|
|
Bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
posted August 18, 2003 09:17 AM |
|
Edited By: Bizud on 18 Aug 2003
|
Quote:
The UN decides who can invade who? That has to be the dumbest thing I've heard in this thread (that was on topic). Would the UN acctually tell a government "yes, you can invade them"? That would be a big NO.
The UN has sanctioned several invasions, actually (the gulf war of 1991, to use one example). Regardless, I'm not plucking this stuff out of my hat. The security council decides whether an invasion is allowed or not - that's what the security council exists for.
|
|
soccerfeva
Disgraceful
Famous Hero
banned
|
|
posted August 18, 2003 01:19 PM |
|
|
Ya..anyone remembers the league of nations?
I was a little kid then..funny how things change now..
hmmm...
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted August 18, 2003 10:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Unsuccessfully, obviously in the opinions of many.
Many, yes, but not most. Nearly 80% of people in the U.S. supported the war to remove Saddam.
____________
|
|
soccerfeva
Disgraceful
Famous Hero
banned
|
|
posted August 19, 2003 03:16 PM |
|
|
LOL  Nobody knows what the league of nations is?! C'mon!
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted August 19, 2003 03:33 PM |
|
|
Wolfman, I was thinking the support started much lighter than that (80%), but you may be right that that's where it ended up.
Really my point is, though, I do not recall any actions stirring up as much controversy amonst the American consituency as this one has since Viet Nam. Witness this thread. Bush did not do himself or his support any favors by making the justification such a moving target.
P.S. On the one hand, I still wish the SOB was dead. On the other, I am appalled that we allegedly evolved humans are still driven to assassinating one another's offspring in an attempt to get control over a situation. While I certainly understand the logic behind that, when standing back a bit, it's really atrocious if you think about it. Almost as atrocious as those two boys were.
I wish there were some way for us to do better.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted August 19, 2003 11:43 PM |
|
|
It wasn't assasination, assasination is when you get in in secret and kill. This was a siege of someone's fortified house. I know what you mean, but it wasn't assasination.
And I remember the League of Nations, I wasn't around then, but I remember it.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted August 20, 2003 06:50 PM |
|
|
Perhaps I was trying to avoid using the word murder.
Whetever we call it, we killed them as part of a strategy to stomp out the seed.
Hope you are well Wolfman. Nice to spar with you again.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted August 21, 2003 06:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps I was trying to avoid using the word murder.
Whetever we call it, we killed them as part of a strategy to stomp out the seed.
Hope you are well Wolfman. Nice to spar with you again.
The administration must have just finished re-reading The Prince then. I thought it was pretty obvious they died in a firefight, no more murder than any other combat action in war. What does it matter, justice was served. They got way too easy a death in my mind. Shoulda turned em over to a few of the victims that survived.
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted August 21, 2003 06:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Lincoln may have known the war was not about slavery, but he made it THE issue of the war, as nothing more than a politically wise move.
Interestingly, some of the states on the Northern side also had slavery. Reinforces the "not a slavery war" argument a little. Slavery I agree was still the root problem, hand in hand with the southern economy lagging behind creating a fear of the loss of their "way of life". All tied together by slavery of course. The Emancipation Proclimation only freed the Southern slaves.
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
|
posted August 21, 2003 07:54 AM |
|
|
Slavery wasnt the main cause of the civil war. Slavery only became a big deal towards the end of the war.
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted August 21, 2003 10:31 PM |
|
|
Thank you, guys!
____________
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted August 21, 2003 10:39 PM |
|
|
If you can name one issue in the US Civil war that at it's root is not about Slavery, I won't call you guys idiots, let's see if you are up to the challenge. Beware! I will show you how each point you make is actually deeply connected to slavery.
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted August 21, 2003 10:57 PM |
|
|
Alright Oldtimer, but you misunderstand my point, the Civil War was not DIRECTLY fought over slavery. But deep down it caused it. CAUSED IT (indirectly), but was not FOUGHT OVER.
If the South had never secceded from the Union, probably no fight would have happened. Why did they seccede? Their lives were so different from those in the North, different culture, different thoughts and state's rights. Why did they have such a different culture? Agriculture as their main industry. What fueled their agriculture? Rich plantation owners and SLAVERY. You are right in saying that slavery was in there, and I never said it wasn't, but it was not the main reason or directly fought over it.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 22, 2003 12:24 AM |
|
|
Slavery drove the Southern economy via tobacco and cotton plantations. Through the 19th century, there was an increasingly vociferous abolitionist movement in the North. The North was more populous than the South. Or more accurately, the population of the "free" states was larger than that of the "slave" states. Therefore, "free" states controlled the House of Representatives. The senate, however, was divided equally between free and slave states. Leading to a very uneasy stalemate. When Missouri applied to become a state, it was going to enter as a Slave state (well, originally as a free state but changing populations being what they are, it eventually entered as a slave state). In order to maintain the balance, Maine was split from Massachusetts and became a seperate state with it's own two, anti-slavery senators. Missouri entered as a slave state. Thus, the balance was maintained.
Thirty years later and how things had changed, California was poised to enter the Union as a free state. There was no slave territory with enough population to become a state, so this threatened the balance of the Senate once more and more to the point, threatened slavery. Enter Clay, Calhoun and Webster who crafted the compromise of 1850. Long and short of it, California became a free state, but New Mexico was enlarged (using Texan land) and it and Utah were officially slave territories which would "hopefully" end up becoming slave states eventually. There was also a law crafted which forced the return of fugitive slaves. Thus, a second compromise was made over the issue of slavery which preserved the union.
The only difference at the first of 5 aprils was that there was no more room for compromise over the balance in the House and Senate between free states and slave states. Seccesion was used because the plantation owners knew that was the only way they could keep their slaves. All the drivel about State's rights was just window dressing.
For the record, I am from the Southern state (and former Confederate Capital) of Virginia.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted August 22, 2003 12:46 AM |
|
|
Someone from Alabama could say they were from the Confederate capitol too.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 22, 2003 03:40 AM |
|
|
They could. Of course, Richmond is in Virginia, but they can claim whatever they damn well please.
I wasn't stating that out of any Confederate pride, I just wanted to head off the "Yer jest a New York Yankee bashing on the South," statements.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted August 22, 2003 04:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
They could. Of course, Richmond is in Virginia, but they can claim whatever they damn well please.
The origional Confederate capitol was Montgomery Alabama, it was changed to Richmond in May 1861.
____________
|
|
Bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted August 22, 2003 05:59 AM |
|
|
|
The only thing I don't understand here is why anyone would make a point to point out their town's association with the Confederacy.
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted September 06, 2003 02:10 AM |
|
|
"sexing up" anyone?
wow cant belive theres a thread this long without meantion of naked girls, impressive.
Now that the wars all done and dusted (apart from saddam and the Weapons of mass destruction which are pretty minor ;p )
I was just wondering what everyone thinks about it now.
Should the UN take charge of iraq now like even America seem to be wanting? Do you feel that other countrys should step in and share the burden (and the blame if it goes wrong)?
I would also like to know how much media coverage is the big news in Britain getting throughout the world, with the "dodgey dossier", the hutton inquiry, 45 minute claim and the spin doctor Mr Campbell. Not to forget Dr Kellys death and all the "sexing up"
____________
|
|
valkyrica
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2003 02:07 AM |
|
|
are you taking any offers ? i wanna drop my resume by 
____________
I'm Guybrush Threepwood, mighty pirate
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
