General discussion


The War Is In Iraq.

By jardinier ·
When a discussion has passed the 150 postings mark, I think it might be a good idea to start a fresh one to get back to the original topic.

The way things are going, we might end up discussing the Civil War or the War of Independence.

Mallard's discussion: "Time To Pay The Piper" has certainly proved to be an excellent vehicle for the exchange of views, experiences and general information.

Good one, Duck!

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

87 total posts (Page 6 of 9)   Prev   04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Given past experience in the region

by admin In reply to OK, Suppose we capture Sa ...

we may:

1. Say he keeps hiding and that we can't find him.

2. Sell him more weapons.

3. Forgot that we all swore to kill him. I saw a "Toilet Target" of the Ayatollah the other day.... brought back memories...

4. All of the above.

The near recent past contingency could also include the problem of doubles in addition to vast secret cave networks..... but in time, well...............

Collapse -

Which Civil War?

by generalist In reply to The War Is In Iraq.

As an American, I sometimes assume that 'the Civil War' refers to what is also known as 'the War Between the States'.

As someone with a casual interest in history, I know that there are several civil wars that have had an important part in various country's histories.

Collapse -

I have never heard ....

by jardinier In reply to Which Civil War?

of the American Civil War referred to as "The War Between The States," so no doubt road-dog will boil me in oil and pour burning coals on me for casually referring to it as "a war to liberate the slaves" in another posting in this discussion.

But as no war is in any manner "civilised," the very term is self-contradictory in a sense.

And yes of course throughout history there have been many such wars, the term "Civil War" of course being used to describe a war that is fought between different factions within a particular country.

Collapse -

My Uncle Jimmy calls it

by road-dog In reply to I have never heard ....

"the war of northern agression". His term is based on the argument that secession was a valid option for states wishing to discontinue membership in the "united" states. Since this secession was on paper and the south did not invade the north to pursue independence, the war was for all intents and purposes, an aggression by the north.

I happen to agree with his view in semantics, but I also believe that the result was for the best.

As for the slavery angle, I have opined that slavery wasmerely a tool used by Lincoln to solidify the north's resolve to stop the secession. The verbage and the timing of the Emancipation Proclamation both back that opinion up.

As for boiling and coal pouring, I don't get worked up over the semantics of it, so I don't need torture to get the point across.

For the purposes of this discussion, let us refer to the American Civil War as the Civil War. Those civil wars occurring in other nations will be geographically identified at posting, as thisforum is US based and we are the ethnocentric folks that we are.

Collapse -

Lincoln and the War

by kethry127 In reply to My Uncle Jimmy calls it

Actually for Lincoln the war was more about the right of states to secede than slavery. There is sufficient legal evidence to make the case either direction, for or against succession. While personally Lincoln felt that slavery was wrong, for most of his political career he conformed to the public notion that slavery was a necessary evil, i.e. the economy and therefore the country could not survive without it. Lincoln recognized that public opinion was shifting away from that concept to one that was closer to his personal beliefs. Did he time the Emancipation Proclamation to influence foreign opinion and unite the North, yes. How is that different that some of the speeches President Bush has made to justify this war? Lincoln's verbiage inthe EP demonstrates his conflicting desires to allow a man his freedom, and the need for laws that benefit the many over the individual.

Collapse -

Not meant as Torture :)

by admin In reply to My Uncle Jimmy calls it

But I'd have to also point out that it has been persuavily argued that the South would have had to drop slavery anyway and was definately at least going this direction by the Civil War. Sharecroppers essentially became the new word and this too eventually died out.

At any rate, a lot of historians are in agreement that the Cvil War being about the slavery was primarily a rallying point for the populace and was probably not the driving force behind the war.

Collapse -

"Civil" war

by dcosgrove In reply to I have never heard ....

Quite right Jul, not very civil to kill your own family members. But slvavery was just the tip of the iceberg in this war, like WMD is the tip in the Iraq war. Prior to the Civil War, several sates had decided to succede from the Union due to the Federal Government's increasing legislation. The federal govt went to war to stop them. It is still a source of great debate as to how much controll the Federal Govt. should have over individual states and is usually at the seat of most of this countries great debates, though it is often overlooked. Abortion is a good example, many of the anti Roe v Wade crowd is actually against the Feds forcing states to allow such practises, in print however, you will get a great story about religious convictions etc. Not that it is not true, often the greater meanings are lost due to talking point and media sound bites.

Collapse -

Reverse Timeline

by Oldefar In reply to The War Is In Iraq.

Has anyone else noticed the irony in the advancement of "smart" weapons?

100,000 BC - humans advance warfare from threatening displays and sounds to hitting each other with rocks

80,000 BC - warfare advances to the use of clubs

60,000 BC - warfare advances again as spears allow stand off attacks

40,000 BC - spears are reduced in size but increased in velocity with early bows.

5,000 BC - cutting instruments, swords, are introduced

1200 AD - gunpowder allows early guns to be developed

1945 AD - Nuclear power results in incredible explosive capability

1980 AD - USAF advances to precision guided high velocity spears as a tank killer

2003 AD - British develop precision guided smart bomb made of concrete

2005 AD - Loud grunts and threatening gestures?

Collapse -

An interesting perspective.

by jardinier In reply to Reverse Timeline

In some science fiction movies, disputes between countries are settled by a hand-to-hand combat between two warriors, one chosen by each country.

The country whose gladiator conquers his opponent becames the victor; the dispute is resolved; and everyone returns to their normal routine.

Well that method, which I think may have historical precedent, would save a lot of bloodshed and destruction.

So let's hope that your projection may one day become reality, and countries may settle their disputes without all the carnage and devastation that has been caused by wars during the past few millennia.

Collapse -

Well Julian

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to An interesting perspectiv ...

If you where an avid SiFi watcher I think that this has already been proposed in Blakes 7 a BBC production in the early 70's and in Star Treck as well. So hopefully sometime in the future all conflicts will be settled in this manner.

Untill then however I'll just wait for something like Orac to be built and then try to gain exclusive access to it.

Back to Community Forum
87 total posts (Page 6 of 9)   Prev   04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums