The civil war, and Ron Paul

I think we should start commiting not onlly war crimes but atrocities in Iraq, liberals. Let's kill all of the men in Bagdahd, sell the women and children into slavery to pay for war costs, and raze the city to the ground. Let's do that to any other province that decides to rebel too. Hey, anything to "get the war over", even our humanity

You guys sicken me.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
I don't know, but it makes me sick the way liberals support Shermans tactics. In the modern world Sherman would be sent to the Hague and executed as the war criminal scum he is. There were Nazi's who did less than Sherman did and were executed. We do not sink to the level of barbarians, nor should we ever.
Click to expand...

War is ugly. War is the most bottom barrell thing any human can attest to. Sherman is a product of war. Liberals see to discard historical precedent, and embrace this war. Sherman as a butcher, an animal, but somehow, this ugly beast is tied to freeing the slaves. Black and white. He never did any living soul an ounce of good, but somehow the Civil war as a good thing.
 
Beefy said:
War is ugly. War is the most bottom barrell thing any human can attest to. Sherman is a product of war. Liberals see to discard historical precedent, and embrace this war. Sherman as a butcher, an animal, but somehow, this ugly beast is tied to freeing the slaves. Black and white. He never did any living soul an ounce of good, but somehow the Civil war as a good thing.
Click to expand...

These people say it couldn't have been solved diplomatically.

But what if it could have? Nationalists on either side never gave peace a chance. That's the cause of all wars and suffering.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
These people say it couldn't have been solved diplomatically.

But what if it could have? Nationalists on either side never gave peace a chance. That's the cause of all wars and suffering.
Click to expand...

The issues with state's rights and slavery predate the Constitution. How much time would be enough?
 
Beefy said:
Cypress, you're full of shit.

The Civil War was a cost of 600,000 human lives. And it was not entirely about slavery. I find it strange that the very people who so claim to be anti war, feel that war is necessary to resolve horrible social problems.

War is not necessary, war is not someting that solves even the worst of social problems. Cheer the Civil War Cypress! Cheer every war in the world because they're all, every single one of them, sold on benevolence, and guess what? Wars are actually waged on bullshit.

Are you even familiar with the Civil War? Do you even have any freaking clue about the pretext for it? It was not about the North fighting to "free the slaves", or the south fighting to "keep the slaves". Slavery was a side issue, and in the end, much like the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclimation put an end game to the war, but its not what it was about.

Read about the Civil War pal. It was the ugliest, most costly war in the history of the US, in terms of lives lost. It was brutal, and evil, and it was unnecessary.

Do you agree with Sherman's tactics? Is it Macheavalian shit? Do the ends justify the means? What about Forrest?

War is good on your terms, right? The Civil war was the most bloody, ugly conflict in our history Cypress, it left more American dead than any other war in history. And slavery was abolished through its actions, but it didn't require the bloodbath to do it any more than any other country that had it.

War is ugly, war kills innocent and soldier alike, war divides people, war crushes cities and towns, war is almost never necessary, and the civil war didn't need to happen.
Click to expand...

Beefy, I can't even respond if you didn't read my post, and ascribe things to me that I didn't say.


Young Libertarian: I disagree that the South started the War. Lincoln could have chosen to respect the right of a state to secede. I'm not saying he made the wrong choice; historically the unity of the United States has been an unquestionable advantage, but he could have easily avoided the War.
Click to expand...

for the most part, I agree. Linclon could have decided not to fight. He could have let the south suceed, and he could have not responded to the insurrection and attack on fort sumpter. Given what happened though, I think he made the right decision however, in deciding to fight to keep the union together.
 
You are Wrong. This is the classic example of if you repeat a lie enough it becomes accepted as truth.
The Civil War Started because of slavery. Wrongo.
The civil war spun up because of taxes, tarrifs, and power.
 
uscitizen said:
You are Wrong. This is the classic example of if you repeat a lie enough it becomes accepted as truth.
The Civil War Started because of slavery. Wrongo.
The civil war spun up because of taxes, tarrifs, and power.
Click to expand...

Slavery was the issue. Sorry.
 
uscitizen said:
RP was being disingenious, the Civil War was not started over slavery.
Click to expand...


that was the point I made, quite explicity.

The war was tragic. But "senseless"? We are dealing with the historical facts as they are, not as how we would want them to be. Tossing out hypotheticals is mental masturbation. Sure, it would have been great if some grand compromise had been worked out in the 1850s, to free the slaves.

It didn't happen.

When lincoln took office, the south had already succeeded from the union, had formed their own government, and were firing on american troops at fort sumpter. What was he supposed to do? Let them suceed from the union, and attack american military installations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top