War of Northeern Aggression

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Nation-states should be responsible for themselves. It was absolutely immoral to force Brits, Americans, etc., to die for Jews and Frenchmen.

David, Hitler had already proven quite clearly that appeasement would not stop his desires for conquest. Why is it wrong for Nation-States to pre-emptively deal with threats to them?

[orange]

:Takes deep breath:

On second thought.....forget it. We've beaten this to death, brought it back to life, shot it, and then spat on it. Why did you have to bring it back to life again, MacTBone? (don't worry though, I agree with you! )

[*End Is Forever*]

*bangs head against brick wall and goes to bed*

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, but it was an act of war.

What was the act? Selling to Great Britain? Well, in that case we were belligerent on both sides, as GM and Ford were making war supplies for the Nazis.

Defending British conveys? We didn't attack Nazi U-boots.

What was the overt act?

In any event, Nazi Germany was a lawless state which was terorising all of its neighbors.

[David Floyd]

Iain,

I think the key word here is "defending"... not initiating, but defending. Learn the difference.

Did they defend German warships against the British?

chegitz,

Irrelevent. You are claiming the Constitution overrides morality and civil rights in favor of states rights. These states, France and Britain, were completly within their rights to ally with the state of Poland. So which is it? You can't locially argue for one to support you cherished white supremacy in one case, and then against it in another to defend your beloved Nazis.

Eh? I'm arguing that while Britain/France had the right to go to war, it was wrong to do so - which is different, because the Southern States had every right to secede.

Mac,

The confederates had conscription.

And that was morally wrong.

What's up with Article 1, section 6, number 9 of the CSA constitution?
(9) To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.

So, they still submit to the Supreme Court?

That section is speaking of Congress's power to set up federal courts.

[mactbone]

After reading through a lot of it, apparently the CSA wanted to be a clone of the US, without being subject to the politicians in the north and the taxes. Plus they wanted to keep the slaves.

Now, morally, they should've stayed in the Union because, by leaving they forced the murder of multitudes.

BTW, the Union didn't murdered those confederates, unless self-defense is now murder. When someone has a gun pointed to you, it's not murder when you shoot back.

[David Floyd]

DD,

David, Hitler had already proven quite clearly that appeasement would not stop his desires for conquest. Why is it wrong for Nation-States to pre-emptively deal with threats to them?

Because it is morally wrong to force people to die for a cause, no matter what the cause is.

chegitz,

What was the act? Selling to Great Britain? Well, in that case we were belligerent on both sides, as GM and Ford were making war supplies for the Nazis.

We both know that it was neither nearly the scale of Lend-Lease, nor was it an act by the US government - GM/Ford were fully within their moral rights.

Defending British conveys? We didn't attack Nazi U-boots.

What was the overt act?

We actually did on occasion, but more importantly we found them and radioed their location to the British.

In any event, Nazi Germany was a lawless state which was terorising all of its neighbors.

It wasn't lawless, you (and I actually) just don't agree with its laws.

[TCO]

Floyd, you're not even consistent. If you want to take your extreme views, than there was no problem with Lend-Lease. We can give or sell bullets to anyone we want to. What they do with them is none of our concern.

[SnowFire]

Because it is morally wrong to force people to die for a cause, no matter what the cause is.

Sounds like your complaint is with conscription then, not war. Unless you blame accidental civilian deaths inflicted by the other side on the government who declared war trying to prevent more of them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Because it is morally wrong to force people to die for a cause, no matter what the cause is.

Is your objection to fighting against the Nazis dream of conquest whose stated aims were a threat to the "Allies" or is it to the concept of conscription? Because if you'll look at them closely you should see that they are two different concepts.

[David Floyd]

Now, morally, they should've stayed in the Union because, by leaving they forced the murder of multitudes.

So the CSA was responsible for the US invasion?
Ah, I get it! Poland should have just surrendered to save lives!

BTW, the Union didn't murdered those confederates, unless self-defense is now murder. When someone has a gun pointed to you, it's not murder when you shoot back.

The first major battle was on CSA soil, at Manassas Junction. All the CSA wanted was to be left alone, not the destruction of the US.

[Lonestar]

Back on track

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, I'm suggesting abolishing slavery was wrong because:
-The South didn't want to
-The sovereign CSA didn't want to
-The 13th Amendment was forced down the throats of Southerners, who didn't get a valid, uncoerced vote on it
-The US murdered hundreds of thousands of CSA soldiers in order to do it

-So?

-Wasn't sovereign. They only people who thought it was, was the CSA and a few Indian Nations.

-Ridiculous. What about the millions of southern blacks who suddenly got the right to vote? In any event, I read just last year that Mississippi finally approved the 13th amendment. It's all legal-like.

-I'm pretty sure the Rebel soldiers shot back. For the record, the Rebs "murdered" more Union soldiers than the other way around.

[*End Is Forever*]

We actually did on occasion, but more importantly we found them and radioed their location to the British.

How is radioing their location to the British sacrificing US lives? Surely it's doing nothing but saving the lives of those on board the ships the U-boats would have attacked?

[David Floyd]

GP,

Floyd, you're not even consistent. If you want to take your extreme views, than there was no problem with Lend-Lease. We can give or sell bullets to anyone we want to. What they do with them is none of our concern.

Legally, yes, morally, no.

Snowfire,

Sounds like your complaint is with conscription then, not war. Unless you blame accidental civilian deaths inflicted by the other side on the government who declared war trying to prevent more of them.

My complaint is with both conscription and war, as they both force people to die.

DD,

Is your objection to fighting against the Nazis dream of conquest whose stated aims were a threat to the "Allies" or is it to the concept of conscription? Because if you'll look at them closely you should see that they are two different concepts.

Both. See above.

[David Floyd]

Lonestar,

-So?

-Wasn't sovereign. They only people who thought it was, was the CSA and a few Indian Nations.

-Ridiculous. What about the millions of southern blacks who suddenly got the right to vote? In any event, I read just last year that Mississippi finally approved the 13th amendment. It's all legal-like.

-I'm pretty sure the Rebel soldiers shot back. For the record, the Rebs "murdered" more Union soldiers than the other way around.

-So the 13th-15th wouldn't have been ratified if the North didn't force them to be.

-So might makes right, then?

-So? It was still forced down their throats against their will.

-It was self-defense, they were just better at self-defense than the US was at murder.

Iain,

How is radioing their location to the British sacrificing US lives? Surely it's doing nothing but saving the lives of those on board the ships the U-boats would have attacked?

They were causing the deaths of Germans, though.