War!!!

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Soundwave
I will glorify anything i want thank you its a free world thanks to democrarcy.

Umm...sorry no. Its a free West.

[monolith94]

"each new frontier has brought new ways and new places to die. Why should the future be different?"

Of course in the future man will die in new ways and places. Hopefully in the future man will die in peace, surrounded by his or her loved ones, as he prepares to encounter that final frontier.

[DaShi]

Re: Devil's Advocate

Originally posted by Exile

The confederacy was only doing precisely what the 13 colonies had done scarcely 90 some odd years earlier. The southern states declared themselves independent of a government they collectively found unacceptable (not to mention "foreign"). Although the issues at the heart of the conflict were different, the principle of rebellion against perceived tyranny was strikingly similar. In the 1770s, the rebellion succeeded, and a new nation was created. In the 1860s, the rebellion failed, and no new state came into being.

Sorry, but the 13 colonies separated from Britain because they were being ruled by a foreign overseas power where they had no representation. Basically, Britain taxed the hell out of the their colonies so that they could have lower taxes and more luxuries at home. That's the whole idea of imperialism.

The confederacy just said, "Well, we thought that this here democracy would give us only what we wanted. Since it didn't go our way, we're takin' our ball and leavin'." They had representation, but the majority realized that many of the south's policies were unconstitutional, undemocratic, and unfair. Thus, they gradually created laws to counter this, showing the south as much respect as possible. When it finally came to the line, the south rebelled simply because it didn't get its way and has been whining about it ever since.

The confederate battle flag is not exclusively a symbol of hatred and racism. It is also a symbol of a (failed) national rebellion and spirit of independence. A comparison of the Confederate battle flag and the SchutzStaffel emblem is not valid; Apples and oranges--two different things.

Exile

Yes, it is not exclusively a symbol of hatred and racism. But it primarily is. It is not a symbol of independence at all. It is a symbol of hatred, racism, and southern pride. Just like the SS emblem is a symbol of hatred, racism, and aryan(sp?) pride.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by FM Pilsudski
I have to agree, Paul. While there is nothing wrong in understanding-even having a minute bit of respect for- the Waffen SS, who did fight in overwhelming odds, the negatives of the SS-Death Camps, the Einsatzgruppen (sp?), liqudation of several nationalities, religious groups and others greatly overshadows whatever they did on the field of battle...

FM Pilsudski
Savior of the Polish Nation

To deal with the subject accurately, as opposed to emotionally, you have to look at the entire SS and the character of it's individual components.

The Gestapo, Kripo and SD were under the Reichführer-SS, as were the Totenkopfverbande and Einsatzgruppen and the Waffen-SS.

Some SS units were garbage - the Polizei division was nothing, most of the foreign SS units were a joke. The character of the individual leaders really was the determining factor - at his war crimes trial, Otto Skorzeny had several American POW's testify that he saved their lives, and ordered his troops to correctly treat all prisoners in their care. The conduct of Wilhelm von Bittrich was also exceptional, and this is reflected largely by the actions of the men under his command.

Then again, you have the Totenkopf division on the eastern front, Heinz Lammerding and Das Reich in France (the Oradour massacre, among others), Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski and the SS prison brigade.

IMO the real distinction with the SS was that they were the Nazi party's fair-haired golden boys, considered politically reliable, and this got them the physically best available replacement manpower, the first draw of replacement personnel, preferred equipment, etc. - then add that the paper strength of the name divisions was far higher than those of the regular Heer units of the same type, and no wonder the SS performance was often notable.

More often than not, the Waffen SS pissed away those advantages with poor leadership - fanaticism and political reliability are not compatible with sound military judgment. The exceptions, like Paul Hausser and Wilhelm von Bittrich, were pre-war professional officers, not political hacks, and therein the difference lies.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by monolith94
Seriously, do you think we organized this whole thing cause us uptight Northern wasps were getting annoyed by those raucous and magnificent southern balls? Do you think that we WANTED to destroy half of the country to save it?

Yep. And in the process, y'all started the current trend of the Federal government being the dominant policy making instrument throughout the US, instead of the very constrained and limited government the Founding Fathers intended it to be.

The Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery. The Southerners were fighting for their right to own slaves, and the confederate flag was their symbol. Therefore the confederate flag was a symbol of the right to own slaves.

(a) We didn't all fight for the same thing. Lots of us didn't take well to your Yankee asses presuming to come down south and deal with a political issue at the point of a bayonet.

(b) There were several confederate flags. The battle flag was adopted to avoid confusion with Yankee colors in the smoke of battle.

(c) For seven states (including the three neutrals), slavery was a non-issue, and Yankee imperialism was the only issue - the unconstitutional directive of the Federal government to provide troops to invade another state.

(d) For the majority of southerners who fought for the Confederacy, they didn't give a fair damn about slaveholder's rights, because for the most part, only the elite few owned slaves.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

Originally posted by DaShi


Sorry, but the 13 colonies separated from Britain because they were being ruled by a foreign overseas power where they had no representation. Basically, Britain taxed the hell out of the their colonies so that they could have lower taxes and more luxuries at home. That's the whole idea of imperialism.

It wasn't a foreign power - we were British citizens. And we had indirect representation - not a lot different in substance from what the average citizen had in the home country.

The confederacy just said, "Well, we thought that this here democracy would give us only what we wanted. Since it didn't go our way, we're takin' our ball and leavin'."

State sovereignty was not something that could be usurped, no. We should have invaded the Yankees to set their minds right, but we wanted a peaceful solution and good relations with our misguided brethren states.

They had representation, but the majority realized that many of the south's policies were unconstitutional, undemocratic, and unfair.

Which ones? You mean the sort of things that led to Shay's and Dorr's rebellions? Oh, those were Yankee state issues.

Thus, they gradually created laws to counter this, showing the south as much respect as possible.

Yes, tariffs requiring payment in gold instead of payment in kind, to reduce southern liquidity to critical levels and force southern states to trade cotton for goods with northern states (great for Yankee manufacturers who raped us on price, and for Yankee textile millers, who raped us on price, and Yankee banks, who loaned more and more cash (collateralized by land, of course - millions of acres) into an illiquid south to drive the purchase of slaves necessary to maintain the cotton economy which was the major basis for regional trade with the outside world was the height of respect. Since that was the Yankee idea of respect, we decided to show you the points of our bayonets.

When it finally came to the line, the south rebelled

In lieu of eventually being forced into economic serfdom, yes.

simply because it didn't get its way

One could say that about every case where one party's rights were violated by another's[/quote]

and has been whining about it ever since.

The whining is mostly by Yankees who were embarassed about how many ass-whuppings they got. And modern Yankees who have some emotional issue about the fact that we're still independent in spirit.

Yes, it is not exclusively a symbol of hatred and racism. But it primarily is.

Maybe for you. And for some Klan and similar *******s, most of whom aren't from the south. Not for a lot of us. And this is the thing Yankees just don't get. You don't have the right to speak for us.

It is not a symbol of independence at all.

It sho'nuff is. We were independent for four years before we finally ran out of bullets before you ran out of bodies to put them in.

[Soundwave]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Some SS units were garbage - the Polizei division was nothing, most of the foreign SS units were a joke. The character of the individual leaders really was the determining factor - at his war crimes trial, Otto Skorzeny had several American POW's testify that he saved their lives, and ordered his troops to correctly treat all prisoners in their care. The conduct of Wilhelm von Bittrich was also exceptional, and this is reflected largely by the actions of the men under his command.QUOTE]

That is fine by me, i have no idea why eveyone is on about the Confederancy... i was on about war... yes it is a bad thing ok, i liked the honour thing about it, like King Arthur, Barbarossa, Waffen SS struggle, French in Verdun, Russians in Brest-Listiosk Fortess. All those things it a struggle over the overwhelming odds, even if you died you held the enemy up, and weakening him, or slowing him down, fighting for what they believe in.

I say to all Americans/Bristish/Aussie/New Zealanders and all other nations, including Germany, congrats in Afganistan and i hope you bring death to terroists who attack innocent people!

[Dis]

war is cool. of course I still have the mind of a 10 year old. At least that is what my girlfriends tell me.

War, what is it good for?

I just love that line.

Playing war as a kid was fun as hell. It's difficult to understand. There is something about war that is intoxicating. And don't tell me you guys don't feel it. You guys play civ2 and civ3 for crying out loud. But of course that is make believe. And so is war when we play it out in our heads. The thought of conquering nations in our heads is very satisfying.

And at no point in history was war ever humane or tolerable. Even wars using primitive weapons such as blunt instruments had to have been brutal. While I do believe that WW 1 had probably the worst conditions in any war. Modern warfare isn't much better- at least for the guys getting bombed by U.S. planes. It's difficult to imagine being bombed day after day. It is not suprising Iraqis surrendered so quickly. The demoralizing effect of bombings cannot be understated. Sadly this will ensure that bombing from the air will be used for years to come.

I do believe that world peace is impossilbe though. I'm not some pacifist that denounces all wars. Wars may be evil, but they are necessary. That may be controversial, but I do believe war is unavoidable in some situations. If humans were rational, we'd never had any wars in the first place. It is a mistake to think that humans are becoming more rational. This isn't some Star Trek universe. Things will not be peachy in the future. I predict more fierce wars in the years to come.

[Sikander]

Just one more clarification, war rarely reduces the population. Two kinds of warfare will do that, a war of annihilation (like Germany vs Russia or Rwanda), and widespread raiding where a large group of people flees in terror and tends to lose a lot of it's weaker elements (kids and old) to stress, disease, exposure and starvation. Throughout most of history the economies of states and nations could only afford a very limited number of soldiers and a very limited number of casualties. Hunter gatherers for instance almost entirely fight ritualized battles where there are very few casualties.

Nomads who made their living by herding tend to have been more capable of fielding larger percentages of their populations for combat, and tended to also come into more conflict more regularly. Thus combat skill tended to be a general rather than specialized skill. Their mobility allowed them to move the entire nation at once, which allowed them to concentrate for offensive action while at the same time protecting their capital. Good examples of these types of peoples are the Turkic speakers like the Huns, the Turks and Mongols who had an enormous impact upon the agrarian civilized world.

As economies improved, more resources were made available for warfare. Industrialization made it possible to field enormous armies from large populations which could be fielded in percentages only nomadic peoples had previously been capable of for offensive action. The last two centuries have shown just how destructive this can be. And yet the earth's population is still rising unchecked.

A tendency for violence is a natural human reaction to stress. Warfare is a natural outcome of this tendency and the tendency for culture to manage those feelings in a way that does the least damage to the culture. Thus it is better for culture A to manage it's stress by sending it's young men to fight the young men of culture B in many cases, rather than allowing them to fight each other, though this too is common.

Of course there are many cultures which have achieved a sort of peaceful harmony for many generations. There is either an almost steady state system which stresses the population very little, or a means of distraction exists (for instance a fight for survival) to deal with whatever stress does tend to build up within a society. Over time however none of this can last, at least so far in the history of our species. Pressure from outsiders, natural disasters, or even seemingly useful improvements in technology which increase productivity, or reduce mortality will always eventually upset a peaceful and harmonious system, and often the outcome will be violence or war.

Knowledge can reduce the possibility of conflict to some extent, but it cannot eliminate it. This is because much of what drives the human being to violence resides in the hard-coded portion of our self, not to mention the large part of knowledge which can only be gained experientially rather than rotely.

Thus I can know about jealousy before I experience it, and I can decide that I do not ever want to be jealous. This will decrease the chance that I will act jealously, but it is only by feeling jealousy that I can truly know it and learn how to manage those feelings. For all of the wisdom gained from that, my son will nonetheless be born with as much innate capability for jealousy as I had, and I can only mitigate it's potential in him. Even if I am very successful in this, it is likely that he will underestimate the value of what I have done, or rather concentrate his efforts with his own son in another area. The same is true of violent behavior which society attempts to manage in many cases through the institution of war.

[Soundwave]

Man will always be Man

Man has greed, evil, and i strange sense of survival of the fitess.

War will always be there... i agree, there will be bigger wars soon, and more destruction non-nuclear weapons

[DaShi]

Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!! I don't want to debate with MtG. He's a living encyclopedia. I give it a shot though.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


It wasn't a foreign power - we were British citizens. And we had indirect representation - not a lot different in substance from what the average citizen had in the home country.

Yes, we were British citizens in name and taxable status. Britain, itself however, didn't see their colonies as part of their own people, but as money making machines overseas. That's why they didn't care too much when their religious 'wackos' (I mean wackos in the nicest possible way ) decided to move over there. Though Britain did take a special interest in the colonies, mostly because they were of British decent, unlike South Africa and India. The real problem was that this special interest meant that more decisions concerning the politics and economy of the American colonies were done by overseas official in Parliament and the royalty than any other colonies in the Empire.

State sovereignty was not something that could be usurped, no. We should have invaded the Yankees to set their minds right, but we wanted a peaceful solution and good relations with our misguided brethren states.

Let's set one thing on the table. The Civil War was about slavery. States' rights is just a diversion. It is an honorable cause, but it didn't start the Civil War. The only reason it is mentioned today is because it sounds better to say they were fighting for states' rights rather than slaves. States rights were debated from the very beginning. The southern states eventually agreed to the limits placed on states rights by the Constitution, compared to the Articles, because of the the dismal failure of the Articles and a weak central government. The only way the Civil War would have been prevented was if the southern states felt secure that slavery wasn't threatened. In fact, the founders continually dodged the problem when establishing the new governments. This issue was then left to fester and be endlessly debated until eventually the south attacked.

Which ones? You mean the sort of things that led to Shay's and Dorr's rebellions? Oh, those were Yankee state issues.

No. I mean slavery laws.

Yes, tariffs requiring payment in gold instead of payment in kind, to reduce southern liquidity to critical levels and force southern states to trade cotton for goods with northern states (great for Yankee manufacturers who raped us on price, and for Yankee textile millers, who raped us on price, and Yankee banks, who loaned more and more cash (collateralized by land, of course - millions of acres) into an illiquid south to drive the purchase of slaves necessary to maintain the cotton economy which was the major basis for regional trade with the outside world was the height of respect. Since that was the Yankee idea of respect, we decided to show you the points of our bayonets.

The tariffs were placed because the US needed to compete with Europe. Otherwise, the country would remain agriculturally based, thus forced to have more slaves to still compete with Europe. This would have driven the country into rural poverty. The most important trade for the US was manufactured products. The move toward industry has been proven time and again for the economic success of growing nations. Nations based primarily on agriculture quickly turn in to a class system of wealthy landowners and impoverish workers, which is not healthy for a democracy. Tariffs boosted the American economy, which increased immigration, which fostered the multicultural background and freedoms of this country, which made this country successful.

In lieu of eventually being forced into economic serfdom, yes.

One could say that about every case where one party's rights were violated by another's

Yes, I guess we could have been the first communist nation. But the current government thought that economic prosperity would spread throughout the entire nation. How were they to know that a bunch of wealthy landowners would hoard all the cash while using cheap labor?

Maybe for you. And for some Klan and similar *******s, most of whom aren't from the south.

Like who?

The whining is mostly by Yankees who were embarassed about how many ass-whuppings they got. And modern Yankees who have some emotional issue about the fact that we're still independent in spirit.


Not for a lot of us. And this is the thing Yankees just don't get. You don't have the right to speak for us.

And some Germans probably believe that the SS symbol stands for German ingenuity and effeciency.
Most of the complaints about the flag don't come from the North. Rather they come from southerns who are offended by it. Most of them are black. I wonder why they would be so bothered by a flag representing independence?

It sho'nuff is. We were independent for four years before we finally ran out of bullets before you ran out of bodies to put them in.

Yes, confederate currency was quite popular. I've heard that people often carried hundreds of bills just to go out and buy lunch.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

Originally posted by DaShi
ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!! I don't want to debate with MtG. He's a living encyclopedia. I give it a shot though.

Yes, we were British citizens in name and taxable status. Britain, itself however, didn't see their colonies as part of their own people, but as money making machines overseas. That's why they didn't care too much when their religious 'wackos' (I mean wackos in the nicest possible way ) decided to move over there. Though Britain did take a special interest in the colonies, mostly because they were of British decent, unlike South Africa and India. The real problem was that this special interest meant that more decisions concerning the politics and economy of the American colonies were done by overseas official in Parliament and the royalty than any other colonies in the Empire.

We did have people like Ben Franklin (who had powerful allies in Parliament) as a full time lobbyist for four colonies. And semi-decent relations with some colonial governors - New York was still so loyalist that the Declaration of Independence (pretty late in the cycle) was only "unanimous" by the abstention of the New York delegation.

A lot of it really came down to the personalities of the hotheads like Patrick Henry and Sam Adams, and their ability to motivate the masses - they pushed along rebellion for their own reasons, and the ultimate political leaders like Adams and Jefferson were much more reluctant at first. Had it been the other way around - without the pushing of the "rabble" the colonies, the intellectual gentlemen of property like Adams and Jefferson could have led us to some reasonable accomodation with the crown.

Luckily, the hotheads prevailed.

Let's set one thing on the table. The Civil War was about slavery. States' rights is just a diversion. It is an honorable cause, but it didn't start the Civil War. The only reason it is mentioned today is because it sounds better to say they were fighting for states' rights rather than slaves. States rights were debated from the very beginning.

This is the monolithic south fallacy - it's not your fault, it's common even among historians on both sides, including revisionists on both sides. What it fails to explain is why states like Virginia first rejected secession pretty decisively - the Virginia vote was 82-55 or 81-55 against, I can't remember which, and I'm too lazy to look it up.

The states which really carried the brunt of the war - Virginia and North Carolina - had a pretty dim view of their hotheaded brethren further south. Arkansas and Tennessee were pretty split, and not that interested in the whole thing. But when Lincoln demanded troops in a manner which was unconstitutional, to put down political dissent by mass conquest - those four states said: No - this is a tyranny to which we as sovereign states will not submit. Three other states took the unprecedented step of declaring themselves neutral, while remaining in the Union - but they considered themselves fully empowered to reject Federal demands.

The southern states eventually agreed to the limits placed on states rights by the Constitution, compared to the Articles, because of the the dismal failure of the Articles and a weak central government.

If you look at the Articles though, the states really lost no significant power or sovereignty. The difference were primarily in what powers the Federal government had to act at the request and with the consent of the states. Shay's rebellion was a challenge to the authority of a state government, even though for clearly justifiable reasons.

The limitations on state's rights were primarily the guarantee of a republican form of government, coupled (as a compromise to the elites) with the ability of the state government to request Federal aid in putting down a rebellion against the authority of the state. Neither of these became issues during the War of Yankee Agression.

The only way the Civil War would have been prevented was if the southern states felt secure that slavery wasn't threatened. In fact, the founders continually dodged the problem when establishing the new governments. This issue was then left to fester and be endlessly debated until eventually the south attacked.

If the issue had been addressed straight away, the deep south state would not have ratified. And actually, the Union attacked first, at Fort Barrancas, Florida, in January 1861. There's a lot more to the Sumter mission than is commonly taught as well, but firing warning shots across the bow of armed vessels entering your harbor is pretty tough to construe as an "attack"

No. I mean slavery laws.

Those were Constitutional at the time. Ugly, but true.

The tariffs were placed because the US needed to compete with Europe. Otherwise, the country would remain agriculturally based, thus forced to have more slaves to still compete with Europe.

The north had a tidy little domestic manufacturing and mercantile economy. Quite nice, in fact. They saw the opportunity to force expansion into southern markets by tariffs, because the normal means of southern trade was to export cotton and tobacco and recieve hard goods in return. The intent of the tariffs was to force the south to recieve cash from northing mills for the cotton, on miller's terms, then use that cash to buy northern goods, on the manufacturer's terms. Nobody had a problem with the south being trapped in an agricultural illiquid economy, as long as Yankee bankers and merchants could get their action. And the northern economy was already diversified out of ag - because of climate and resources.

This would have driven the country into rural poverty.

Most of it was - it was only the city elites in the north, and the plantation elites in the south, (plus a few city elites down there) who had real money and power.

The most important trade for the US was manufactured products. The move toward industry has been proven time and again for the economic success of growing nations. Nations based primarily on agriculture quickly turn in to a class system of wealthy landowners and impoverish workers, which is not healthy for a democracy. Tariffs boosted the American economy, which increased immigration, which fostered the multicultural background and freedoms of this country, which made this country successful.

Free trade would have done a lot more. The American emphasis on expanding economic privilege for the industrial elites gave us the Molly Maguires, anti-Chinese laws, sharecropping, the Wobblies, John L. Lewis and the United Mine Workers, the Bonus Army, River Rouge, the US Supreme Court's Commerce Clause decisions on child labor, and the crashes of 1873 and 1929.

Yes, I guess we could have been the first communist nation.

We had the Pinkertons and the government do a pretty good job of oppressing the working man.

But the current government thought that economic prosperity would spread throughout the entire nation.

They had no such benevolent interest. There was a merciless degree of economic warfare between northern and southern elites - and the was had such an effect on northern elites that in spite of a state of war, the Yankee government issued (by bribery, generally) permits to trade with the enemy - that's exactly what they were called. Who ever heard of that? Except when your "war" for "freedom" is really about economic domination.

How were they to know that a bunch of wealthy landowners would hoard all the cash while using cheap labor?

Actually, slaves were tremendously expensive. If there had been a way to introduce cash liquidity into the plantation economy in and effective way, slavery would have evaporated, but interest rates and the production cycle of large cash crop farms made that impossible. The typical plantation owner had virtually zero cash - plantations either became self-sufficient economies, or traded in barter for services. When cash was needed, i.e. for the purchase of slaves, that cash was happily provided by Yankee bankers, who took security interests in the plantations. Another reason for putting the cash squeeze on with tariffs - southern plantation defaults would mean northern mercantile control of the plantations.

Like who?

Like the Sons of the Confederacy, reenactors, people who's ancestors fought against Yankee tyranny, etc. Now I will agree with you that the Klan and a lot of racist *******s have used the battle flag as a symbol of post-war racial oppression, so I don't advocate rubbing it in people's faces, especially blacks.

And some Germans probably believe that the SS symbol stands for German ingenuity and effeciency.

Since the SS runes were a symbol of a Nazi party organization, it's a little tougher sell.

Most of the complaints about the flag don't come from the North.

Didn't know y'all flew it up there.

Rather they come from southerns who are offended by it. Most of them are black. I wonder why they would be so bothered by a flag representing independence?

What the symbol stands for is primarily a question of who uses it and promotes it - and that's something where southerners with a valid historical interest in our heritage have failed - we let the battle flag be coopted into a different kind of symbol, so now, it's both.

The thing is, though, like the NAACP boycott in South Carolina, it goes beyond attacking the racist misuse of the flag, to making a political power play and publicity grab. Until the statehouse issue, did anyone think the NAACP had any clout or relevance any more? They sure got some milage out of that issue, so why not milk it. I have no problem with removing it as an emblem within state flags, or not flying it from courthouses, state capitols, etc., as a gesture of inclusiveness. When it gets to a crusade of ban the flag anywhere and everywhere, even in burial grounds of Confederate veterans on private property (as has been made an issue) that's ridiculous.

Yes, confederate currency was quite popular. I've heard that people often carried hundreds of bills just to go out and buy lunch.

Yes, on those rare occasions where running Yankees didn't leave us with plenty of food to take our pick of for free.

[Tingkai]

I still have hope for the human race and I think this century will see less bloodshed through war than the last one. The reason is the existence of nuclear weapons. Every world leader knows that all-out war invariably leads to nuclear war and that leads to defeat or a meaningless victory.

Even the US, which has the military muscle to take-over any country, knows that such an attempt is pointless becase of nukes.

The desire for agression still exists, but it is being funneled into the business world. A hundred years ago, a young European men dreamed of going to some far off land and conquoring the natives (okay, this is an extreme analogy, but you get my point). Now people dream of becoming rich and successful in the business world.


Unfortunately, there are people like Soundwave who buys into the BS that war is somehow noble. There was nothing noble about the Waffen SS. They were a bunch of thugs who only wanted to kill. They killed without justification. They were insane with fanatical belief in an unworthy cause. They are not worth praise and they are not worth respect. They simply demonstrate the evils to which people will stoop when the restraints of decency are removed.

As for his quote, I no of no one who wants to create a killing machine like the SS that would kill people for the sake of killing.

I used to think, like Soundwave does, that war could be noble and romantic. But then I grew up. I read more and more. What I know now is that war is anything but glamourous. Yes, there are times when we have to fight, but war is, and always will be, a dirty business.

I find it ironic that Soundwaves cites two examples of bravery that are classic military blunders. The Charge of the Light Brigade achieved nothing but the destruction of that Brigade. As for Roarke's Rift, it was preceeded by the massacre of a British force who were caught unprepared and in the open.

[DaShi]

I'm glad that you agreed with a few of my points

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat






We did have people like Ben Franklin (who had powerful allies in Parliament) as a full time lobbyist for four colonies. And semi-decent relations with some colonial governors - New York was still so loyalist that the Declaration of Independence (pretty late in the cycle) was only "unanimous" by the abstention of the New York delegation.

A lot of it really came down to the personalities of the hotheads like Patrick Henry and Sam Adams, and their ability to motivate the masses - they pushed along rebellion for their own reasons, and the ultimate political leaders like Adams and Jefferson were much more reluctant at first. Had it been the other way around - without the pushing of the "rabble" the colonies, the intellectual gentlemen of property like Adams and Jefferson could have led us to some reasonable accomodation with the crown.

Luckily, the hotheads prevailed.




This is the monolithic south fallacy - it's not your fault, it's common even among historians on both sides, including revisionists on both sides. What it fails to explain is why states like Virginia first rejected secession pretty decisively - the Virginia vote was 82-55 or 81-55 against, I can't remember which, and I'm too lazy to look it up.

The states which really carried the brunt of the war - Virginia and North Carolina - had a pretty dim view of their hotheaded brethren further south. Arkansas and Tennessee were pretty split, and not that interested in the whole thing. But when Lincoln demanded troops in a manner which was unconstitutional, to put down political dissent by mass conquest - those four states said: No - this is a tyranny to which we as sovereign states will not submit. Three other states took the unprecedented step of declaring themselves neutral, while remaining in the Union - but they considered themselves fully empowered to reject Federal demands.



If you look at the Articles though, the states really lost no significant power or sovereignty. The difference were primarily in what powers the Federal government had to act at the request and with the consent of the states. Shay's rebellion was a challenge to the authority of a state government, even though for clearly justifiable reasons.

The limitations on state's rights were primarily the guarantee of a republican form of government, coupled (as a compromise to the elites) with the ability of the state government to request Federal aid in putting down a rebellion against the authority of the state. Neither of these became issues during the War of Yankee Agression.



If the issue had been addressed straight away, the deep south state would not have ratified. And actually, the Union attacked first, at Fort Barrancas, Florida, in January 1861. There's a lot more to the Sumter mission than is commonly taught as well, but firing warning shots across the bow of armed vessels entering your harbor is pretty tough to construe as an "attack"



Those were Constitutional at the time. Ugly, but true.



The north had a tidy little domestic manufacturing and mercantile economy. Quite nice, in fact. They saw the opportunity to force expansion into southern markets by tariffs, because the normal means of southern trade was to export cotton and tobacco and recieve hard goods in return. The intent of the tariffs was to force the south to recieve cash from northing mills for the cotton, on miller's terms, then use that cash to buy northern goods, on the manufacturer's terms. Nobody had a problem with the south being trapped in an agricultural illiquid economy, as long as Yankee bankers and merchants could get their action. And the northern economy was already diversified out of ag - because of climate and resources.



Most of it was - it was only the city elites in the north, and the plantation elites in the south, (plus a few city elites down there) who had real money and power.



Free trade would have done a lot more. The American emphasis on expanding economic privilege for the industrial elites gave us the Molly Maguires, anti-Chinese laws, sharecropping, the Wobblies, John L. Lewis and the United Mine Workers, the Bonus Army, River Rouge, the US Supreme Court's Commerce Clause decisions on child labor, and the crashes of 1873 and 1929.



We had the Pinkertons and the government do a pretty good job of oppressing the working man.



They had no such benevolent interest. There was a merciless degree of economic warfare between northern and southern elites - and the was had such an effect on northern elites that in spite of a state of war, the Yankee government issued (by bribery, generally) permits to trade with the enemy - that's exactly what they were called. Who ever heard of that? Except when your "war" for "freedom" is really about economic domination.



Actually, slaves were tremendously expensive. If there had been a way to introduce cash liquidity into the plantation economy in and effective way, slavery would have evaporated, but interest rates and the production cycle of large cash crop farms made that impossible. The typical plantation owner had virtually zero cash - plantations either became self-sufficient economies, or traded in barter for services. When cash was needed, i.e. for the purchase of slaves, that cash was happily provided by Yankee bankers, who took security interests in the plantations. Another reason for putting the cash squeeze on with tariffs - southern plantation defaults would mean northern mercantile control of the plantations.



Like the Sons of the Confederacy, reenactors, people who's ancestors fought against Yankee tyranny, etc. Now I will agree with you that the Klan and a lot of racist *******s have used the battle flag as a symbol of post-war racial oppression, so I don't advocate rubbing it in people's faces, especially blacks.



Since the SS runes were a symbol of a Nazi party organization, it's a little tougher sell.



Didn't know y'all flew it up there.



What the symbol stands for is primarily a question of who uses it and promotes it - and that's something where southerners with a valid historical interest in our heritage have failed - we let the battle flag be coopted into a different kind of symbol, so now, it's both.

The thing is, though, like the NAACP boycott in South Carolina, it goes beyond attacking the racist misuse of the flag, to making a political power play and publicity grab. Until the statehouse issue, did anyone think the NAACP had any clout or relevance any more? They sure got some milage out of that issue, so why not milk it. I have no problem with removing it as an emblem within state flags, or not flying it from courthouses, state capitols, etc., as a gesture of inclusiveness. When it gets to a crusade of ban the flag anywhere and everywhere, even in burial grounds of Confederate veterans on private property (as has been made an issue) that's ridiculous.



Yes, on those rare occasions where running Yankees didn't leave us with plenty of food to take our pick of for free.

Alright MtG. I can't compete with that. I think we both agree that both the north and south suffered from elitism and corruption. And both primarily were looking out for their own interests. And when working together were much more effective that working against one another.

Now about the flag. It will always be tied to hate. Despite where it is flown, it will always illicit a hostile response from the many people who view it as a symbol of southern racism. Probably, more due to the efforts of the nut-jobs like the klan, but also for the role of slavery in the south.

[Sikander]

War itself is not noble, but going through the thick of it and not allowing yourself to become completely dehumanized has to be considered so, though obviously there are as many viewpoints and experiences as there are actors and witnesses. I view war as sacred, though I believe in many gods, good, evil and mainly indifferent, so it might be easy to confuse what I mean by that from a Christian perspective.

As for the SS, the disorganization of the 3rd Reich was so complete that it's a wonder that the Germans managed to retain their image as such an efficient and organized people. The Waffen SS were a very mixed bag. The poster boys were of course dedicated Nazis, but there were many others including a large number of anti-communist (and to a much more variable degree fascist or Nazi) foreigners. By the end of the war draftees were being pulled in with none of the previous scrutiny for racial background, not to mention the obvious qualitative differences between volunteer troops at the beginning of a war and draftees at it's end.

MtG has pointed out how this unevenness played out in combat, with some formations being rated as good as the better Wehrmacht units, and others as bad as the Luftwaffe field divisions. It is a certainty that had all the effort put into the Waffen SS been instead just been fed into the Wehrmacht that the German war effort would have been aided greatly. So there is a reason for those of us who hate the Nazis to like the Waffen SS.