I am just watching Meet The Press and The Honorable Charlie Rangel, verbal Democratic representative from New York just stated that American lives shouldn't be given to support democracy and freedom. His statement was very clear and without ambuiguity. Is that retroactive? Is this a black representative saying on national television that it was wrong for thousands of northern soldiers to come to the south to free the slaves? I don't see how the party can slice that hair. If it is wrong to support democracy and freedom now, it was wrong then. Is the Democratic Party so desperate that they are willing to say that everything that we have done in history to spread democracy has been wrong? Were we wrong to send troops into WWII? He said that he is a veteran of Korea and that soldiers are still there. Is the Democratic Party becoming isolationist? Is he really speaking for his electorate? Is the party really leaning in that direction? Only The person has importance, the neighborhood is irrelevant? Helping others is not worth the price? Transcript for this mornings broadcast are not up yet. I couldn't believe my ears.
Amazing and not possibly true
- Thread starter imported_Condor
- Start date
The Civil War began, IIRC, after the South attacked Fort Sumter. Slavery was an underlying reason for war brought to the forefront when the North came to the conclusion that freeing the slaves would hasten the end of the war.
So really there isn't that hair to split.
And the Civil war was over 140 years ago. Times may have changed just a bit in almost a century and a half, wouldn't you agree? Comparing the neocon policy of preemption whether the excuse is WMD or spreading "freedom and democracy" with the Civil War is not, IMO, a valid comparison.
Going overseas to attack nations which pose no threat with spreading freedom and democracy as our only excuse is hypocritical not only because this wasn't the reason we invaded Iraq but also, IMO, because in order for it not to be hypocritical we'd have to invade every nation that isn't free and democratic.
When do we invade China? Indonesia? Iran? Saudia Arabia? Or any of the other myriad nations where there is no freedom and democracy?
Representative Rangel knows just what he's doing. In 2000 Bush ran on a promise of no nation building. He reneged on that promise. If Bush had run in either of the past two elections on the platform of global warfare to bring freedom and democracy to the entire planet everyone, even his most ardent supporters, would have rejected him as some kind of a nut.
And they would be right.
So really there isn't that hair to split.
And the Civil war was over 140 years ago. Times may have changed just a bit in almost a century and a half, wouldn't you agree? Comparing the neocon policy of preemption whether the excuse is WMD or spreading "freedom and democracy" with the Civil War is not, IMO, a valid comparison.
Going overseas to attack nations which pose no threat with spreading freedom and democracy as our only excuse is hypocritical not only because this wasn't the reason we invaded Iraq but also, IMO, because in order for it not to be hypocritical we'd have to invade every nation that isn't free and democratic.
When do we invade China? Indonesia? Iran? Saudia Arabia? Or any of the other myriad nations where there is no freedom and democracy?
Representative Rangel knows just what he's doing. In 2000 Bush ran on a promise of no nation building. He reneged on that promise. If Bush had run in either of the past two elections on the platform of global warfare to bring freedom and democracy to the entire planet everyone, even his most ardent supporters, would have rejected him as some kind of a nut.
And they would be right.
I did post pretty much what he said from memory and then I went to the Meet The Press web site to get the text, but it isn't avaliable yet. Can you do better. I would welcome the exact quote.
Once again, you are wrong. Fort Sumpter was just the first volley. The reason for the Civil War was States Rights, the excuse for it was to free the slaves, but you will find writers on all sides of the issue. Fortunately, the Civil War did free the slaves, but at a high cost in both lives and the Constitution. I think it was worth it. I would like to see our federal government reduced in power in relation to the states, but am not an activist. I would much rather pay taxes to the state and have the state pay taxes to the federal government.
You know, Dave, you really ought to read your own links:
"America's most tragic conflict ignited at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, when a chain reaction of social, economic and political events exploded into civil war. At the heart of these events was the issue of states rights versus federal authority flowing over the underlying issue of slavery"
That would work if the corporations that earn money through the talent and resources of the Red states allowed the taxes earned from them to be credited to them. Many large corporations have accounting centers in the Blue states and the claim that you allude to is inaccurate because of that. Money that is actually generated in the Red states is credited to financial centers like NYC because that is often where the corporate headquarters are located. The stock market is a good example. Money is earned in NYC through the stock exchange though the value actually lies elsewhere.
I had lots of typos to fix.
Lincoln was an abolitionist, but he was not willing to fight a war for that purpose and made his preference for preserving the Union over freeing the slaves abundantly clear in his speeches and writings. The aftermath of the Civil War, where blacks lost their representatives and their right to vote under Jim Crow legislation only a few years after the war, points toward the futility of fighting for democracy.
Slavery would've lasted a few years longer without the ACW, but world moral disapprobation and the changing economic conditions resulting from the industrial revolution would've ended slavery in the US as it did in every other Western country before the close of the 19th century.
Having slavery ended willingly instead of at the cost of millions dead and injured would've left the South less hateful toward their former slaves and thus may have prevented their almost immediate loss of their newfound democratic rights.
What you say may be true and I agree in principle. What has to be remembered though, is that slavery still exists in many parts of the world. Trade in persons is a very large issue in international venues today. You are also probably correct in that a natural elimination of slavery would have taken place and the results would have been a better experience in the long run. I don't imagine that the slaves who were freed during and after the Civil War would agree with us though. I think they were just glad to be free.
Now my name is Dave???
If you read my post you'll see I clearly stated what you bolded above. The issue is whether America or any nation has the right to attack another nation when there is no threat from that nation in the name of bringing freedom and democracy. And whether any nation which does so is justified in killing a hundred thousand or so people in the process. And whether any nation's notion of freedom and democracy can be forced on another nation that doesn't ask for help.
Bush didn't invade Iraq to bring freedom and democracy. He invaded on the lies about WMD. Period. These are the types of excesses we can expect when we give a megalomaniac like Bush a free hand to fashion the world in his image using any excuse at hand because the American people have lost the ability to seek and recognize the truth.
.
In lots of ways. Minnie balls were nearly as destructive as the cluster bombs of today. Limbs were simply sawed off without anathesia. Many wounded died long and slow deaths because medical science didn't have antibodics then. Men went willingly to slaughter for a pennance on both sides. Soldiers lived miserable existances with no shelter and little proper clothing. Insects were awful and got worse as more died on the battle field. Much of the fighting was done with swords, leaving festering wounds to be attacked by insects. The civil war was perhaps, a much worse war than the war in Iraq from a human perspective. Again, there was lots on the table and the results were worth it to many.
You must remember also that Iraq was a dictatorship. That means that all of its citizens were slaves, not just a few. It was not a nation divided because no division was tolerated on pain of death. Another likeness to the Civil War, we are freeing slaves once again! Does that mean nothing?
Sorry, that was such a typical Dave post. No, you didn't state that at all. You stated that the main reason for the Civil War was the southern attack on Ft. Sumpter and then said "Slavery was an underlying reason for war brought to the forefront when the North came to the conclusion that freeing the slaves would hasten the end of the war. ". No mention of states rights at all in your post.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
The right is a fraud. They embrace oil and no-bid contracts for their contributors and associates in the name of lies based on fake threats then, after their lies become apparent the change their motive to the excuse du jour.
And the American people have lost the ability to see through the charade.
That's what the Republicans are doing for "Lady Liberty". They've cut out her heart and her eyes and sold her like a prostitute who murders her customers.
They've turned Lady Liberty into a blind and heartless Aileen Wuornos
And the American people have lost the ability to see through the charade.
That's what the Republicans are doing for "Lady Liberty". They've cut out her heart and her eyes and sold her like a prostitute who murders her customers.
They've turned Lady Liberty into a blind and heartless Aileen Wuornos
Uhh, 'scuse me, Condor, but there's a very big difference between a CIVIL WAR, anywhere, and the invasion/conquest of an entirely different country on the other side of the globe...
The whole reference is specious in the extreme, and beneath any further comment.
As for the rest of it, Rangel is on the edge of mainstream Democratic thought, but he does have a point. It's one thing to defend an ally, entirely another to invade in hopes of making friends in such a fashion, or of spreading democracy at the point of a gun- pretty much a non-sequiter... That's not why we invaded, anyway, remember? Or has revisionist history already obfuscated that little detail?
The whole reference is specious in the extreme, and beneath any further comment.
As for the rest of it, Rangel is on the edge of mainstream Democratic thought, but he does have a point. It's one thing to defend an ally, entirely another to invade in hopes of making friends in such a fashion, or of spreading democracy at the point of a gun- pretty much a non-sequiter... That's not why we invaded, anyway, remember? Or has revisionist history already obfuscated that little detail?
so when do we extend the Bush doctrine of spreading democracy to Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China, and most of Africa?
Seems like when I look to the left, I see the shades of revisionist history. The crux was not about the civil war and it only came as an example of freeing people and giving them democracy and I think you realize that. My question is just how selective is the will of the Democrats to have or give or help attain freedom. If you want specious, that would be a Democrat saying he or she believes in democracy for all with people like Rangel disputing it. Makes the party look at least confused if not doubting its very core beliefs.
Ever hear the phrase "Low hanging fruit"? One step at a time. One that is done is one less to do. Been going on for some 200 years, one brick at a time.
The despots certainly don't want it. The ones who are lower on the pole want it plenty, but would love to have it without any payment in pain. It doesn't come that way, unfortunately. Never has and never will.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter