the Colonial system weren't who we think of as the Found Fathers. Ethen Allen certainly wasn't upper class. Who made up the Continental Armies? Heck, they way you write, there were only a handful of men involved in the revolution.

Farms were seized because of debts more AFTER the war than before it.

Ironic, isn't it. That fact that it became worse doesn't mean it wasn't a motivating factor before the war. And remember, the continued seizures lead to a second revolt, Shay's Rebellion. People don't always get what they want, you know.

People were not sick of slavery- Washington wanted slavery, Jefferson wanted it (Burr and Hamilton did not however [YEAH! Federalist Power!!!] and Federalists were more like the british than the supposedly 'liberal' democratic-republicans.)

You need to lower your radar a little bit and look at the vast majority of people who weren't famous. The ruling classes of the South are NOT the people. Rember Bacon's Rebellion? Abolition of slavery was a war aim of the slaves and free blacks who participated.

Indentured servitude was NOT an issue in the war- the indentured servitude in the war was mostly ending at the time anyway- slavery was more profitable (servants commonly ran away) thus, they did not have much power.

By the time of the revolution, most ISs died before finishing their term. Because the masters only had the IS for a limited period of time, they worked them much harder than they did the slaves. ISs and freed ISs definately had the abolition of IS as a revolutioary goal.

Anyways, slavery didn't exist in Britain at this time,

Slavery was abolished in Britain in 1818, forty years after the Revolution. And English slave traders certainly favor slavery. There were quite a few African slaves in England during the Revolutionary and post-revolutionary period, just not on the scale of the South or the Carribean. More on the scale of the Northern colonies.

and yet it DID in america- what does that say bout the americans dislike of slavery?

Again, you identify all Americans with the economic desires and needs of 1% of the population. You need to get over that.

Anyway, if yer gonna argue with me about the revolutionary period, you need to go beyond high school history class.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by faded glory
Darkcloud.

There was nothing our founding fathers could do about slavery. Yes T.Jefferson and G. Washington owned slaves. But I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who once said "The only good slave..is a well fed and healthy one".


Anyway back to slavery and why the FF could do nothing about it. The South was politically and economically stronger than the north during the framing of the constitution. Southern leaders had specifically warned the delegates not to discuss slavery. And if they did, the south would secede and the Union would not have been.

Also part of the comprise was the north needed the souths money to pay off war debts. So there was no choice for the north.

Yes, but che was arguing that the REV. War was fought so that America wouldn't have slavery- and since the South technically controlled the thing- the war could not be fought over slavery... I believe that most of what you said above, if not all, is correct.

RAMO-

Ever hear of Bacon's Rebellion? The Regulator movement? The Boston Massacre? che is absolutely correct in that the lower classes significantly contributed to the revolution.

Bacon's rebellion was a rebellion led by a fairly rich man- but yes, a lot of marginalized Irish fought in it- however, it was fought more over the fact that the British were ignoring the Frontierspeoples' troubles with the indians- and it could be argued that the frontierspeople were starting the troubles.

I don't know much about the regulator so I cannot say until i have studied some more.

The massacre- Patrick Henry publicised the massacre through his woodcut. Patrick Henry was rich!

Yes, people were rioting- some were drunks and some were lower class, yes, most were dock workers... However , I truly think Henry's contribution of publicizing the event was more important- class struggle probably DID have some part- but, please notice, the British soldiers were about as poor as the people tehy were 'oppressing'

The people were mad that the soldiers were competing with them for jobs during their off-days- thus it was more self=interest than class struggle.

[orange]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
and since the South technically controlled the thing

controlled what thing DC? The war?

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The Revolutionary war was fought by merchants- there WAS some class struggle; however, the merchants, upper class and middle classes chaired the Revolutionary War in America.

You didn't really read what I've written, did you? That is what I said. The war began as class struggle, but the ruling classes of the colonies, motivated both by the desire to rule their own country, be free of England's economic regulation, and fear of a leveller revolution took the lead of the revolt.

I'm not sure how I can prove that you are wrong- but I have a feeling that I could- lets see- the Boston Massacre was publicised by the upper classes and the middle classes- the merchantss were the ones most effected by the taxes- and the trade laws, thus the merchants were obviously going to be the most disgruntled.

Washington WAS NOT elected general . . .

Didn't I write prior to Washington the officers were elected? Please, if you're gonna get on me about something, at least get right what I wrote.

I was writing to you because someone else said that you said that... too much hearsay I suppose. (I do not know if prior to him the officers were elected... if they were, then you are merely refering to militia officers)

The social changes after the revolution were merely superficial . . .

The abolition of indentured servitude and slavery in the North was not superficial. Aslo, the ending of the ban on settling West of the Appalacians helped indebted farmers and poor journeymen and freed indentured servants who could steal Indian lands and escape their debts and poverty in the East.

The ban on settling the west was created so that the British army would not have to fight the indians- it was lifted becasue the merchants wanted to buy that land- one of the main landholders in the new territory was George Washington- and the US Govt sold all the lands.

Also about the abolition of slaverly in the north was purely economical- slavery was not really economically viable there- slaves cost 100-200 dollars, etc. (it was more, but I don't know the exact figure) thus, since they didn't grow the amount of crops that the south did, it was not econommicallly viable to have slaves.

The lower classes did not revolt- the merchants led the Boston Tea Party (they bribed the guards of the ships rather than destroying the doors) the merchants (John Hancock) and large slave owners (George Washington, TJefferson) led the war effort.

And how many of these estemed gentlemen were involved in Concord, Lexington, Bunker (Breed's) Hill, etc. Thomas Paine wasn't upper class, and most of the people who agitated against the Colonial system weren't who we think of as the Found Fathers. Ethen Allen certainly wasn't upper class. Who made up the Continental Armies? Heck, they way you write, there were only a handful of men involved in the revolution.

The people who made up the continental armies were regular people- as they always are... the lower classes make up the armies and sometimes lead the militias... however, the main leaders were rich and middle class.

Concorde and Lexxington were about a weapons cache- I think (I am not certain) that the rich people ordered them to move the weapons and a shot was fired... then the war began.

People were not sick of slavery- Washington wanted slavery, Jefferson wanted it (Burr and Hamilton did not however [YEAH! Federalist Power!!!] and Federalists were more like the british than the supposedly 'liberal' democratic-republicans.)

You need to lower your radar a little bit and look at the vast majority of people who weren't famous. The ruling classes of the South are NOT the people. Rember Bacon's Rebellion? Abolition of slavery was a war aim of the slaves and free blacks who participated.

Yes, probably- considering that the British freed many slaves during the war- the british freed more slaves than the Americans- the British's policy was to free all slaves in the areas of the south they conquered if the slaves would fight for them... Now I will admit, some southerners allwoed slaves their freedom if they would fight- but the British allowed any slave his freedom.

Anyways, slavery didn't exist in Britain at this time,

Slavery was abolished in Britain in 1818, forty years after the Revolution. And English slave traders certainly favor slavery. There were quite a few African slaves in England during the Revolutionary and post-revolutionary period, just not on the scale of the South or the Carribean. More on the scale of the Northern colonies.

If that is true, I concede the point

and yet it DID in america- what does that say bout the americans dislike of slavery?

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by Hoek
Even if one oil company proposed an oil pipeline, that deosn't mean a) that Congress or the president support such a pipeling (we have enough trouble getting the Azerbejian-Georgia-Turkey line),

The fact that theyv'e said they are is proof of that. Unocal is a Texas oil company with links to Bush&Cheney.

"I would like to proceed to the subject of the hearing for today, U.S. interests in the Central Asian Republics. I do have a statement. One hundred years ago, Central Asia was the arena for a great game played by Czarist Russia, Colonial Britain, Napoleon's France, and the Persian and the Ottoman Empires. Allegiances meant little during this struggle for empire building, where no single empire could gain the upper hand. One hundred years later, the collapse of the Soviet Union has unleashed a new great game, where the interests of the East India Trading Company have been replaced by those of Unocal and Total, and many other organizations and firms.
Today the Subcommittee examines the interests of a new contestant in this new great game, the United States. ...
Stated U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies. ...
Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region." - Rep. DOUG BEREUTER, U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION, FEBRUARY 12, 1998

or b) that the pipeline figures into our equations for chosing Afghanistan. You fail to show how this statement proves that our war in Afghanistan is over oil.

There theory that the United States is at war in Afghanistan as retaliation for Sept. 11th is disproven by the fact that the US was preparing an invasion prior to the 11th. Jane's Defense review reported in March that the US was assembling a coalition against the Taliban. Military action was set to begin in October (and it did). The Gov't is just using this tragedy to justify what they were going to do anyway. See http://www.janes.com/security/intern...0315_1_n.shtml

Other sources reported this too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1550366.stm

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10∓ctg=policy

Unocal has explicitly stated that they require a stable government in Afghanistan to build their pipeline. That is exactly what Washington is doing as we speak. There is more evidence to support the theory that oil is one of the reasons for invading Afghanistan (not necessarily the only one) then there is to support the theory that Al-Qaeda is responsible for 9-11.

"From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company."

"As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place." - JOHN J. MARESCA, to house of representatives COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS