# The American Revolution: was it necessary?



## Peak and Pine

I say no.
​


----------



## theCardiffGiant

Rabble rabble!


----------



## Cruiser

Was the American Revolution necessary for the U.S. to become an independent nation? Probably not. This would have come about over time as the British Empire fell apart.

A more important question is would the U.S. have become the nation it is today without the Revolution? I think not. The Revolution gave the new nation a heritage, great men who were willing to sacrifice both fortune and blood for a dream. It gave the nation a "Declaration of Independence" and then nearly a hundred years later formed the crux of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. It gave succeeding generations of Americans a profound sense of pride and desire to honor and live up to that heritage.

In short the American Revolution provided the base upon which a great nation was forged. Without the Revolution I'm not sure that this would have played out the same.

Cruiser


----------



## DukeGrad

*Cruiser*

Long story short, I agree with Cruiser.
Also, without the revolution, we would not have clothing

Jimmy


----------



## ksinc

Peak and Pine said:


> *The American Revolution: was it necessary?*
> I say no.


"Necessary" requires qualification.

Necessary means needed to achieve a certain desired effect or result; or logically inevitable / unavoidably determined by a prior condition or circumstance?

So, necessary for what?

It seems it was possibly necessary for some things and not for others.


----------



## Peak and Pine

*The American Revolution: was it necessary*?

I have brought this question up twice before in my lifetime; once in high school and once drunk in a bar (which Ksinc thinks I am all the time). Each time the crowd was horrfied, and it takes a lot to get steel workers horrified at Helen and Joe's Hillside Bar Room in Pittsburgh. I am pleasantly surprised that no one here, so far, is horrified.

Though well worded, I think Cruiser's reply is more or less the standard one, and Ksinc correctly asks the definition of necessary, in which case, here, it would be (his) definition number one.
​


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr.

*American War of Northern Aggression totally uncalled for*

The colonial insurgents always seemed to be overreacting in my book too. And I think we've proven that Democracy is not a sustainable form of government.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

It's a stupid, inflammatory question, so the crowd's horror was actually the closest thing to a correct response.


----------



## ksinc

Cruiser said:


> Was the American Revolution necessary for the U.S. to become an independent nation? Probably not. This would have come about over time as the British Empire fell apart.
> 
> A more important question is would the U.S. have become the nation it is today without the Revolution? I think not. The Revolution gave the new nation a heritage, great men who were willing to sacrifice both fortune and blood for a dream. *It gave the nation a "Declaration of Independence" and then nearly a hundred years later formed the crux of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.* It gave succeeding generations of Americans a profound sense of pride and desire to honor and live up to that heritage.
> 
> In short the American Revolution provided the base upon which a great nation was forged. Without the Revolution I'm not sure that this would have played out the same.
> 
> Cruiser


Sadly, that statement is true. Lincoln did make the DoI the crux of his Gettysburg address, but with what we know about Lincoln that is a rather troubling thing; is it not?

I think it is common knowlege here that I have no regard for Lincoln, but leaving that out compare these quotes and see for yourself.



> We have besides these men descended by blood from our ancestors-among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe German, Irish,. French and Scandinavian men&#8230;if they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none,&#8230;but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and then they feel that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as through they were blood of blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.


It almost brings a tear to your eyes doesn't it?

Now consider the same man said both of the following in 1858 as well.



> Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur, and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are _not_ created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated by our chart of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the Revolution. Think nothing of me-take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever-but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence.





> "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of *******, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the ***** should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a ***** woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of *******."


If that isn't the babbling of a sociopath I don't know what is, but let's see; shall we?



> Antisocial Personality Disorder is also known as psychopathy or
> sociopathy...
> Individuals with this disorder have little regard for the
> feeling and welfare of others...
> People with this disorder may exhibit criminal behavior...
> They do not consider other people's wishes, welfare or
> rights...
> They can be manipulative and may lie to gain personal
> pleasure or profit...
> There are many theories about the cause of Antisocial Personality
> Disorder including experiencing neglectful parenting as a child, low
> levels of certain neurotransmitters in the brain, and belief that
> antisocial behavior is justified because of difficult circumstances...


Really? That's an odd coincidence. Let's see if that could apply anywhere else?



> "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."





> "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.


That's rather startling; isn't it? However, let's not jump to conclusions without a sense of causation.

I wonder what Lincoln's childhood was like? Anyone know??? Come on ... I know 1/4 of you have law degrees; you must have an 'as new' history book laying around somewhere ... heck, it's probably still in the original wrapper ...

Oh well, at least Lincoln never argued that the DoI protected the right of secession; right?


----------



## ksinc

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> The colonial insurgents always seemed to be overreacting in my book too. And I think we've proven that Democracy is not a sustainable form of government.


I don't think you can blame anything in this country that has happened post-Civil War on Colonials or the form of Democracy they founded.

Is our current Democracy sustainable? Clearly not. But that's not George Washington's fault either.


----------



## Peak and Pine

*The American revolution: was it necessary?*

I'm going to leave Ksinc's treatise above alone because, though while I read it and rather carefully, I don't really understand who's saying what or its precise pertinence to the question posed. Instead I'd like to address Pedantic Turkey because, when it comes to intellectual stuff, I often like to take the easy way out.

Dear Mr. Turkey: when Paul Revere yelled 'the Redcoats are coming, the Redcoats are coming!' would it have been out of place to have replied, _so_?​


----------



## Quay

Of course it was necessary as it had been planned hundreds if not thousands of years in advance by The Knights Templar, the Illuminati, and the Masons. This will all shortly be explained in Dan Brown's new book _The Benjamin West Code, _to be followed later on with modern updates in _The Norman Rockwell Code._

Here's a map for those that want to get started early to find the prize:


----------



## ksinc

Peak and Pine said:


> *The American revolution: was it necessary?*
> 
> I'm going to leave Ksinc's treatise above alone because, though while I read it and rather carefully, I don't really understand who's saying what or its precise pertinence to the question posed. Instead I'd like to address Pedantic Turkey because, when it comes to intellectual stuff, I often like to take the easy way out.
> 
> Dear Mr. Turkey: when Paul Revere yelled 'the Redcoats are coming, the Redcoats are coming!' would it have been out of place to have replied, _so_?​


It's only pertinent in so much as I characterized Cruiser's connection of Revolution to Lincoln as 'sad, but true' by pointing out the use of the DoI language at Gettysburg as the crux of his message was completely illegitimate and insincere.

Lincoln was not directly pertinent to the question at hand, Revolution. However, as you selected Cruiser's as the best answer to your question and Cruiser was correct in expounding on the enduring sentiment of the Revolution as evidenced by Lincoln's selective use of the language in his speech; I thought we must be fair and balanced in our review of Lincoln's use of DoI language and whether he was truly holding to its sentiments or those of the Founders.

I apologize for taking the question too seriously, but I think Chats' post, and my reply, demonstrates the problem I see with the majority not really understanding what transpired in this nation circa 1860 and that we are NOT in fact today living the inevitiable outcome of the actions of 1776, but that those ideals were ingeniously highjacked by perhaps the most talented criminal and political mind in our nation's history until the ascendancy of Barack Hussein Obama.

All the quotes were Lincoln in his own words except the quote on the traits of psycopathy. I agree it is hard to read them and think they all came from the same person. They certainly seem like quotations of several different personalities; don't they? Fascinating since so-called history teachers praise Lincoln for writing most, if not all, of his own speeches - unlike modern Presidents. Makes one wonder if they ever actually read any of them. Or do people really get through law school without actually reading Lincoln v. Douglas; or do they read it and not understand it? And if people don't understand the history behind the laws, how can they argue for and against them, or hope to write new ones that have equal moral standing as say the DoI? To your comment the other day, they clearly have little-to-no idea what Thomas Jefferson read, thought, and wrote besides the DoI.

The key to the ideals of the DoI enduring is learning, understanding, and teaching them to each new generation. We don't do that; and most of the people that are given this task are ill-equiped to do it.

Is another Revolution necessary?


----------



## ksinc

Quay said:


> Of course it was necessary as it had been planned hundreds if not thousands of years in advance by The Knights Templar, the Illuminati, and the Masons. This will all shortly be explained in Dan Brown's new book _The Benjamin West Code, _to be followed later on with modern updates in _The Norman Rockwell Code._
> 
> Here's a map for those that want to get started early to find the prize:


So it is true that Hoover wasn't gay, but thought he was Mary Magdalene re-incarnated? :devil:


----------



## Quay

ksinc said:


> So it is true that Hoover wasn't gay, but thought he was Mary Magdalene re-incarnated? :devil:


Those two things aren't necessarily contradictory. :icon_smile_big:

According to a secret draft of Brown's book that is circulating in select bars, Hoover was in fact Pontius Pilate reincarnated but favored flowered chintz over Romanesque robing. There is just no accounting for taste.

And yes, one of Brown's "clues" was buried with Hoover in the famous lead-lined casket. Tom Hanks is really going to have to pull a fast one to dig that up and may have to call in Nicolas Cage to help.

Oh, and in keeping with your mission in this thread, Brown speculates that the Lincoln Memorial was built with Lincoln forever sitting so he can keep his brain warm for all eternity.


----------



## Peak and Pine

*The American Revolution: was it necessary?*



ksinc said:


> As you selected Cruiser's as the best answer to your question...


Actually, I didn't select Cruiser's response as the best, just what I figured would be the generally accepted one. The best answer was mine.



ksinc said:


> ...those ideals [as per the Declaration of Independance] were ingeniously highjacked by perhaps the most talented criminal and political mind [A. Lincoln] in our nation's history until the ascendancy of Barack Hussein Obama. [our current Black President]


For clarity only, I added in brackets (above) the nouns I think you were referencing.



ksinc said:


> All the quotes were Lincoln...I agree *it is hard* *to read them and think they all came from the same person*.


Yes it is, especially when you say that two of them were from 1958. While I don't think you're plum loco (which is the highest degree of loco), I would be interested in hearing more about your crazy views on Lincoln in a dedicated thread. This one's about the need for The American Revolution, my first thread ever, my little baby so to speak.



ksinc said:


> Is another Revolution necessary?


No. Nor was the first.​


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr.

*Unnecessary*



ksinc said:


> Is another Revolution necessary?


Shockingly, I decided against posting a response that ended with the assertion that anyone who thinks the original revolt was necessary must agree that we are overdue for another.

Personally I admire the rebel spirit of the traitorous colonial insurgents while acknowledging that the pretense these natural aristocrats used to justify their pet social experiment was flimsy and inadequate.

As with the original revolt, I like the idea but find it very unnecessary.


----------



## ksinc

Quay said:


> Those two things aren't necessarily contradictory. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> According to a secret draft of Brown's book that is circulating in select bars, Hoover was in fact Pontius Pilate reincarnated but favored flowered chintz over Romanesque robing. There is just no accounting for taste.
> 
> And yes, one of Brown's "clues" was buried with Hoover in the famous lead-lined casket. Tom Hanks is really going to have to pull a fast one to dig that up and may have to call in Nicolas Cage to help.
> 
> Oh, and in keeping with your mission in this thread, Brown speculates that the Lincoln Memorial was built with Lincoln forever sitting so he can keep his brain warm for all eternity.


Ha! LOL! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Shockingly, I decided against posting a response that ended with the assertion that anyone who thinks the original revolt was necessary must agree that we are overdue for another.
> 
> Personally I admire the rebel spirit of the traitorous colonial insurgents while acknowledging that the pretense these natural aristocrats used to justify their pet social experiment was flimsy and inadequate.
> 
> As with the original revolt, I like the idea but find it very unnecessary.


Very interesting point.

Maybe not everything "good" is "necessary"; and vice-versa?

Could one think the Revolution was unnecesary, but one is now?


----------



## ksinc

Peak and Pine said:


> *The American Revolution: was it necessary?*
> 
> Actually, I didn't select Cruiser's response as the best, just what I figured would be the generally accepted one. The best answer was mine.​For clarity only, I added in brackets (above) the nouns I think you were referencing.
> 
> Yes it is, especially when you say that two of them were from 1958. While I don't think you're plum loco (which is the highest degree of loco), I would be interested in hearing more about your crazy views on Lincoln in a dedicated thread. This one's about the need for The American Revolution, my first thread ever, my little baby so to speak.
> 
> No. Nor was the first.​


Don't discount Turkey's answer.

Strange that you think Barack Hussein Obama is a noun that needs clarification in brackets as our "current black President." If I chose 21 words to describe BHO I don't think one of them would be "black." The other two were correct.

It will shock you to learn I meant 1858?

You haven't clarified the question; necessary for what? Nor do you inquire into the possible necessity now.

Some would read into these that you are an obtuse and uncurious person.


----------



## Quay

Returning to the OP, was the American Revolution necessary? No. Was it likely given the circumstances of the time? Quite possibly. But necessary, as in inevitable or predestined? Not really as there were other possible outcomes.


----------



## eagle2250

Was the American Revolution necessary? No. Was it inevitable? Yes, given the innate arrogance, characteristic of human leadership! As Cruiser opined, the American colonies would have eventually become an independent nation, absent a revolution, with the eventual (and natural) demise of the British empire. Every empire will eventually crumble, and almost always a result of forces from within. While it is ironic that the forces that resulted in the colonies becoming our beloved American Nation are contributing to our demise, it seems supremely ironic that the British Empire's and America's (empire) twisted editions of King George both served as catalysts in facilitating the crumbling of the national entities that each so obviously loved. Too much power corrupts, absolutely, Sadly President Obama seems not to have learned the lesson!


----------



## turban1

*well...*

Canada and Australia became independent without any shots being fired, and most people think those countries are pleasant, prosperous and self-governed.

whatever original rights were once enjoyed by US states have long since been seized by Washington, DC. Habeus Corpus, part of the British legal tradition since the middle ages, has been overturned in America.

tax rates are far higher than under King George III and modern American taxpayers discuss whether they are truly represented by their masters.

It all looks a bit rocky to me.


----------



## Peak and Pine

*The American Revolution: was it necessary?*

Bkg: Ksinc had recently posted in this thread a number of historical quotes without identifying the authors. It was a game I guess, made more confusing by mis-dating some of the quotes as 1958. I reprinted a line from the post, adding clarifying notes in brackets, devoid of sarcasm, which was difficult. The bracket containg the phrase "our current Black President" was added to explain what Ksinc meant when he said "Barack Hussein Obama", for when someone uses the President's middle name it is always meant to convey that he is either Black, Muslim or sinister. You will hear the President called this regularly on Limbaugh, Beck, etc. Ksinc, apparently not getting any of this, replies as follows:



ksinc said:


> Don't discount Turkey's answer.
> 
> Strange that you think Barack Hussein Obama is a noun that needs clarification in brackets as our "current black President." If I chose 21 words to describe BHO I don't think one of them would be "black." The other two were correct.
> 
> It will shock you to learn I meant 1858?
> 
> You haven't clarified the question; necessary for what? Nor do you inquire into the possible necessity now.
> 
> Some would read into these that you are an obtuse and uncurious person.


The question was clarified in post #5 and in Quay's just above this. The word_ uncurious_ does not exist, perhaps you meant_ incurious_. As for Turkey, he is a marginal creature to whom I never respond.

Having gotten that out of the way and returning to the original question, I believe America would have evolved in very much the same way it has if there had been no AR, we still would have had Teapot Dome and Elvis, but we wouldn't have had the War of 1812 and, probably, the entire world wouldn't have had World Wars I and II.​


----------



## Peak and Pine

Having just read some of the recent posts, I am now understanding that those that agree with me (that the AR wasn't necessary) aren't really agreeing with me. My fault. My idea was not that a break with England was inevitable or whether or not it came violently or peacefully or in 1776 or 1976.

My belief is that we should have stayed part of England.​


----------



## Peak and Pine

eagle2250 said:


> . While it is ironic that the forces that resulted in the colonies becoming our beloved American Nation are contributing to our demise, it seems supremely ironic that the British Empire's and America's (empire) twisted editions of King George both served as catalysts in facilitating the crumbling of the national entities that each so obviously loved


That sentence is either far too intellectual or far too dumb for the Peakster to understand. Would you pls rwrite in plainer (New England type) language. You may be on to something.
​


----------



## Cruiser

turban1 said:


> Canada and Australia became independent without any shots being fired, and most people think those countries are pleasant, prosperous and self-governed.


Whether one wants to admit it or not, the free world remained free over the past two centuries because American military might stood watch over it. Without the Revolution it is doubtful that the U.S. would have become the military power that it became.

Cruiser


----------



## Peak and Pine

You don't think that the* combined* military forces of the US and the UK would have been even greater?​


----------



## Mike Petrik

Peak and Pine said:


> You don't think that the* combined* military forces of the US and the UK would have been even greater?​


While no one can know for sure, I think it is unlikely that the US would have developed its industrial and military might had it remained a colony of Great Britain.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Peak and Pine said:


> Having just read some of the recent posts, I am now understanding that those that agree with me (that the AR wasn't necessary) aren't really agreeing with me. My fault. My idea was not that a break with England was inevitable or whether or not it came violently or peacefully or in 1776 or 1976.
> 
> My belief is that we should have stayed part of England.​


The AR was avoidable in the sense that King George and his advisors miscalculated terribly when dealing with the colonies. That said, whether a break was nonetheless inevitable is hard to say. The impulse for a republican styled self-government was highly developed in the colonies and greatly feared and resisted in Great Britain. It is doubtful that the resulting strain could have been managed successfully unless Great Britain accorded the colonies much more self-governance than it was prepared to believe was appropriate.

I, for one, am very grateful for the sacrifices of our colonists in forging an independant nation. Nothing whatsoever against our friends from across the pond, but I am proud to be an American. I only hope my children still feel that way as the mature into adulthood.


----------



## ksinc

Peak and Pine said:


> Bkg: Ksinc had recently posted in this thread a number of historical quotes without identifying the authors. It was a game I guess, made more confusing by mis-dating some of the quotes as 1958. I reprinted a line from the post, adding clarifying notes in brackets, devoid of sarcasm, which was difficult. The bracket containg the phrase "our current Black President" was added to explain what Ksinc meant when he said "Barack Hussein Obama", for when someone uses the President's middle name it is always meant to convey that he is either Black, Muslim or sinister. You will hear the President called this regularly on Limbaugh, Beck, etc. Ksinc, apparently not getting any of this, replies as follows:
> 
> People who use the words "all, always, and never" scare me; particularly when while doing so they say nothing substantive - substituting aggressive language for competence in the subject matter at hand. However, since you see anything you don't understand as a game, "I'll take 'sinister' for $500, Jack." How often do you listen to Limbaugh and Beck; it seems like you listen to them rather frequently?
> 
> Would one deny his father and be new baptized?
> 
> The question was clarified in post #5 and in Quay's just above this. The word_ uncurious_ does not exist, perhaps you meant_ incurious_.
> 
> Entry Word: *uncurious*
> Function: _adjective_
> Meaning: having or showing a lack of interest or concern <how can you be so _uncurious_ about the world around you?
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/uncurious
> 
> How ironic; No?​


Text in blue is KSINC's inline reply.​


----------



## KenR

I think that the question hinges on _when _King George, or a subsequent monarch (George, William, Victoria, etc.), would have given the colonies their independence. If you are talking a decade or so down the line (i.e. by 1800) then it may not have been necessary. If you are talking much later then, yes, it was necessary. And this does not take into account how the Revolution helped forge our nations identity.

Excellent question.


----------



## norton

Peak and Pine said:


> You don't think that the* combined* military forces of the US and the UK would have been even greater?​


I believe american dominance is only secondarily due to military power, but primarily due to the genius of its Constitution. Since the UK doesn't have a constitution, yes revolution was necessary.

Military dominance would have been repulsive to the founders.


----------



## Cruiser

Peak and Pine said:


> You don't think that the* combined* military forces of the US and the UK would have been even greater?


I was responding to the suggestion that the U.S. could have developed as an independent State like Canada and Australia, so let's look at Canada and Australia to answer this.

Could the combined military forces of Canada and the UK stop Hitler? Remember, the U.S. would have been similar to Canada under the suggestion. Long before the invasion at Normandy, U.S. airpower was already in England carrying out massive daytime bombing raids over Germany and slowing down the German military/industrial complex.

Could the combined forces of Australia and the UK have staved off a Japanese invasion of Australia? Of course not. England was tied up in it's own struggle for survival at the time and Australia was quickly pulling it's forces out of Europe and North Africa to defend it's own homeland from invasion. Fortunately the U.S. victories over the Japanese at Midway and Coral Sea effectively ended any real threat of an invasion of Australia.

Could the combined military might of the UK and Canada have won the cold war?

The fact is that the U.S. military might has saved the bacon of more than a few folks around the world over the years. Neither Canada nor Australia, the two countries used as examples, were capable of doing that even in conjunction with the UK, and I suspect that the circumstances behind the birth of the U.S. played a large role in the way that military might developed.

Cruiser


----------



## KenR

Canada's population is much smaller than the U.S.


----------



## Phinn

Quay said:


> Of course it was necessary as it had been planned hundreds if not thousands of years in advance by The Knights Templar, the Illuminati, and the Masons. This will all shortly be explained in Dan Brown's new book _The Benjamin West Code, _to be followed later on with modern updates in _The Norman Rockwell Code._
> 
> Here's a map for those that want to get started early to find the prize:


That's freaky.

But, alas, the inaccurate ramblings of amateurs.

If you want to know the really deep, dark, hidden truths behind Washington, DC, here's a hint:

The dot under the exclamation point is right on top of the Library of Congress. I don't know about you, but that some seriously spooky stuff right there.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Cruiser said:


> Could the combined military might of the UK and Canada have won the cold war?


You're assuming there_ was_ a cold war, rather than a 45-year crazy misunderstanding between the USSR and the US that each wanted to bomb the bejesus out of each other, when in truth neither did.
​


----------



## ksinc

Peak and Pine said:


> You're assuming there_ was_ a cold war, rather than a 45-year crazy misunderstanding between the USSR and the US that each wanted to bomb the bejesus out of each other, when in truth neither did.


And how long have you spent in Russia?


----------



## Peak and Pine

Cruiser said:


> I was responding to the suggestion that the U.S. could have developed as an independent State like Canada and Australia, so let's look at Canada and Australia to answer this.
> 
> Could the combined military forces of Canada and the UK stop Hitler? Remember, the U.S. would have been similar to Canada under the suggestion. Long before the invasion at Normandy, U.S. airpower was already in England carrying out massive daytime bombing raids over Germany and slowing down the German military/industrial complex.
> 
> Could the combined forces of Australia and the UK have staved off a Japanese invasion of Australia? Of course not. England was tied up in it's own struggle for survival at the time and Australia was quickly pulling it's forces out of Europe and North Africa to defend it's own homeland from invasion. Fortunately the U.S. victories over the Japanese at Midway and Coral Sea effectively ended any real threat of an invasion of Australia.


I know what you're trying to say with that, but I think you've gone too deep into analogy. Accepting the premise, which either you don't or you've misread, i.e., that at the time of World Wars I and II the US had actually been _part of Britain_, I believe (and of course I'm making this up) that those Krazy Krouts, Wilhelm and Hitler, would have nixed global agression at the outset, knowing that Wilson and FDR would not have sat on their hands for 2+ years as they did, but would have immediately joined the fray having no other choice since the US would have been just another 48 counties to add to Britain's 45.​


----------



## WouldaShoulda

ksinc said:


> And how long have you spent in Russia?


Or Poland.


----------



## Peak and Pine

*The American Revolution: was it necessary?*

This being my first thread ever (of which I'm still giddy and still cleaning up from the First Thread Ever party I had last night, though granted no one came), I would like to thank all the thoughtful posters here, especially Cruiser, Chats, Quay, KenR, Mike P and even my ol' nemises Eagle2250.

Ksinc of course is not included in that list, having done everything in his miniscule power to derail this with wacko allegations against Lincoln and quite a few against myself. However, I think some here may have been entertained by this, including me. So to Ksinc I would like to say:

(And I'm borrowing the idea of this from Bill Maher, who I adore, and who said when introducing Christopher Hitchens to his show many years ago, something to the effect of "I disagree with everything you stand for, but you are the first person I read when I get my Vanity Fair")

So K, I believe you're the biggest barrel of hog wash here, but if you weren't (here) I wouldn't be checking in nearly so often. Love ya, man.​


----------



## agnash

American Revolution necessary, maybe, maybe not, depending on what you believe to have been the goal.

The Whiskey Rebellion, absolutely necessary, but unfortunately it failed. Rebellion against taxation is always a good thing.


----------



## waldenbags

Peak and Pine said:


> I say no.
> ​


Two-thirds of the colonists stood nothing to gain from independence. Their lot after the AR was the same as it had been prior to the war and would have been the same under continued British rule.

The founding fathers never wanted Thomas Paine's version of a popular democracy but found his rhetoric useful to rally popular support for revolution among that two-thirds of the populace.

The revolution was necessary only in the eyes of the one-third that stood to gain from rebellion, the merchant and financial class.

"Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was."


----------



## ksinc

Peak and Pine said:


> *The American Revolution: was it necessary?*
> 
> This being my first thread ever (of which I'm still giddy and still cleaning up from the First Thread Ever party I had last night, though granted no one came), I would like to thank all the thoughtful posters here, especially Cruiser, Chats, Quay, KenR, Mike P and even my ol' nemises Eagle2250.
> 
> Ksinc of course is not included in that list, having done everything in his miniscule power to derail this with wacko allegations against Lincoln and quite a few against myself. However, I think some here may have been entertained by this, including me. So to Ksinc I would like to say:
> 
> (And I'm borrowing the idea of this from Bill Maher, who I adore, and who said when introducing Christopher Hitchens to his show many years ago, something to the effect of "I disagree with everything you stand for, but you are the first person I read when I get my Vanity Fair")
> 
> So K, I believe you're the biggest barrel of hog wash here, but if you weren't (here) I wouldn't be checking in nearly so often. Love ya, man.​


But the fact is: you haven't disagreed with anything I've written because you are not equipped and capable of doing so. Maher is equipped to disagree with Hitchens; and he is able to articulate a substantive response and not just personally attack him. Those curly things at the end of many of my sentences are questions to which you are incapable or unwilling to provide rational answers. Even your attempt to tell me a word I used isn't a word failed in plain view of all to see. My favorite to read is Camille Paglia on Salon.com, but I wouldn't say I am equipped to disagree with her. I think it's quite natural and we all like to read the writings of those more informed than ourselves. Barrel of hogwash thy name is 'Peak & Pine'; thy owner is KSINC.


----------



## ksinc

Phinn said:


> That's freaky.
> 
> But, alas, the inaccurate ramblings of amateurs.
> 
> If you want to know the really deep, dark, hidden truths behind Washington, DC, here's a hint:
> 
> The dot under the exclamation point is right on top of the Library of Congress. I don't know about you, but that some seriously spooky stuff right there.


That is freaky! :aportnoy:


----------



## eagle2250

Peak and Pine said:


> You're assuming there_ was_ a cold war, rather than a 45-year crazy misunderstanding between the USSR and the US that each wanted to bomb the bejesus out of each other, when in truth neither did.
> ​


Be assured Peak and Pine, there was a Cold War...it was no crazy misunderstanding and if you only knew how many times we came within a hairs breath of actually "bombing the bejesus out of each other," because some twisted Soviet General decided to see how far he could push the ongoing game of nuclear chicken, I doubt you would harbor such a flippant attitude regarding the subject and you would, perhaps, sleep a little less soundly at night!


----------



## ksinc

Cruiser said:


> I was responding to the suggestion that the U.S. could have developed as an independent State like Canada and Australia, so let's look at Canada and Australia to answer this.
> 
> Could the combined military forces of Canada and the UK stop Hitler? Remember, the U.S. would have been similar to Canada under the suggestion. Long before the invasion at Normandy, U.S. airpower was already in England carrying out massive daytime bombing raids over Germany and slowing down the German military/industrial complex.
> 
> Could the combined forces of Australia and the UK have staved off a Japanese invasion of Australia? Of course not. England was tied up in it's own struggle for survival at the time and Australia was quickly pulling it's forces out of Europe and North Africa to defend it's own homeland from invasion. Fortunately the U.S. victories over the Japanese at Midway and Coral Sea effectively ended any real threat of an invasion of Australia.
> 
> Could the combined military might of the UK and Canada have won the cold war?
> 
> The fact is that the U.S. military might has saved the bacon of more than a few folks around the world over the years. Neither Canada nor Australia, the two countries used as examples, were capable of doing that even in conjunction with the UK, and I suspect that the circumstances behind the birth of the U.S. played a large role in the way that military might developed.
> 
> Cruiser


Awesome post! :aportnoy:


----------



## Peak and Pine

*The American Revolution: was it necessary?*



ksinc said:


> But the fact is: you haven't disagreed with anything I've written because you are not equipped and capable of doing so. Maher is equipped to disagree with Hitchens; and he is able to articulate a substantive response and not just personally attack him. *Those curly things at the end of many of my sentences are questions to which you are incapable or unwilling to provide* *rational answers*. *Even your attempt to tell me a word I used isn't a word failed *in plain view of all to see. My favorite to read is Camille Paglia on Salon.com, but I wouldn't say I am equipped to disagree with her. I think it's quite natural and we all like to read the writings of those more informed than ourselves. Barrell of hogwash thy name is 'Peak & Pine'; thy owner is KSINC.


Please don't pretend you've posed pithy questions from which I recoil. You've asked three: what did I mean by necessary, how long was I in Russia, do I listen to Limbaugh. I answered the first; the others are: never and regularly.

I have written of you in this thread with whimsy and afffection; nothing even vaguely akin to a personal attack. And Dictionary.com, the leading word source in the cyber age, does not recognize_ uncurious_ as a word. Now, what else do you want from me?

Before you go (as I assume you are since you choose not to address the heavy worrk at hand, specifically, does one view the AR differently as an adult as opposed to a classroom-cooped 8th grader) can you address an item you skirted earlier having to do with a rather unique way of addressing the President. Pretend it's a debate:

Resolved: that referencing the President as Barack Husein Obama, rather than just Barack Obama or Obama, is code for Black, Muslim or sinister. You debate the negative.​


----------



## Peak and Pine

eagle2250 said:


> Be assured Peak and Pine, there was a Cold War...it was no crazy misunderstanding and if you only knew how many times we came within a hairs breath of actually "bombing the bejesus out of each other," because some twisted Soviet General decided to see how far he could push the ongoing game of nuclear chicken, I doubt you would harbor such a flippant attitude regarding the subject and you would, perhaps, sleep a little less soundly at night!


Bird, you know I like you and I'm not going to let you pull me into a dumb debate over the Cold War. When you say things like "...if you only knew how many times we came within a hairs breath of actually bombing the bejesus out of each other..." you're saying that you have some sort of privileged info that I don't. Do you?

(Damn, I think you _have _pulled me into a dumb debate over the Cold War.)​


----------



## ksinc

Peak and Pine said:


> *The American Revolution: was it necessary?*
> 
> Please don't pretend you've posed pithy questions from which I recoil. You've asked three: what did I mean by necessary, how long was I in Russia, do I listen to Limbaugh. I answered the first; the others are: never and regularly.
> 
> I have written of you in this thread with whimsy and afffection; nothing even vaguely akin to a personal attack. And Dictionary.com, the leading word source in the cyber age, does not recognize_ uncurious_ as a word. Now, what else do you want from me?
> 
> Before you go (as I assume you are since you choose not to address the heavy worrk at hand, specifically, does one view the AR differently as an adult as opposed to a classroom-cooped 8th grader) can you address an item you skirted earlier having to do with a rather unique way of addressing the President. Pretend it's a debate:
> 
> Resolved: that referencing the President as Barack Husein Obama, rather than just Barack Obama or Obama, is code for Black, Muslim or sinister. You debate the negative.​


So combining your points and in rebuttal you must be equally horrified at the following references to our previous President; and the "wacko allegation" published by Salon:



> We knew at the time that the president's answer was implausible -- even for a man as notoriously uncurious as Bush, it's hard to imagine a conversation in which the director of national intelligence says he has some new information on Iran and the president doesn't ask what it is.


https://www.uncuriousgeorge.org/

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1985883#

I answered your question; and correctly by asking you to clarify your use of the word necessary. You acknowledged this and stated that it was your belief that we should have stayed part of England. However, you did not clarify necessary for what? I accepted that you are incapable of articulating the position you wish to debate. How many times must I ask thee?

If you want debate you must engage; substantively. Cruiser did engage and he made a statement about Lincoln which was correct, but troubling. You endorsed his post as the "standard" one. And I pointed out the hypocrisy of Lincoln's use of the DoI language which was central to Cruisers' analysis (which I agree is the prevailing analysis.) I don't see Cruiser complaining and I would anticipate that he has read the Lincoln V. Douglas debates and has at least a familiarity with the citations. Cruiser then posted an equally thoughtful and curious discussion of the topics at hand which I endorsed emphatically. If you did not want Lincoln's relationship to the Revolution via the DoI language discussed then you could have not endorsed Cruiser's post.

Have you ever been in a real debate? You admitted that you are writing about me instead of writing about the Revolution or even Lincoln, the DoI, or any other substantive and relevant topic brought up by others in the thread. You claim that is not an attack. Fine. What is it then; you are just "obsessed" with me? Attempting to marginalize my posts by mentioning Rush and Beck is the same sort of "code" that you claim to fear about the President. You are projecting; Sir. And badly. I highly doubt you know what Rush and/or Beck think of President Lincoln, much less if they agree with me or not.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Stop. Please. My head really hurts. Besides, you and I are not the only ones here: please write something that makes sense to the 500 or so who have poked into this thread so far (but who now may never come back)

It's not about your crazy views of Lincoln. And just because Cruiser failed to object does not mean he endorses them. Go start a thread about Lincoln. Besmirch him there. And drop the thing about the prefix to curious; I don't care. Make up whatever words you want.

*But you must answer this:*

What are you trying to convey when you address the President as Barack* Husein* Obama? (Third time asked.)

Eagle, get me outa here. Let's do the Cold War thing.​


----------



## ksinc

Peak and Pine said:


> Stop. Please. My head really hurts. Besides, you and I are not the only ones here: please write something that makes sense to the 500 or so who have poked into this thread so far (but who now may never come back)
> 
> It's not about your crazy views of Lincoln. And just because Cruiser failed to object does not mean he endorses them. Go start a thread about Lincoln. Besmirch him there. And drop the thing about the prefix to curious; I don't care. Make up whatever words you want.
> 
> *But you must answer this:*
> 
> What are you trying to convey when you address the President as Barack* Husein* Obama? (Third time asked.)
> 
> Eagle, get me outa here. Let's do the Cold War thing.​


I believe that your head hurts - such is the lot of the dishonest broker. I expressed no "crazy view" of Lincoln. I quoted the man and observed that his rhetorical self-contradiction met the definition of a sociopath. HOW CRAZY IS THAT???!!! OMG!!! OMG!!! :devil:

Still going with made-up words, huh? :teacha:

I'm conveying his name in the proper formal usage. Abraham Lincoln, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Barack Hussein Obama. Only you see things through your racist prism. Remember when you said "browner" the other day? I admit it's fun and convenient. You failed to notice I long ago self-selected "sinister" from your White House Approved list of acceptable motives to assign to those calling the President by his full name.

Conversing with you I conclude that you should both get out more and read something. No wonder your head hurts ... Keith Olbermann is always yelling ...


----------



## Peak and Pine

*The American Revolution: was it necessary?*

Pretend you're a kid and you run away from home and you grow up okay and I meet you years later and you tell me your story and I ask if your leave taking was really necessary and you reflect and you answer either yes, no or maybe. That's what I mean by necessary. Or, like Ksinc, you could go off on Lincoln and scare everybody.



ksinc said:


> I'm conveying his [the President's] name in the proper formal usage. Abraham Lincoln, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Barack Hussein Obama.


Yeah, sure. The Bushes' middle names were used solely to tell them apart and Lincoln didn't have one. No one ever refers to James Earl Carter (nor am I sure that's his middle name), William Jefferson Clinton, Ronald Wilson Reagan, Dwight David Eisenhower, Richard Milhaus Nixon, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnsson, John Fitzgerald Kennedy and I don't know Truman's and Ford's middle names and those are all the Presidents in my lifetime.

Your use of 'Hussein' in everyday conversation/postings is exclusively to remind the reader/listener that the President is Black, Muslim or sinister. G'night.​


----------



## Laxplayer

Or an assassin. 

John Wilkes Booth 
Lee Harvey Oswald 
Mark David Chapman 
James Earl Ray


----------



## Literide

ksinc said:


> Sadly, that statement is true. Lincoln did make the DoI the crux of his Gettysburg address, but with what we know about Lincoln that is a rather troubling thing; is it not?
> 
> I think it is common knowlege here that I have no regard for Lincoln, but leaving that out compare these quotes and see for yourself.
> 
> It almost brings a tear to your eyes doesn't it?
> 
> Now consider the same man said both of the following in 1858 as well.
> 
> If that isn't the babbling of a sociopath I don't know what is, but let's see; shall we?
> 
> Really? That's an odd coincidence. Let's see if that could apply anywhere else?
> 
> That's rather startling; isn't it? However, let's not jump to conclusions without a sense of causation.
> 
> I wonder what Lincoln's childhood was like? Anyone know??? Come on ... I know 1/4 of you have law degrees; you must have an 'as new' history book laying around somewhere ... heck, it's probably still in the original wrapper ...
> 
> Oh well, at least Lincoln never argued that the DoI protected the right of secession; right?


Antisocial Personality Disorder describes just about every politician


----------



## Literide

We were part of England?


----------



## ksinc

Peak and Pine said:


> *The American Revolution: was it necessary?*
> 
> Pretend you're a kid and you run away from home and you grow up okay and I meet you years later and you tell me your story and I ask if your leave taking was really necessary and you reflect and you answer either yes, no or maybe. That's what I mean by necessary. Or, like Ksinc, you could go off on Lincoln and scare everybody.
> 
> Yeah, sure. The Bushes' middle names were used solely to tell them apart and Lincoln didn't have one. No one ever refers to James Earl Carter (nor am I sure that's his middle name), William Jefferson Clinton, Ronald Wilson Reagan, Dwight David Eisenhower, Richard Milhaus Nixon, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnsson, John Fitzgerald Kennedy and I don't know Truman's and Ford's middle names and those are all the Presidents in my lifetime.
> 
> Your use of 'Hussein' in everyday conversation/postings is exclusively to remind the reader/listener that the President is Black, Muslim or sinister. G'night.​


Ok then, my answer is: "*yes, no, or maybe*." I hope you are finally satisfied.

*Yes*; because no one, and I mean no one ever refers to FDR by his full name! LOL Are you serious?

Perhaps it's that I read a lot of history, but one typically sees either the title used, as in President Truman, or a persons full name in the style they prefer to use it; i.e. Harry S. Truman. Rather interestingly President Truman had no middle name just the initial 'S'. Strange that if he was a President during your lifetime you do not remember this somewhat rare attribute about his name ... Or that Gerald Ford's middle name is Rudolph as in Reindeer. I would say that is rather uncurious of you. Are Maddow and Olberman really doing THAT bad of a job re-educating you? 

*No*; I see Ronald Wilson Reagan in usage all the time as well as Richard Milhaus Nixon and William Jefferson Clinton. You knew enough to repeat them and since you are not exactly studious that seems to be anecdotal evidence that they are in the common usage.

What _is_ interesting about President Obama is that prior to the election he did not allow his staff to refer to him as Barack Hussein Obama, but after he was elected they did. You seem more sensitive to it then they are. It is, afterall, his name.

Regardless, I've told you several times that between black, muslim, and sinister I would and did choose sinister. Yet you continue to harp that I won't admit my true motivation; and that you know what it is. I repeat that you are being a dishonest broker not only on this, but the main question which you simply will not clarify ... was it necessary for what? Perhaps you are incapable of saying ... fine ... then you are wrong to complain that the thread is not following your chosen path when it is you that cannot adequately frame the question and you are being dishonest (with yourself) by blaming me for your own inadequacy.

*Maybe*; as I propose, it's your own previously demonstrated racism that will not allow you to let go of this other accusation because then you would be the only one in the "room."

Don't hang your head ... instead ... "Look up, your redemption draweth nigh!" 

NOTE: What I find interesting is that I'm almost constantly admonished by the so-called elite to be ashamed that I am a Republican. Yet when I finally find a good reason; i.e. The Party of LINCOLN, suddenly I'm supposed to be proud of him. It's very contradictory. I've long felt that I would be more at home as a Southern Conservative-Libertarian Democrat. Of course, I registered during Reagan's term of office and I should probably re-register since the party has left me. But, I often wonder ... is it necessary?


----------



## ksinc

Literide said:


> Antisocial Personality Disorder describes just about every politician


An excellent proposition! Who could argue with that? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Literide

Peak and Pine said:


> *The American Revolution: was it necessary?*
> 
> Pretend you're a kid and you run away from home and you grow up okay and I meet you years later and you tell me your story and I ask if your leave taking was really necessary and you reflect and you answer either yes, no or maybe. That's what I mean by necessary. Or, like Ksinc, you could go off on Lincoln and scare everybody.
> 
> Yeah, sure. The Bushes' middle names were used solely to tell them apart and Lincoln didn't have one. No one ever refers to James Earl Carter (nor am I sure that's his middle name), William Jefferson Clinton, Ronald Wilson Reagan, Dwight David Eisenhower, Richard Milhaus Nixon, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnsson, John Fitzgerald Kennedy and I don't know Truman's and Ford's middle names and those are all the Presidents in my lifetime.
> 
> Your use of 'Hussein' in everyday conversation/postings is exclusively to remind the reader/listener that the President is Black, Muslim or sinister. G'night.​


I have seen full given names of Presidents used by fans and critics both. I seem to recall "James Earl Carter" used in a complimentary fashion, and "Jimmy" derisively.

George W. Bush, with emphasis and scowl on the "W", and his Father mocked as George "HW" Bush in similar fashion. Interestingly, in the former case to mock him as a rube, and in the latter as a priveleged aristocrat.

True, many of Obama's critics use his full given names. Some have even used his childhood moniker of Barry Soweto. Nothing wrong or sinister with either, it simply makes the point that he, while born here, may not (and I beleive he has demonstrated such) truly understand our country as he did not grow up here and is closely related to people who hate us and our country. Of course you dont have to be particularly foreign to want to radicalize, and betray every principal of, your country.

Back to the AR: you can make a case against any war being necessary, but as other have pointed out, outcomes could have been very different. The US might never have become the US, but 2 or more (13?) smaller countries, and avoided the war of 1812 and civil war, though probably not the Indian wars as land lust would have still been a front and center. In fact, North and South, as long sovereign countries might have fought each other and Indians over Western territory by the middle of the 19th century. You can speculate endlessly. There might have been a WWI, but w/o US intervention and Wilsons heavy hand ay Versaille, unlikely a Hitler WWII. And given that it was US industrial might in the form of surplus steel that built Japanese battle ships.....

But who know what other bloody conflicts there may have been instead.

BTW there would never have been an American Revolution without the Protestant Reformation.


----------



## Peak and Pine

ksinc said:


> Strange that if he [Truman] was a President during your lifetime you do not remember this somewhat rare attribute about his name


I was 4 years old.

Sorry, no patience to wade through your recent tedium (the Truman thing stood out), so just two comments:

Type away into the night, let the words fly to the moon and back, makes no difference: when you refer to the President as Barack *Hussein *Obama, you fly true colors.

Now, if I may, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Lite Rite, who posted just after you; he don't use no stinkin' middle names; he says it outright:



Literide said:


> Some [the President's critics] have even used his childhood moniker of Barry Soweto. Nothing wrong or sinister with either, it simply makes the point that he, while born here, may not (and I beleive he has demonstrated such) truly understand our country as he did not grow up here and is closely related to people who hate us and our country. Of course you dont have to be particularly foreign to want to radicalize, and betray every principal of, your country.
> .


Man o Man! He just said what you've taken pages to say. Now there's a guy (to borrow from Margaret Thatcher) you can do business with. Remember to ask him what he thinks about Lincoln.​


----------



## eagle2250

Peak and Pine said:


> Bird, you know I like you and I'm not going to let you pull me into a dumb debate over the Cold War. When you say things like "...if you only knew how many times we came within a hairs breath of actually bombing the bejesus out of each other..." you're saying that you have some sort of privileged info that I don't. Do you?
> ....​




Well Peak, as I've pointed out before, yes I do have information available to me that you do not have available to you...because of my life experiences. Close to 12 years of my military service experience were spent working with the B-52 heavy bomber and Minuteman Modernized weapon systems. I was involved in and saw things during that time that that certainly convinced me of the efficacy of my original statement, that there was indeed a Cold War. However, if I were to share the details of those experiences with you, many of which are still classified, I would have to exercise extreme prejudice in insuring that you did not repeat the information (as that old line from the movies goes)! BWAHAHA, BWAHAHA, BWAHAHA! If you would seriously like to gain a better understanding of that to which I refer, pick up a copy of a book entitled The Whiteman Scenario, by Steve McCurdy, and read it. It is a fictionalized account of some actual events occurring at the end of the Nixon administration.



Peak and Pine said:


> .....
> Eagle, get me outa here. Let's do the Cold War thing.
> ......


Did that do it for you? Are we happy now? ​


----------



## ksinc

Peak and Pine said:


> Man o Man! He just said what you've taken pages to say. Now there's a guy (to borrow from Margaret Thatcher) you can do business with. Remember to ask him what he thinks about Lincoln.​


Actually, he did not. I enjoy Literide's posts and frequently agree with him, but while he said it was not necessarily meaning he is sinister (and I agree); I'm openly claiming that I think President Obama IS sinister and I did that many posts ago.

Either your comprehension skills are lacking or you are in a state of denial because you thought I wouldn't cop to the "sinister" tag. I'm happy to converse with anyone, with any opinion, as long as they are open and honest about facts. You are simply proving unreliable.

Perhaps you may notice that contributors like Quay and Chats often the receive short replies to their posts you crave, while I play 500 words of wack-a-mole with yours. The onus is yours ... make a substantive point that is factually accurate and you will be treated equitably as you desire. I simply mirror your own sincerity (or in this case insincerity) right back at you. That's why your head hurts ...


----------



## ksinc

eagle2250 said:


> Did that do it for you? Are we happy now?


Is the Cold War really over?


----------



## eagle2250

^^
KSINC, you are right. If I might paraphrase an observation expressed in Stephen King's Dreamcatcher, "Same sh*t, different players!" The biggest difference these days is that the new players, seem far more reckless and indeed, seem to actually embrace the idea of sacrificing themselves and innumerable innocent victims as their preferred 'Highway to Heaven!'


----------



## Quay

eagle2250 said:


> ...pick up a copy of a book entitled The Whiteman Scenario, by Steve McCurdy, and read it....


That's a good read!

And it just goes to prove that Quakers in the White House might not be such a good thing. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Peak and Pine

*The American Revolution; was it necessary*?

Ah, poor me; I really wanted to discuss the above so I started a thread, but worded it so poorly it confused everyone, including myself.

It should have been:

*The American Revolution: what if we'd lost?*

or even:

*The American Revolution: what if it never happened?*

But I guess it's too late now. Time to shut it down, hastened by Ksinc's endless fascination with me and with dragging it in a direction unintended.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

K, I've been giving you multiple choices regarding your use of the President's middle name. You chose sinister. I don't believe you and I'm not making it multiple choice anymore. Anybody, not just you, who insists upon continually including the President's middle name is making a not-so-veiled comment on his race. Which is not to say I believe the speaker is racist in all it's meanings, just in the one that connotes superiority over another. As you, ksinc, have attempted to do with me throughout this thread. You're a wordy young fool and you could put your talents to greater use than dusting it up with me in the night. Pray sheath your keyboard and go away.​


----------



## DCLawyer68

turban1 said:


> Canada and Australia became independent without any shots being fired, and most people think those countries are pleasant, prosperous and self-governed.
> 
> whatever original rights were once enjoyed by US states have long since been seized by Washington, DC. Habeus Corpus, part of the British legal tradition since the middle ages, has been overturned in America.
> 
> tax rates are far higher than under King George III and modern American taxpayers discuss whether they are truly represented by their masters.
> 
> It all looks a bit rocky to me.


True enough that America would eventually gain its independence, but the US would have been under British rule for another 100 years or so before devolution from Colonial to Commonwealth status. No big deal to us, but probably would not have set well with Americans during that period.

Anyway, the fact that we can all ***** and moan about Bush, Obama or even in one person's case Lincoln (really: how weird is that?) without going to jail tells me that civil liberties are fine here in the US. When you contemplate England's laws regarding libel, perhaps even better. And I think tax rates while higher now than 300 years ago are considerably lower than in the UK at present.

I don't intend to run any other nation down (especially the British, who I like and admire and generally defend) but things are really fine here, and much better than the international press likes to claim.

As to whether the Revolution was necessary, I think that questioned was asked and answered in 1776 by wiser heads than ours.


----------



## ksinc

Peak and Pine said:


> K, I've been giving you multiple choices regarding your use of the President's middle name. You chose sinister. I don't believe you and I'm not making it multiple choice anymore. Anybody, not just you, who insists upon continually including the President's middle name is making a not-so-veiled comment on his race. Which is not to say I believe the speaker is racist in all it's meanings, just in the one that connotes superiority over another. As you, ksinc, have attempted to do with me throughout this thread. You're a wordy young fool and you could put your talents to greater use than dusting it up with me in the night. Pray sheath your keyboard and go away.​


Once again you are forced to admit that you were deconstructed by yourself and your inability to articulate your own postion. My! My! We may be making progress. Although you still seem to blame me for not suffering the same affliction. Perhaps a Men's Residency Program would help you resolve your inferiority complex? Projecting racism is not a sign of good mental health. Remember we have you on record using the phrase "browner." The game is up.


----------



## ksinc

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> KSINC, you are right. If I might paraphrase an observation expressed in Stephen King's Dreamcatcher, "Same sh*t, different players!" The biggest difference these days is that the new players, seem far more reckless and indeed, seem to actually embrace the idea of sacrificing themselves and innumerable innocent victims as their preferred 'Highway to Heaven!'


Yes; it's one of the more interesting notes of the USSR v. USA conflict that most people think the game was chess, but the Russians first love was and remains the theatre.

This was part of Ronald Wilson Reagan's strategy and understanding this is the key to understanding President Reagan's success; i.e. SDI.

Imagine the delight that he must have felt when they told him the key to understanding the Russians was to learn and know their theatre. Talk about a case of 'brer rabbit and the briar patch.'


----------



## ksinc

DCLawyer68 said:


> True enough that America would eventually gain its independence, but the US would have been under British rule for another 100 years or so before devolution from Colonial to Commonwealth status.
> ...
> As to whether the Revolution was necessary, I think that questioned was asked and answered in 1776 by wiser heads than ours.


Great analysis and very well said.


----------



## ksinc

Quay said:


> That's a good read!
> 
> And it just goes to prove that Quakers in the White House might not be such a good thing. :icon_smile_big:


I've never even heard of it before, but based on these two endorsements I'm SOLD!


----------



## Peak and Pine

ksinc said:


> Remember we have you on record using the phrase "browner." The game is up.


This is the second time you've referenced this and since I didn't know what the hell you were talking about, I waded into a stack of recent (and delightful) posts from another thread and found this:



Peak and Pine said:


> I don't know how it was you got here, but I was Made In America, c. '45. And not by choice, but by chance because the fetal breath isn't given options. I could have been born *browner* and in Mexico, but nobody asked me.


And that is racist to you? When you commented, back then, then, I followed up with:



Peak and Pine said:


> Feel free to change Mexican to Canadian; it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with country.


Back to *The American Revolution* everybody, nothing to see here, move along.​


----------



## ksinc

Peak and Pine said:


> And that is racist to you?


Yes; it was clearly racist in the full context when you introduced it that other thread as I previously explained.

And you continue to try to assign racist motives to me as you introduced them here.

_You_ are the one focused on race as an attribute of these discussions about America and Americans.

Perhaps you have not realized that before, but I think you have demonstrated that you have some sort of a problem with issues of race that you are not confronting.

I have no such problem and these types of things you assign me to me never pop up in my posts in spite of thousands of posts to these boards. Conversely, as you point out this is the second time in resent memory where you resort to such terms and tactics. That just doesn't happen for no reason.


----------



## Peak and Pine

ksinc said:


> Yes; it was clearly racist *in the full context* when you introduced it that other thread as I previously explained.


Okay, here's the full context. This is the entire post:



Peak and Pine said:


> That American Superiority thing threads it way throughout your posts. I find it a distasteful phrase.
> 
> I don't know how it was you got here, but I was Made In America, c. '45. And not by choice, but by chance because the fetal breath isn't given options. I could have been born browner and in Mexico, but nobody asked me.
> 
> I don't believe I had a better high school than all the ones we beat in basketball. Nor do I believe we had the best damn family on the block. But I like and even love those things, my family, high school and my country. But I hate the idea of superiority because it's so conceited and so god damn destructive.


Racist? Nay. (What you said above, is that what they mean when the say _trying to turn the tables?)_
​


----------



## Quay

^ The words of Peak and Pine's full post are clear and unambiguous: he is not making a racist comment. If there is any connotative meaning present it could be an implied desire to have been born in Mexico instead of the US (no body asked him about it, the answer isn't in evidence.)

To assert that this an instance of racism is unwarranted based on the facts at hand.


----------



## ksinc

Quay said:


> ^ The words of Peak and Pine's full post are clear and unambiguous: he is not making a racist comment. If there is any connotative meaning present it could be an implied desire to have been born in Mexico instead of the US (no body asked him about it, the answer isn't in evidence.)
> 
> To assert that this an instance of racism is unwarranted based on the facts at hand.


In a vacuum that may be, but as you see he was rising in rebuttal of my view of American Superiority which he feels is clearly based on Race. It clearly is NOT. This is his own implication/projection and justification for it was contained no where in my post to which he was replying. It comes from within himself. You are correct that no one asked him about it or brought up race except himself.

I did not assert that it was an instance of racism; as in he hates browner people, only that his view is racist in that HE sees things through the tinge of race and sees race in every issue. This would be the same as arguing that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Prof. Gates are racists. This seems self-evident.

Being born "browner", whiter, redder, or yellower is clearly irrelevant to any discussion of being an American or of the superiority of America in the global sense.

While I respect your opinion, Quay, I stand by my actual assertion in that thread and in this one. We may have to disagree. Cheers!


----------



## ksinc

Peak and Pine said:


> Okay, here's the full context. This is the entire post:
> 
> Racist? Nay. (What you said above, is that what they mean when the say _trying to turn the tables?)_
> ​


Nay Yourself! The full context is the thread NOT your entire post. Your post is out of context.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=98626&highlight=browner&page=2

I imagine I might engage with someone with whom I must attempt to turn the tables although not on this subject. I'm sure I have my own contradictions. However, I do not regard you as such an adversary. I apologize if this offends you, but it is my opinion and you did ask.


----------



## Laxplayer

Quay said:


> ^ The words of Peak and Pine's full post are clear and unambiguous: he is not making a racist comment. If there is any connotative meaning present it could be an implied desire to have been born in Mexico instead of the US (no body asked him about it, the answer isn't in evidence.)
> 
> To assert that this an instance of racism is unwarranted based on the facts at hand.


I agree. I don't see any racism in his comment.

As to the use of Barack Hussein Obama, the only people I have heard use the President's full name are Rush, Savage, Coulter etc. and my uncle who forwards me anti-Obama emails. I can see both sides of this, ksinc using the President's full name because it _is_ his name and Peak and Pine being confused by ksinc's motives because many on the Right use it mockingly. Often in the email forwards I receive, it is written Barack HUSSEIN Obama to really draw attention to his middle name. Coulter writes it as B. Hussein Obama. Ksinc and I have had many disagreements in the past, but I am inclined to believe him when he says he had no deeper meaning in this. He certainly does not like the man, but I feel this has to do with his policies rather than his race or religion.

On a personal note, the only times I have heard my own full name used was during certain ceremonies (graduation, confirmation, marriage) or when I was really in trouble and my mother was yelling it.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Laxplayer said:


> I agree. I don't see any racism in his comment.


Agreed, P&P's views may be eccentric and kind of silly (at least I think so), but nothing smacks of racism. I really wish people would stop throwing that epithet around so cavalierly. It is a serious charge, and one should be cautious about taking such uncharitable inferential liberties.


----------



## Quay

Mike Petrik said:


> ...one should be cautious about taking such uncharitable inferential liberties.


That is a splendidly phrased thought, if I don't say so myself. I will have to borrow it, with proper attribution of course. :icon_smile:


----------



## ksinc

I respect your opinions. I also do not believe in throwing around charges of racism cavalierly (and I do not), but I see a consistent projection of race in P&P's attacks; and when I called him on it he dug the whole deeper. At least that is my opinion. If not 'racist" perhaps extremely insensitive, obtuse, and irresponsible to say "browner" and to throw around the charge that using BHO=racist.

My question would be, How can there be legitimate discussion over whether saying Barack Hussein Obama might be about his race (by implication racist), but saying "browner" is clearly not? 

I realize at least one of you also rejected saying BHO=racist out of hand and perhaps all of you do; for which I say, Thank You. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc

Laxplayer said:


> As to the use of Barack Hussein Obama, the only people I have heard use the President's full name are Rush, Savage, Coulter etc. and my uncle who forwards me anti-Obama emails. I can see both sides of this, ksinc using the President's full name because it _is_ his name and Peak and Pine being confused by ksinc's motives because many on the Right use it mockingly. Often in the email forwards I receive, it is written Barack HUSSEIN Obama to really draw attention to his middle name. Coulter writes it as B. Hussein Obama. Ksinc and I have had many disagreements in the past, but I am inclined to believe him when he says he had no deeper meaning in this. He certainly does not like the man, but I feel this has to do with his policies rather than his race or religion.


To clarify, I did say it was both convenient AND FUN, thus I must admit to also mocking the President or really P&P about the President. However, not because POTUS is black or muslim as has been charged. Because he is among other things "sinister" IMHO as I admitted long ago and P&P is easy. It is normal for me to say Obama, President Obama, or Barack Hussein Obama and not say Barack Obama, but once P&P showed his weak spot I just couldn't resist repeating it. Especially since his argument showed such a lack of information about historical precedent and President's names. That was not being fair or merciful; and I feel a little bad about it in retospect.

To be candid, I do not consider the President to be simply "black", but that is a different subject and just as Tiger Woods says he is not "black." I think President Obama has expressed that he sees himself as more than "black" and I do in fact respect that about him.

One of the things I always respect is the right of people to self-identify and freely associate. I can still respect that about him and also his love of his children while at the same time I think he is "sinister" politically and based on his radical policies and associations.

I think B. Hussein Obama is pretty funny, but may be over-the-top! Ann Coulter is a case!

Regardless, I apologize for mocking P&P; and making his head hurt ... but it might have cracked or even exploded and that would have been worth it! 

--- ack ... I screwed that post up and started over ...


----------



## Peak and Pine

ksinc said:


> To clarify, I did say it was both convenient AND FUN, thus I must admit to also mocking the President or really P&P about the President. However, not because POTUS is black or muslim as has been charged. Because he is among other things "sinister" IMHO as I admitted long ago and P&P is easy. It is normal for me to say Obama, President Obama, or Barack Hussein Obama and not say Barack Obama, but once P&P showed his weak spot I just couldn't resist repeating it. Especially since his argument showed such a lack of information about historical precedent and President's names. That was not being fair or merciful; and I feel a little bad about it in retospect.
> 
> To be candid, I do not consider the President to be simply "black", but that is a different subject and just as Tiger Woods says he is not "black." I think President Obama has expressed that he sees himself as more than "black" and I do in fact respect that about him.
> 
> One of the things I always respect is the right of people to self-identify and freely associate. I can still respect that about him and also his love of his children while at the same time I think he is "sinister" politically and based on his radical policies and associations.
> 
> I think B. Hussein Obama is pretty funny, but may be over-the-top! Ann Coulter is a case!
> 
> Regardless, I apologize for mocking P&P; and making his head hurt ... but it might have cracked or even exploded and that would have been worth it!
> 
> --- ack ... I screwed that post up and started over ...


Flash: nobody's reading that long-winded crap.

But to the few that did: hey look, he was just kidding. What a jokester! It was all just a gag. Who knew? Yuk, yuk. What a fun and funny guy.

Seriously now: I'm pretty well convinced you're an idiot. Or, at best, a pedantic little puppet who rolls around in Right Wing slosh and tries to clean off here in my thread. Whatever. Remember what your mother taught you: it is not always necessary to respond to every single thing that Peak and Pine says. Take the high road. Ignore me occasionally. Pleeeeeese?

---------------------------------------------

(Now that he's hopefully out of the way, let's start fresh

*The American Revolution: was it necessary?*

I say no.​


----------



## ksinc

Peak and Pine said:


> Flash: nobody's reading that long-winded crap.
> 
> But to the few that did: hey look, he was just kidding. What a jokester! It was all just a gag. Who knew? Yuk, yuk. What a fun and funny guy.
> 
> Seriously now: I'm pretty well convinced you're an idiot. Or, at best, a pedantic little puppet who rolls around in Right Wing slosh and tries to clean off here in my thread. Whatever. Remember what your mother taught you: it is not always necessary to respond to every single thing that Peak and Pine says. Take the high road. Ignore me occasionally. Pleeeeeese?​


You're really obtuse. You don't get it at all. It's neither a joke nor a gag, but a cruel reality picking on the pitiful and uninformed; You. Which I was taught is not merciful and I should be more so. You should learn Ignore yourself instead of admonishing me where I just have to be more candid/cruel to you. Your comments demonstrate that you are the idiot and the puppet. I took the high road by admitting and apologizing that after you over-reacted out of your ignorance to a legitimate statement that I continued to do it because it was fun to watch you twist in the wind. That was wrong. I should have just let your stupidity speak for itself instead of taking pleasure in your torture. Continue to plead your case all you want, but it's closed. You and your racist, inferiority complex are Ignored. Good Riddance.


----------



## Quay

I dare pause in the midst of a brawl to suggest a thought from Mark Twain for meditation:
_
"...we all know that in all matters of mere opinion that [every] man is insane--just as insane as we are...we know exactly where to put our finger upon his insanity: it is where his opinion differs from ours....All Democrats are insane, but not one of them knows it. None but the Republicans. All the Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats can perceive it. The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane."_
- _from Christian Science_

So yes, you're both nuts. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Quay

And now back to the OP since the OP is in earnest. Earlier on I said:



Quay said:


> Returning to the OP, was the American Revolution necessary? No. Was it likely given the circumstances of the time? Quite possibly. But necessary, as in inevitable or predestined? Not really as there were other possible outcomes.


I think that it wasn't necessary up until the time the Declaration of Independence was adopted. After that, it was necessary due to the course of action and cause of complaints in that document. It's been a while but I do recall reading a lot of the notes and papers from those deliberating the matter of the Declaration and there were more than a few people who were quite terrified of the course of events such a declaration would set in motion. But up until that course was decided, there wasn't much that was necessary about any of it, at least as viewed from this tiny part of the 21st century. However, in that part of the 18th, with only a relative few possessing education and the ability to read, who can say what seemed necessary to whom and to when?

It is a very interesting question to think about.


----------



## Laxplayer

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.


----------



## ksinc

Quay said:


> I dare pause in the midst of a brawl to suggest a thought from Mark Twain for meditation:
> 
> _"...we all know that in all matters of mere opinion that [every] man is insane--just as insane as we are...we know exactly where to put our finger upon his insanity: it is where his opinion differs from ours....All Democrats are insane, but not one of them knows it. None but the Republicans. All the Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats can perceive it. The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane."_
> - _from Christian Science_
> 
> So yes, you're both nuts. :icon_smile_big:


Thank You, I said my last. I don't disagree with your sentiments.


----------



## ksinc

Laxplayer said:


> Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
> The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
> Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
> The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.


Ok, LAX, I submit myself to the judgment of the jury of my peers. LOL
ic12337:


----------



## Black & Proud

Cruiser said:


> Whether one wants to admit it or not, the free world remained free over the past two centuries because American military might stood watch over it. Without the Revolution it is doubtful that the U.S. would have become the military power that it became.
> 
> Cruiser


LOL - are you serious man. Slavery wasn't completely abolished in the US until the 1960s, for all intents and purposes. American military might for the most part has been engaged not in self defense but in interfering with the internal affairs of other countries, and coming to the aid of big & oppressive european empires (like both WWs).

You would have trouble naming more than a few countries that didn't have at this moment US troops or US bases right in the middle of their land. I guess the Golden Rule is as good a rule of freedom as any: don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. Would you want Japan, Somalia, Morocco, Spain, Kazachstan, and Saudi Arabia (just to name a few) to have military bases all over the US, lording their power around over you??


----------



## Acct2000

Yes, America is the source of all the world's problems. Did you copy that from the Daily Kos or actually compose that yourself?


----------



## Black & Proud

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Yes, America is the source of all the world's problems. Did you copy that from the Daily Kos or actually compose that yourself?


It may surprise you that men of African heritage are able to compose thoughts on their own, yes. And where did I say that america is the source of all problems?? that is what is known as a straw man, I believe - attacking something I never said.


----------



## Relayer

Black & Proud said:


> Would you want Japan or Saudi Arabia to have military bases all over the US, lording their power around over you??


Back in 1979-1983 I was part of the occupying US military forces in Japan.

We did have a good time lording over the local Japanese and throwing our weight around. My only regret is that I didn't get to go to Germany or Italy and lord over them some, too. Lording is good clean fun.


----------



## Black & Proud

Relayer said:


> Back in 1979-1983 I was part of the occupying US military forces in Japan.
> 
> We did have a good time lording over the local Japanese and throwing our weight around. My only regret is that I didn't get to go to Germany or Italy and lord over them some, too. Lording is good clean fun.


It's actually human rights abuse and in the context of military over a foreign peaceful civilian population, possibly even international warcrime.


----------



## Relayer

Black & Proud said:


> It's actually human rights abuse and in the context of military over a foreign peaceful civilian population, possibly even international warcrime.


Well, I say it's just good clean fun!

Don't forget that we also lorded over their military as well, not just the peaceful civilians. I made low ranking members of the JASDF polish my boots.


----------



## coynedj

Black & Proud said:


> LOL - are you serious man. Slavery wasn't completely abolished in the US until the 1960s, for all intents and purposes. American military might for the most part has been engaged not in self defense but in interfering with the internal affairs of other countries, and coming to the aid of big & oppressive european empires (like both WWs).
> 
> You would have trouble naming more than a few countries that didn't have at this moment US troops or US bases right in the middle of their land. I guess the Golden Rule is as good a rule of freedom as any: don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. Would you want Japan, Somalia, Morocco, Spain, Kazachstan, and Saudi Arabia (just to name a few) to have military bases all over the US, lording their power around over you??


Yes, the Poles and Czechs and Danes were oppressive European empires, but the Nazis were sweetness and light. And opposing the Soviets, who were building quite an empire of their own, was just interfering with the internal affairs of all those countries that volunteered for Russian domination. Al Quaida never "interfered" with us, so why did we mess with them? And those Serbs should have been left alone, to kill all the internal ethnicities they chose not to like.

I can't claim that U.S. military power has always been used wisely. There are many examples of the opposite. But I believe that anyone with a well-developed sense of historical awareness will know that blanket statements in either direction are wrong, and I also believe that for the most part U.S. military power has been a good thing for the world. And while race relations were poor in this country before the decade you mentioned (and remain troublesome), and discrimination was often enshrined in law and upheld with brute force, calling it "slavery" is just plain wrong. It is the use of a loaded word where it does not belong, just like claims that Bush is a war criminal or that Obama is somehow a fascist and a socialist at the same time.

I haven't read all of the posts here (some of them appear a wee bit tedious), so allow me to respond to the original question in a way that may have already been said. Necessary is a word that can be read many ways, but in the way I read it the answer is "yes". If it had not happened when it did, or had we lost the war, it would just have happened (or happened again) at a later time - the American colonies were simply too big and too prosperous to remain colonies. The British tried to employ that prosperity for their own purposes, a trait common to colonial powers, but took insufficient heed to the fact that that prosperity also allowed the Americans to push back, and that the reasons behind their need also tied their hands in dealing with a colony roused to rebellion. The timing was very fortuitous, in that we had a ready supply of philosopher statesmen who implemented, when given the opportunity, a form of government much talked about by the academic philosophers of the day but never attempted in real life - of the people, by the people, and for the people. It was a truly radical experiment, and the beneficial results of it in this country and others is manifest. The path from the world as it was then - dominated by military powers that saw weaker peoples as expendable tools to be used in the pursuit of wealth and power - to the world as it is now - filled with many countries where people are most definitely not just things to use up and throw away - has had many bumps, inconsistencies and setbacks, and we are nowhere near a perfect world. Black & Proud is quite correct in calling us to task, though I think he took it further than justified. But that path would have been far more difficult if it were not for the government, and the approach toward government, that the founding fathers gave us.


----------



## Acct2000

Black & Proud said:


> It may surprise you that men of African heritage are able to compose thoughts on their own, yes. And where did I say that america is the source of all problems?? that is what is known as a straw man, I believe - attacking something I never said.


Nope. Just bored by the left line you're parroting. Before you hit me with another kneejerk response, I'm bored by knee-jerk right wing stuff, too.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr.

*Unnecessary, and Lincoln was the worst President of all time*


----------



## brokencycle

Black & Proud said:


> It may surprise you that men of African heritage are able to compose thoughts on their own, yes. And where did I say that america is the source of all problems?? that is what is known as a straw man, I believe - attacking something I never said.


Are you going to play the race card in every thread?

Also, for that whole empire thing in Japan, they seem to be pretty happy with that. We pay for their national defense, so they can spend their money on other things. Seems like a pretty sweet gig.



Relayer said:


> Well, I say it's just good clean fun!
> 
> Don't forget that we also lorded over their military as well, not just the peaceful civilians. I made low ranking members of the JASDF polish my boots.


OMG HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS! I'm with you... if you can't throw your weight around while "occupying" other countries, what's the point? I've always said that. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Peak and Pine

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Nope. Just bored by the left line you're parroting. Before you hit me with another kneejerk response, I'm bored by knee-jerk right wing stuff, too.


Wow, the thread's alive again.

F'berg, he's not a knee-jerker; he's a Black guy from Brazil bringing a perspective you and I don't have (particularly you since you're from Lansing).

Welcome, Black & Proud. With you on most of what you've said. Hope you'll stay on. Pass by the race card thing; right wingers are like that.​


----------



## Peak and Pine

coynedj said:


> I can't claim that U.S. military power has always been used wisely. There are many examples of the opposite. I also believe that for the most part *U.S. military power has been a good thing for the world*.


Okay. Would you care to list the instances since World War II where [the use of] US military power has been "...a good thing for the world", as opposed to a good thing for us.

The question's not accusatory; the head's not grinding out any examples at the moment.​


----------



## Black & Proud

coynedj said:


> Yes, the Poles and Czechs and Danes were oppressive European empires, but the Nazis were sweetness and light. And opposing the Soviets, who were building quite an empire of their own, was just interfering with the internal affairs of all those countries that volunteered for Russian domination. Al Quaida never "interfered" with us, so why did we mess with them? And those Serbs should have been left alone, to kill all the internal ethnicities they chose not to like.


The US didn't even enter the war until almost three years after Germany annexed Czechoslovakia, and more than thirty months after it invaded Poland. Imagine being three years late with your wife's anniversary present LOL. And how much more important are the lives of millions???

WW1 was a fight between white people over who got to own the "brown" parts of the world. WW2 was the loser in the first fight coming back for revenge. The US in both wars came in like a cynical loan shark hoping to mop up the colonial possessions that were left when the dust settled. And like a mobster or whore, it didn't care who it had to crawl into bed with to get its way - even Stalin-era Soviet Union (who massacred more than Hitler).

AL-Queda was the result of Operation Cyclone by the CIA (enthusiastically supported by Reagan) to fight the Soviet partisans in the Afghan war - part of the glorious "Cold War". Remember that, huh? And who was the Cold War against?? Oh yeah, the Soviet Union (facepalm)! LOL Notice how most of the "proxy wars" with the Soviets ended up killing millions of people of color who had nothing to do with it??



> And while race relations were poor in this country before the decade you mentioned (and remain troublesome), and discrimination was often enshrined in law and upheld with brute force, calling it "slavery" is just plain wrong.


 And yet African-Americans of the era had even FEWER rights than the American colonists who fought a revolution against Britain - and what were the colonists always saying? Let's fight to no longer be slaves to a Royal Tyrant?? Liberty or death?? LOL!



> It is the use of a loaded word where it does not belong, just like claims that Bush is a war criminal or that Obama is somehow a fascist and a socialist at the same time.


Well Bush IS a war criminal - if you are going to define criminal as someone who has broken laws. Here are over 20 war crimes he committed against children: https://www.opednews.com/articles/Document-20-Bush-War-Crime-by-Sherwood-Ross-090321-495.html


----------



## Acct2000

Peak and Pine said:


> Wow, the thread's alive again.
> 
> F'berg, he's not a knee-jerker; he's a Black guy from Brazil bringing a perspective you and I don't have (particularly you since you're from Lansing).
> 
> Welcome, Black & Proud. With you on most of what you've said. Hope you'll stay on. Pass by the race card thing; right wingers are like that.​


It's probably good for the forum to have people coming from the left. I'm just not into the hints of racism.

For what it's worth, I (because of a layoff) lived in an area where I was outnumbered by both blacks and hispanics for about seven years. (After I finally got employment, I stayed for a few years to save up for a house; also, after two breakins, I figured that if I only owned a TV set and my clothes, there would not be much else left to lose.)

I actually wonder how many of our forum members (even from the left) share that experience.

I learned a few other things. While Lansing is not a very violent city (especially for Michigan), I learned that if you behave respectfully, almost all people will be reasonably friendly and not harass you too much. (Because I am not an intimidating physical presence - at that time I had a far worse weight problem than I do now, I always have been one to avoid offending people, etc.) Lansing is at least one quarter minority and probably more than that.

However, I also experienced a few situations where I heard what I hoped were "firecrackers." At least one time, the police and some folks were having a shootout about 200 yards from my house. It's surprising how small the "rowdy" percentage of people are, even in these areas, though.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Black & Proud said:


> WW1 was a fight between white people over who got to own the "brown" parts of the world.


Most wars appear to be the result of a* combination* of conflicting ideas coming to a heated head. Your statement above makes no allowance for that; it seems singular, dogmatic and maybe correct. But win me over first; consider putting a little honey in the paragraphs before you lay down the hammer. Then let me introduce you to Ksinc (and I can sit this one out).

Had not heard before what you've said about World War I (above). Interesting. Barbara Tuchman must have left that part out. Can you expand?
​


----------



## Peak and Pine

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I (because of a layoff) lived in an area where I was outnumbered by both blacks and hispanics for about seven years. It's probably good for the forum to have people coming from the left. I'm just not into the hints of racism.


Am intrigued by the qualifying parenthetical remark, connoting perhaps, that had you been gainfully employed you would have chosen to live in an area where your kind was in the majority?

Remarks like that carry the hint of racism you say you're not into.

Disclaimer. I have switched the order in which F'berg made his remarks to show how it's possible to make racist remarks without knowing it. In no way do I think F'berg actually is racist; it was a slip-up probably. And too, there's a big difference between racial and racist statements (as I found out by use of the word _browne_r earlier in this thread.)
​


----------



## fenway

Peak and Pine said:


> Anybody, not just you, who insists upon continually including the President's middle name is making a not-so-veiled comment on his race. Which is not to say I believe the speaker is racist in all it's meanings, just in the one that connotes superiority over another.


These little racist bastards! Throw them all in jail!






Can we do "What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?" next?

What other "what if's" do you want to look at?

https://killerfictionwriters.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-if-spartacus-had-piper-cub.html


----------



## KenR

This thread has devolved a bit too much. Somebody put a lock on it.


----------



## DCLawyer68

Peak and Pine said:


> Okay. Would you care to list the instances since World War II where [the use of] US military power has been "...a good thing for the world", as opposed to a good thing for us.
> 
> The question's not accusatory; the head's not grinding out any examples at the moment.​


I think the South Koreans could think of at least one nation that's better off for US intervention. I'll add Grenada and perhaps Panama as well.

I don't want to get into the whole Iraq / Afghanistan thing except to say things weren't so hot under Saddam and the Taliban - its just that we now hear about how bad things are on a daily basis where before we just conveniently ignored it.

Really though, the US military presence is probably more deeply felt as part of a small, ongoing engagement thoughout the world rather than dramatic high profile interventions that we generally think about when considering the impact of the US military. Robert Kaplan wrote a great piece in the Atlantic on this point on his article "Imperial Grunts".


----------



## eagle2250

KenR said:


> This thread has devolved a bit too much. Somebody put a lock on it.


That sounds like a wonderful suggestion. Gentlemen, quibbling and veiled accusations can get unbearably boring, very quickly! Take note and don't force the next step.


----------



## Acct2000

Peak and Pine said:


> Am intrigued by the qualifying parenthetical remark, connoting perhaps, that had you been gainfully employed you would have chosen to live in an area where your kind was in the majority?
> 
> Remarks like that carry the hint of racism you say you're not into.
> 
> Disclaimer. I have switched the order in which F'berg made his remarks to show how it's possible to make racist remarks without knowing it. In no way do I think F'berg actually is racist; it was a slip-up probably. And too, there's a big difference between racial and racist statements (as I found out by use of the word _browne_r earlier in this thread.)
> ​


That is true. I should have selected my words more carefully. I lived in the neighborhood with a lot of other low income folks because it was inexpensive. The "low income" factor had a lot more to do with break-ins, etc. than any racial factors would. I also know some minority guys well who have high positions in our state's government and other organizations. Not all minority people are "low income"; indeed, it's not accurate to stereotype any group of people for the most part. (You set yourself up for personal embarrassment if you do this; to take ideology out of things and put things on a practical level.)

I tried to indicate that I probably have more experience with a lot of different kinds of people (I was fairly rowdy as a younger man - not physical, but partying, etc. - I had to know a lot of different types of people for various reasons; I also play music with the most talented people; they may not always be white and I have lived in situations where I'm not a majority.) Even in this paragraph, I hope I'm not showing condescension but I could possibly be doing so. I do wonder how much experience some of the other interchange posters have.

While I'm far more of a centrist than a liberal and usually try to stay out of the fights here because I'm a moderator, sometimes I catch myself wondering if the posters here really do know what they are talking about.

Thank you for accepting that I'm not a racist even though I clearly did imply a relationship between minority status and crime. (That is especially generous on your part because our internet relationship got off to a cold start although it seems to have gotten a lot better the last four months or so.)


----------



## Peak and Pine

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Thank you for accepting that I'm not a racist even though I clearly did imply a relationship between minority status and crime. (That is especially generous on your part because *our internet relationship got off to a cold start although it seems to have gotten a lot better the last four months or so*.)


Am gladdened you think I'm not the insolent pig you once thought me; wait a minute, that wasn't you that thought that. It was my mother.
​


----------



## Peak and Pine

fenway said:


> These little racist bastards! Throw them all in jail!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we do "What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?" next?
> 
> What other "what if's" do you want to look at?
> 
> [URL]https://killerfictionwriters.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-if-spartacus-had-piper-cub.html[/URL]


I'm a Red Sox fan, so I enjoy your pseudoname. But dial-up for me precludes You Tube. So what are you saying?​


----------



## Laxplayer

Peak and Pine said:


> I'm a Red Sox fan, so I enjoy your pseudoname. But dial-up for me precludes You Tube. So what are you saying?​


You Tube video tagline: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA KIDS SING SINGING HITLER YOUTH PROPAGANDA 2008 NAZI COMMUNIST THUG SOCIALIST FASCIST ISLAMIC TERROR


----------



## Peak and Pine

Swell. Thanx.​


----------



## Acct2000

Laxplayer said:


> You Tube video tagline: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA KIDS SING SINGING HITLER YOUTH PROPAGANDA 2008 NAZI COMMUNIST THUG SOCIALIST FASCIST ISLAMIC TERROR


I have to admit that while I don't like that public school teachers are teaching these songs,

1) How widespread is this really??

2) The title of the video is just as bad if not worse than the problem.


----------



## fenway

Just wanted to show a homage to Obama that used his full name.

This was the first one that I found.

I am not responsible for the YouTube tag lines.

mmm mmm mmm

Can we now move on to the Spartacus question? I think the Piper Cub would have made all the difference in the Third Servile war. What do others think?


----------



## Cruiser

Peak and Pine said:


> Am intrigued by the qualifying parenthetical remark, connoting perhaps, that had you been gainfully employed you would have chosen to live in an area where your kind was in the majority?
> 
> Remarks like that carry the hint of racism you say you're not into.​


​Although I have made no bones about the fact that I'm a conservative, the fact is that I voted for both George McGovern and Ronald Reagan. In other words, I was once a liberal. One of the things that turned my thinking was just the type of thing that I see in your comment P&P. Everything isn't racism, or mysogynism (not sure that's a word), or whatever other "ism" that is out there.

In my younger days I lived in a couple of trailer parks. I remember one was called "Wheeled Estates" if you can imagine. :icon_smile_big: Anyway, if I could have afforded to life someplace nicer, I would have done so. My next door neighbors (the next trailer over) were Black, and I suspect that they would have lived someplace nicer also if they could have afforded it. It wasn't about race, it was about living in a nicer home.

Is it racism because most NBA basketball players are Black or a disproportionate number of NFL players are Black? Is it racism because such a large number of Major League baseball players are Hispanic? Of course not. These guys are just better ball players, pure and simple. It's unfortunate that when the situation is reversed the liberals almost always see racism as the root cause. Sometimes it is, but often it isn't.

For what it's worth, some of my best friends are flaming liberals and nothing I do seems to bring them to their senses. I'm saying that I don't dislike liberals, I just don't agree with them on most points. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Peak and Pine

Cruiser said:


> I was once a liberal. One of the things that turned my thinking [from liberalism] was just the type of thing that I see in your comment P&P. *Everything isn't racism.*


Of course it isn't. Why did you say that?

Earlier today F'berg posted that he wasn't into hints of racism. And then went on to describe a personal situation that included just such a hint. (A_ hint_, mind you, just a hint, not a full bore KKK diatribe) Later, he reexamined and reworded. I found that admirable. You feel he shouldn't have taken that second look?

Cruiser, F'berg, Eagle, Ksinc, Chats, Quay and now Black & Proud have all contributed mightily to this thread. I have enjoyed every single post, probably more for the way each was expressed than the actual substance, but that's been good too.

I, on the other hand, often have a difficult time expressing myself in either a gentlemanly or adult manner; odd perhaps, since I'm the oldest poster here. But I'm getting better, I think. Please bear with me. I've never been this old before and I'm still learning the ropes.​


----------



## coynedj

Peak and Pine said:


> Okay. Would you care to list the instances since World War II where [the use of] US military power has been "...a good thing for the world", as opposed to a good thing for us.
> 
> The question's not accusatory; the head's not grinding out any examples at the moment.​


Wow. Responses.

Korea has already been mentioned. The Berlin airlift was a military exercise. We did play a major role in driving Iraq out of Kuwait. And I brought up Bosnia in my first post.

If there's anyone who thinks that Taiwan would be the independent democratic nation it now is without the threat of American intervention should China decide to invade, please raise your hand. I don't see any hands.

The cold war against the USSR is a more difficult task. It is notable that it's called the "cold" war because it never got "hot". In the years immediately following WWII, much of Europe was spent and would not have been able to successfully resist the USSR, which was quite eager to expand their collection of satellite states. The US helped keep Greece and Western Germany, at the very least, from their clutches.

But later there were a number of proxy wars that are open to debate, with Angola and Afghanistan as good examples. The general pattern was that there was a rebellion in a post-colonial nation, the USSR funneled weapons to the rebels (who proclaimed that they were Marxist-Leninist, because they saw that Marxist-Leninist states were able to brutally repress anyone who wasn't "with the program" and claim, to the applause of many in the West, that they were the aggrieved party). The US then, in order to prevent the spread of communist influence and domination, funded the other side, no matter how odious. I used the word "domination" for a reason here, because the USSR was not very interested in a country if there wasn't something in it for themselves. I'm sure these countries would have been better off without the involvement of the USSR and the US - at least they could have fought their wars with fewer lethal weapons - but would the absence of the US from the fray have prevented the USSR from doing what they did? We'll never know, of course, but I have my doubts.

There are plenty of examples of military shenanigans we should have avoided - Vietnam, Iraq 2, a number of Latin American expeditions, etc. We are a remarkably warlike nation, for one that proclaims itself to be interested in peace. But there are also examples where we did the right thing, or prevented the wrong thing from happening.


----------



## coynedj

Black & Proud said:


> The US didn't even enter the war until almost three years after Germany annexed Czechoslovakia, and more than thirty months after it invaded Poland. Imagine being three years late with your wife's anniversary present LOL. And how much more important are the lives of millions???
> 
> WW1 was a fight between white people over who got to own the "brown" parts of the world. WW2 was the loser in the first fight coming back for revenge. The US in both wars came in like a cynical loan shark hoping to mop up the colonial possessions that were left when the dust settled. And like a mobster or whore, it didn't care who it had to crawl into bed with to get its way - even Stalin-era Soviet Union (who massacred more than Hitler).
> 
> AL-Queda was the result of Operation Cyclone by the CIA (enthusiastically supported by Reagan) to fight the Soviet partisans in the Afghan war - part of the glorious "Cold War". Remember that, huh? And who was the Cold War against?? Oh yeah, the Soviet Union (facepalm)! LOL Notice how most of the "proxy wars" with the Soviets ended up killing millions of people of color who had nothing to do with it??
> 
> And yet African-Americans of the era had even FEWER rights than the American colonists who fought a revolution against Britain - and what were the colonists always saying? Let's fight to no longer be slaves to a Royal Tyrant?? Liberty or death?? LOL!
> 
> Well Bush IS a war criminal - if you are going to define criminal as someone who has broken laws. Here are over 20 war crimes he committed against children: https://www.opednews.com/articles/Document-20-Bush-War-Crime-by-Sherwood-Ross-090321-495.html


Point by point:

Maybe Poland and Denmark weren't the best argument, but I do find it interesting that someone who said that the US shouldn't meddle in other countries should then say that we were "late" for WWII. We didn't enter the war until we were brutally attacked by Japan, and then had Nazi Germany declare war on us quickly thereafter, including unrestricted submarine warfare against all US shipping, including shipping along the coastlines of the US itself. We didn't volunteer for that one, though we without question had our favorites in the fight. I think we chose well.

WWI was not what you claim. Germany's colonial ambitions played a part, no doubt, but they were a far smaller part than intra-European factors. Hitler wasn't the only one who wanted liebensraum. And the US didn't join that war until Germany declared open submarine warfare against US shipping (sound familiar?). Again, we had our favorites (I think it was Bismarck who said that the most important fact of the era was that Americans speak English), but we didn't rush into that war either. And I certainly don't recall the list of former European colonial posessions that we "mopped up" as a result of either war. Maybe you can help me there.

Al Quaida, despite your claim to the contrary, is not an Afghan creation. That was the Taliban. And yes, that's a failure, without question. The saying was that we won the war but lost the peace.

When you talk of "African Americans of the era", what era do you mean? If you mean the period of colonial America, then slavery is indeed the right word, as it is for a long time thereafter. But your original claim was that African Americans were slaves until the 1960s, and that is still wrong. They undoubtedly had fewer rights that whites of the same era, and may have had fewer rights than whites in the colonial era. But that does not make them slaves. The claims of "slavery" under George III was an exercise of political propaganda, and I would never claim that white colonial Americans were slaves in reality.

I'll read the link you provided, and may comment on the war crimes issue later.


----------



## coynedj

Please forgive the tone of my previous two posts. On reflection, they come across as unnecessarily argumentative. I value civility, and should have exercised it more assiduously.


----------



## JDC

coynedj said:


> Al Quaida, despite your claim to the contrary, is not an Afghan creation. That was the Taliban.


That depends on what you mean by Afghan creation. Bin Laden was on the CIA's payroll during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the CIA helped him organize the mujahideen which eventually became the core of al Qaeda.

If you haven't already, read our govenment's official 911 Commission Report. What an eye opener, at least it was for me.


----------



## Cruiser

coynedj said:


> The cold war against the USSR is a more difficult task. It is notable that it's called the "cold" war because it never got "hot".


Although somewhat off topic, most people have no idea how often this came close to being "hot" as the U.S. and Soviet Union were constantly confronting each other on the high seas.

When I was in the Navy we often encountered Soviet warships and aircraft. The Soviet ship captains seemed to love playing "chicken" with American warships as they would steer on a collision course in a deadly game to see who would blink first.

Another such encounter was played out in the air. The Soviets would often send their bombers flying over the American fleet at which time the U.S. would launch fighter aircraft to tail them. This was not fun and games as there were more than a few fingers on triggers.

I generally wasn't worried about the U.S. pilots as they were highly trained officers and I felt it was unlikely they would screw up. What I worried about was the low level enlisted men manning those guns on the Soviet bombers. Let one of them get antsy and clip off a few rounds and next thing you know you have a Soviet Bear bomber going down in flames from a missile from one of the fighters.

This picture of two F-4 Phantoms keeping tabs on a Soviet Bear as it flys over the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk is indicative of what was happening all the time. I'm sure eagle could expound on this far better than I.










Cruiser


----------



## Epaminondas

> The American Revolution: was it necessary?


Yes, if only for the development of modern orthodontics, breast implants, and reality TV.


----------



## 16412

Peak and Pine I think you got a guilty conscience. What did you do?

Ksini, I think Linclon said whatever he needed to say to become president. Like chess, you sacrific some to win. Once you win you do what you want. Blacks are free. How he cloaked that war doesn't matter.

AR was necessary. Look at Ireland and Scottland. Otherwise you could say, "Why get up?" You could just stay in bed and die. 

If Ameica hadn't the world would be something entirely different than it is today.


----------



## ksinc

WA said:


> Ksini, I think Linclon said whatever he needed to say to become president. Like chess, you sacrific some to win. Once you win you do what you want. Blacks are free. How he cloaked that war doesn't matter.


I don't dispute that at all. My only issue is with confusing the fact Lincoln eloquently referrenced the DoI for political gain with him actually believing in its principles or being one of the greatest Americans (he clearly was a man of convenience; not principle.)

As it pertained to the thread to cite Lincoln's rhetoric as an example of the principles of Revolution enduring is "sad, but true" and speaks to most Americans willfulness to misunderstand Lincoln and his effect on history. It is an example of those principles enduring in regard to emotional political effect of the words/principles the DoI have on Americans, but I was just pointing out how sad it is that what many perceive as the greatest American political speech by the greatest American President was a bunch of nonsense HE didn't even believe. And if anyone should have interrupted and shouted "You Lie!" at a speaking President it was right then.

If the rhetoric of the Revolution endures, but the principles do not - what have we gained? It seems to relate to the shelf-life of any perceived necessity IMHO.


----------



## DCLawyer68

FrankDC said:


> That depends on what you mean by Afghan creation. Bin Laden was on the CIA's payroll during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the CIA helped him organize the mujahideen which eventually became the core of al Qaeda.
> 
> If you haven't already, read our govenment's official 911 Commission Report. What an eye opener, at least it was for me.


Frank - are you saying that's in the 9/11 Commission Report? That's the implication of your post. Please provide the page #.

Thanks.


----------



## DCLawyer68

Black & Proud said:


> LOL - are you serious man. Slavery wasn't completely abolished in the US until the 1960s, for all intents and purposes. American military might for the most part has been engaged not in self defense but in interfering with the internal affairs of other countries, and coming to the aid of big & oppressive european empires (like both WWs).
> 
> You would have trouble naming more than a few countries that didn't have at this moment US troops or US bases right in the middle of their land. I guess the Golden Rule is as good a rule of freedom as any: don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. Would you want Japan, Somalia, Morocco, Spain, Kazachstan, and Saudi Arabia (just to name a few) to have military bases all over the US, lording their power around over you??


Oh, please. Your overly simplistic US bashing really adds nothing to this thread.


----------



## JDC

DCLawyer68 said:


> Frank - are you saying that's in the 9/11 Commission Report? That's the implication of your post. Please provide the page #.
> 
> Thanks.


Half of that is in the report. Start reading on page 55.

That bin Laden was on CIA's payroll isn't mentioned in the report, nor is the fact that "young Muslims from around the world flocked to Afghanistan to join as volunteers in what was seen as a "holy war"-jihad-against an invader" was largely the CIA's doing. Also, by 1987 our government had shipped over 65,000 tons of munitions to the mujahideen in Afghanistan. If you're interested I can provide references for these claims.


----------



## DCLawyer68

FrankDC said:


> Half of that is in the report. Start reading on page 55.
> 
> That bin Laden was on CIA's payroll isn't mentioned in the report, nor is the fact that "young Muslims from around the world flocked to Afghanistan to join as volunteers in what was seen as a "holy war"-jihad-against an invader" was largely the CIA's doing. Also, by 1987 our government had shipped over 65,000 tons of munitions to the mujahideen in Afghanistan. If you're interested I can provide references for these claims.


It's undisputed that the USG supplied tons of weapons to the Afghani resistance.

What the 9.11 Commission report supplied was the UBL was a part of that (as a "volunteer" chiefly valued for his family's wealth) and that elements of Al Queda came from that resistance.

But to take well established facts and conclude that the CIA "created" Al Queda and that UBL was on the CIA's "payroll" strikes me as analogous to the Bush administration's claims that a meeting or two between Iraqi intelligence officers and Al Queda officials means that Iraq was behind 9/11.

To be clear - I'm not saying that this is _your_ view; I just know its one that a lot of Internet loonies circulate.


----------



## ksinc

DCLawyer68 said:


> It's undisputed that the USG supplied tons of weapons to the Afghani resistance.
> 
> What the 9.11 Commission report supplied was the UBL was a part of that (as a "volunteer" chiefly valued for his family's wealth) and that elements of Al Queda came from that resistance.
> 
> But to take well established facts and conclude that the CIA "created" Al Queda and that UBL was on the CIA's "payroll" strikes me as analogous to *the Bush administration's claims that a meeting or two between Iraqi intelligence officers and Al Queda officials means that Iraq was behind 9/11.*
> 
> To be clear - I'm not saying that this is _your_ view; I just know its one that a lot of Internet loonies circulate.


I think that can be read in a way you probably didn't mean for it to be read. I agree there are a lot of conclusions based on claims that are at their base true, but the conclusions seem a little thin.

I think you are saying that people take the Bush Administration's claims that a meeting or two occured between Iraqi Intelligence and Al Queda; then they go on to conclude and circulate that the Bush Administration claimed Iraq was behind 9/11.


----------



## DCLawyer68

ksinc said:


> I think that can be read in a way you probably didn't mean for it to be read. I agree there is a lot of conclusions based on claims that are at their base true, but the conclusions seem a little thin.


To clarify, I'm just citing Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Overselling one's case is not the exclusive province of one party or another.

I think you're correct (and I may have misspoke above rereading my post) that the administration may not have said Iraq was behind 9/11 but certainly tried to imply that the connection between Iraq and AQ was much stronger than I think the evidence bears out.


----------



## JDC

ksinc said:


> I think that can be read in a way you probably didn't mean for it to be read. I agree there are a lot of conclusions based on claims that are at their base true, but the conclusions seem a little thin.
> 
> I think you are saying that people take the Bush Administration's claims that a meeting or two occured between Iraqi Intelligence and Al Queda; then they go on to conclude and circulate that the Bush Administration claimed Iraq was behind 9/11.


Well, I used to laugh at anyone who claims 911 was an inside job. Not that I believe them now, but I don't laugh any more:

https://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a070401dubai

"The two news organizations that broke the story, Le Figaro and Radio France International, stand by their reporting."

The line between history and "internet loonies" is not necessarily static.


----------



## DCLawyer68

FrankDC said:


> Well, I used to laugh at anyone who claims 911 was an inside job. Not that I believe them now, but I don't laugh any more:
> 
> https://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a070401dubai
> 
> "The two news organizations that broke the story, Le Figaro and Radio France International, stand by their reporting."
> 
> The line between history and "internet loonies" is not necessarily static.


Oh. Ok.

That website looks like something out of Russell Crowe's garage in A Beautiful Mind.

FWIW, I thought Peak and Pine's original post was really interesting. I recall we were assigned a "side" to argue in elementary school the British or American view of events leading to the Revolution. I've never stopped thinking about it.

Now somehow this threat has turned into into who's more racist and down other paths that I wouldn't have followed had they been part of the title.

Anywho, I'll just wish everyone here the best and go back to discussing the proper width of one's grosgrain bow on their patent leather opera pumps while wearing a decoration from a Scandavian monarch or whatever they're chattering on about in the Style forum.


----------



## ksinc

DCLawyer68 said:


> To clarify, I'm just citing Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
> 
> Overselling one's case is not the exclusive province of one party or another.
> 
> I think you're correct (and I may have misspoke above rereading my post) that the administration may not have said Iraq was behind 9/11 but certainly tried to imply that the connection between Iraq and AQ was much stronger than I think the evidence bears out.


Ok, well I think that article is wrong when it says "directly" and it doesn't prove it's case. It's simply an article quoting a guy who says they claimed it was "direct." However, that is not substantiated beyond an opinion in my view.

Clearly Saddam did support organizations financially and also with rhetoric that create a support structure that Al Quaeda relies upon to survive and launch attacks. Clearly Saddam both praised and propagandized the 9/11 attacks and the attackers as just. To clarify Saddam directly supported the network that Al Q relied upon and therefore indirectly supported Al Q; a defense of which would be if he had been enemies with Al Q, but since his Intelligence was meeting with them and they were inside Iraq over which he had total contol this is dismissed out-of-hand.

Unlike Sarah Palin, I do understand the Bush Doctrine. I support the strategy that this network and the agents that perpetuate it via religious and/or secular rhetoric and funds must be dismantled; and not just go after Al Q. That we must seek to change the environment fundamentally in the Middle East so that people are not oppressed and vulnerable to such fantatical religious incitement. And that a man that is clearly involved even indirectly with such organizations must not be allowed to have access to WMD or the ability to produce them. It's clear Saddam retained that capability even if his stockpiles where a myth.

At the time, was the Iraq War more necessary (inevitable based on conditions) than the Revolutionary War?


----------



## a4audi08

Quay said:


> Of course it was necessary as it had been planned hundreds if not thousands of years in advance by The Knights Templar, the Illuminati, and the Masons. This will all shortly be explained in Dan Brown's new book _The Benjamin West Code, _to be followed later on with modern updates in _The Norman Rockwell Code._
> 
> Here's a map for those that want to get started early to find the prize:


i knew you couldnt trust the jews or the ancient egyptians!!


----------



## Peak and Pine

WA said:


> Peak and Pine I think you got a guilty conscience. What did you do?


Check with my parole officer.



DCLawyer68 said:


> This website looks like something out of Russell Crowe's garage in A Beautiful Mind. FWIW, *I thought Peak and Pine's original post was really interesting*.


As did I. (My first thread ever, as I'm quick to repeatedly point out). However, I lost the patent on this thing some time ago, somewhere around the time a certain someone here attempted to make Abe sound crazier than his wife. So, like DCLawyer, I've left the building.
​


----------



## 16412

ksinc said:


> I don't dispute that at all. My only issue is with confusing the fact Lincoln eloquently referrenced the DoI for political gain with him actually believing in its principles or being one of the greatest Americans (he clearly was a man of convenience; not principle.)
> 
> As it pertained to the thread to cite Lincoln's rhetoric as an example of the principles of Revolution enduring is "sad, but true" and speaks to most Americans willfulness to misunderstand Lincoln and his effect on history. It is an example of those principles enduring in regard to emotional political effect of the words/principles the DoI have on Americans, but I was just pointing out how sad it is that what many perceive as the greatest American political speech by the greatest American President was a bunch of nonsense HE didn't even believe. And if anyone should have interrupted and shouted "You Lie!" at a speaking President it was right then.
> 
> If the rhetoric of the Revolution endures, but the principles do not - what have we gained? It seems to relate to the shelf-life of any perceived necessity IMHO.


To me the word _convenience_ means something like a woman in a store buying clothes frivolously.

I read somewhere that Linclon didn't believe the whole DoI, and that or those parts should not be done. If he is refering to some people being less human than others, who could disagree? Ted Kennedy said pretty much the same for laws he didn't like. Giving up a pawn or rook or someother members seems unprincipled, but, loosing the game really is unprincipled. I think he played to an unprincipled public to get the votes. War is nasty. Or, shall we say, war itself is never nice, but when good people win that is nice. Certianly don't want the truely evil side to win.

Are there any figures on what percentage of voters considered slavery OK? 70%? 40%? Today it is incomprehensible to think slavery is OK. Even today racism is way different than 40 years ago. The younger people simply have never heard the reasons with feelings to understand why even 40 years ago it was different. What they don't know is no loss to them. It is hard to try to comprehend what it was like during Linclons time. What is written is only a smidget of the whole picture. This one cop told me that they would pull black people over and harass them and take them to the station and harass them for hours and then let them go. He didn't know why they did it. It was basically monkey see monkey do or be ridiculed. Not much brain power, but stupid feelings in control.

How would a principled man deal with this? Confusion? The object is to win and change, which he did. He played on the stupidity of the people very well. That's my theory.


----------



## 16412

Peak and Pine said:


> Check with my parole officer. ​


​How many people around you with white coats? Is the food good?


----------



## ksinc

WA said:


> To me the word _convenience_ means something like a woman in a store buying clothes frivolously.
> 
> I read somewhere that Linclon didn't believe the whole DoI, and that or those parts should not be done. If he is refering to some people being less human than others, who could disagree? Ted Kennedy said pretty much the same for laws he didn't like. Giving up a pawn or rook or someother members seems unprincipled, but, loosing the game really is unprincipled. I think he played to an unprincipled public to get the votes. War is nasty. Or, shall we say, war itself is never nice, but when good people win that is nice. Certianly don't want the truely evil side to win.
> 
> Are there any figures on what percentage of voters considered slavery OK? 70%? 40%? Today it is incomprehensible to think slavery is OK. Even today racism is way different than 40 years ago. The younger people simply have never heard the reasons with feelings to understand why even 40 years ago it was different. What they don't know is no loss to them. It is hard to try to comprehend what it was like during Linclons time. What is written is only a smidget of the whole picture. This one cop told me that they would pull black people over and harass them and take them to the station and harass them for hours and then let them go. He didn't know why they did it. It was basically monkey see monkey do or be ridiculed. Not much brain power, but stupid feelings in control.
> 
> How would a principled man deal with this? Confusion? The object is to win and change, which he did. He played on the stupidity of the people very well. That's my theory.


I mean convenience as in a woman you don't feel any love for, but is always there when you want sex. This is how Lincoln treats the DoI.

There was no war on when he said those things about black people; it was two years before the war (and before he was elected and the war was even inevitable.)


----------



## 16412

ksinc said:


> I mean convenience as in a woman you don't feel any love for, but is always there when you want sex. This is how Lincoln treats the DoI.


People being unequal? How could they put this shameful thinking into our first legal document? Or, any document?

Convenience? I still think of it as a chess game the way he used it.



> There was no war on when he said those things about black people; it was two years before the war (and before he was elected and the war was even inevitable.)


What a tragic war. I suppose there were many branding irons in the fire. as to why.

I think slavery is a war against freedom where only one side gets to fight. Slavery is captive, and captive is because of war. How else can you have captive? With out war what reason would there be for a person to be captive? Can't have captive without war. Etc. Etc.


----------



## ksinc

WA said:


> People being unequal? How could they put this shameful thinking into our first legal document? Or, any document?
> 
> Convenience? I still think of it as a chess game the way he used it.
> 
> What a tragic war. I suppose there were many branding irons in the fire. as to why.
> 
> I think slavery is a war against freedom where only one side gets to fight. Slavery is captive, and captive is because of war. How else can you have captive? With out war what reason would there be for a person to be captive? Can't have captive without war. Etc. Etc.


WA, I have been largely impressed with your writings of late and I honestly think you have been more thoughtful on subjects of economics and history. I only say that for context in that I am going to say that I cannot make much sense of what you wrote above. Even though you put it inline with my thoughts your comments seem unresponsive.

All I can respond to is that using it as a chess piece is clearly treating it as a convenience. I feel you think you are disagreeing with me and that is a matter of pride for you (not because of me, but because of your feelings on slavery.) So, if you will clarify your point I will give you a thoughtful response.


----------



## 16412

I suppose convenience is the proper word. I don't connect moral reasoning with the word convenience, so in that sense it seems to be the wrong choice of word. Moral seems to require a higher standard word than convenience. Maybe there isn't a better word. Convenience store and kicking slavery out don't seem to be in the same ball park.

Just Looked at a synonym book and it looks like convenience could fit very well.


----------



## ksinc

WA said:


> I suppose convenience is the proper word. I don't connect moral reasoning with the word convenience, so in that sense it seems to be the wrong choice of word. Moral seems to require a higher standard word than convenience. Maybe there isn't a better word. Convenience store and kicking slavery out don't seem to be in the same ball park.
> 
> Just Looked at a synonym book and it looks like convenience could fit very well.


Thank you.


----------



## david4king

Yes it was!!!


----------



## Chouan

Cruiser said:


> I was responding to the suggestion that the U.S. could have developed as an independent State like Canada and Australia, so let's look at Canada and Australia to answer this.
> 
> Could the combined military forces of Canada and the UK stop Hitler? Remember, the U.S. would have been similar to Canada under the suggestion. Long before the invasion at Normandy, U.S. airpower was already in England carrying out massive daytime bombing raids over Germany and slowing down the German military/industrial complex.
> 
> Could the combined forces of Australia and the UK have staved off a Japanese invasion of Australia? Of course not. England was tied up in it's own struggle for survival at the time and Australia was quickly pulling it's forces out of Europe and North Africa to defend it's own homeland from invasion. Fortunately the U.S. victories over the Japanese at Midway and Coral Sea effectively ended any real threat of an invasion of Australia.
> 
> Cruiser


1) Yes. We did stop Hitler (and Mussolini). We weren't strong enough to reconquer Europe, but the Commonwealth was strong enough to prevent invasion of the UK, and to save Suez. He needed to win in both of those theatres to win the war. Although Lend-Lease supplies helped, indeed, were critical, it was the Commonwealth that stopped him. If any country BEAT him, it was the USSR.

2) Yes. The defeat of the Japanese offensive at Port Moresby, in New Guinea proved that Japanese supply lines were too long, too tenuous, and too weak for a sustained offensive in that area. US Naval power enabled an offensive against Japan, but given the experience of the Japanese in their invasion of New Guinea, an invasion of Australia wasn't credible. In any case, very few ANZAC troops WERE pulled out of N.Africa, as local and newly raised troops were used in SE Asia and Oceana. Again, US equipment, like aero engines made under license, were essential, but Commonwealth forces, given the logistical conditions, were suffficient to prevent invasion.


----------



## Chouan

Black & Proud said:


> You would have trouble naming more than a few countries that didn't have at this moment US troops or US bases right in the middle of their land. I guess the Golden Rule is as good a rule of freedom as any: don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. Would you want Japan, Somalia, Morocco, Spain, Kazachstan, and Saudi Arabia (just to name a few) to have military bases all over the US, lording their power around over you??


There is also the apprent willingness of US Military, of whichever complexion to shoot at people in their own countries.
viz the shooting of a bumboat man in Suez last year, I beleive, because he came too close to a US Vessel going through the canal.
Or, a US warship threatening to fire on a foot passenger ferry on the Clyde, going about its lawful business, on its usual scheduled run, because it was coming "too close".

Both incidents took place in territorial waters of another country, yet the US military, I assume, personnel involved seemed to think that the use of lethal force was entirely justified, even though no actual threat existed.

Can you imagine American reactions if such an incident took place in American waters? An Egyptian vessel, for example, using a .5 calibre MG on a boat in San Francisco bay? Or a British warship threatening to fire on a ferry on the Hudson?


----------



## Relayer

Chouan, your attempt to paint a dastardly picture of the US military almost seems like it could be credible...

until one looks at the actual incidents that you cite...

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6079974.stm

"A Ministry of Defence spokesman had earlier said: "The communication was overheard by other vessels.

"The challenge was directed to other ships in the exercise and there was no threat to anybody.

"The ferry was in no danger."

(The ferry did hear the warning that was broadcast in error, but it was not specifically broadcast to/for the ferry.)

Bum boat...
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7311992.stm

Of course, these could all be part of the conspiracy/cover-up by the British, right?


----------



## Chouan

I fully accept your explanation for the Clyde incident.

However, re the bum boat, try:

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7314225.stm

Interesting that you quoted the BBC from the 25th of March, where the US denies that any casualty occurred, but don't quote that of the 26th, when they admit that they did kill a bumboat man.

Of the two examples I gave, one is still entirely credible, and completely justifies the argument that I presented. Obviously, you'd rather that there wasn't any evidence for the attitude that I described, but I'm afraid that there is.

The excuses given by the armed people onboard, whether US Military people, or US mercenaries, just make the attitude seem worse. Warnings were given in arabic (to a bumboat with an unsilenced, exposed diesel engine, which couldn't have heard them!) and they were only warning shots (from a .5 calibre machine fun, to and from a moving vessel etc. A straight forward apology and expression of regret would have been so much more creditable, rather than the rather pathetic attempts to minimise responsibility, especially after the previous denial.

Its hardly an attempt to "paint a dastardly picture of the US military". The US military have painted that picture themselves very effectively. Viz Haditha and My Lai. In case you're not aware of Haditha, this Wikipedia article is a reasonable introduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings

I'm sure that you're already conversant with My Lai.

I find it sad that any suggestion that US forces have behaved with impropriety is greeted with accusations of anti-Americanism. Unfortunately, if a nation tries to establish itself as a global policeman, that nation's policemen have to be seen as being beyond reproach.

Finally, could you elucidate further on your suggestion of a "conspiracy/cover-up by the British," please? Of what? The Ferry incident?


----------



## Relayer

The bum boat incident was regrettable, no doubt, just not evidence in any way that the US military is wantonly irresponsible or reckless. Your opinion differs, of course. I understand that. Yes, it was reported at first that no one was killed, later it was shown that one person was killed. I'm not sure what you can really make of that, except in line with your biases.

A few days later, sympathies and more were offered...

https://ports.co.za/navalnews/article_2008_12_26_3425.html

"We express our deepest sympathies to the family of the deceased," said Vice Adm. Cosgriff. "We are greatly saddened by events that apparently resulted in this accidental death. This situation is tragic, and we will do our utmost to help take care of the family of the deceased."

As for atrocities, yes, they will occur in all wars and, on either side, to some degree. If you expect that to ever be eliminated, then I have to tell you Utopia doesn't and won't ever exist on this planet.

if you think the world would be (or would have been) a better, safer place without the US military, then you are really only dreaming. But, no, they are not perfect. There is no doubt, however, that by and large they have been a great force for good in this world, whether you can admit to it or not.


----------



## Chouan

"We are greatly saddened by events that *apparently resulted* in this accidental death. This situation is tragic, and we will do our utmost to help take care of the family of the deceased."

Is this an acknowledgent of responsibility? Perhaps one of our legally trained members could comment?

Your response doesn't answer the question of how would Americans feel if such an incident, of a foreign vessel, used a machine gun on an American citizen, in American waters?

In any case, there still seems to be an assumption that crticism of actions by the US military is criticism of the US and criticism of the US military itself, and that this makes me biased.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
...and then on second thought, if the US military had not interfered in the European theater of operations, during WWII, might we assume that you would be typing your postings herein, in German? Darn those Americans...they just cannot keep their noses out of anything! :icon_scratch:


----------



## IlliniFlyer

Chouan said:


> The excuses given by the armed people onboard, whether US Military people, or US mercenaries, just make the attitude seem worse. Warnings were given in arabic (to a bumboat with an unsilenced, exposed diesel engine, which couldn't have heard them!) and they were only warning shots (from a .5 calibre machine fun, to and from a moving vessel etc.


The crew on this ship was civilian; it was not military. Having said that...

It's a shame that these procedures weren't in place when an unidentified vessel approaching a US ship resulted in the deaths of 17 US Sailors in 2000 (USS Cole in Aden, Yemen).

Or we can look at the mortar attack on USS Ashland and USS Kearsarge back in 2005 in Jordan. In case you haven't noticed, sir, the US Navy doesn't like being attacked regardless of where it is. A US ship is sovereign US territory regardless of its location (international or territorial waters).



Chouan said:


> In any case, there still seems to be an assumption that crticism of actions by the US military is criticism of the US and criticism of the US military itself, and that this makes me biased.


You implicitly state that both of these incidents reflect negatively on the US military. Please explain how this is possibly true. The first incident you cite was during an exercise without any live-fire and the second was regarding a chartered commercial vessel; it was not a warship.

In response to how the US would handle a foreign ship firing in US territorial waters, I believe that you are missing a major factor here. US ships do not approach a foreign vessel unannounced or not responding to hails. We do not have fishermen/merchants in ports earning a living by coming up to commercial vessels or warships to sell goods. This activity is however prevalent in the Middle East, where attacks on US ships have occurred. If you were sailing in harm's way, wouldn't you have a heightened defensive posture?


----------



## Cruiser

Chouan said:


> I find it sad that any suggestion that US forces have behaved with impropriety is greeted with accusations of anti-Americanism.


I think the problem is with the using of isolated incidents of bad behavior as being reflective of the U.S. armed forces as a whole. I'm reminded of an incident in 2007 when a distress call went out from a cruise ship in the Pacific Ocean. A 14 year old girl on the cruise ship had suffered a ruptured appendix and was in a dire situation.

Over 550 miles away the _USS Ronald Reagan_ was conducting a training exercise when the distress call was heard. Without hesitation the Captain of the _Reagan_ interrupted the mission and turned the 100,000 ton warship in the direction of the cruise ship while dispatching a helicopter to pick up the sick girl. She was brought back to the _Reagan_ where life saving surgery was performed.

The U.S. armed forces routinely does things like this but those who want to point out the bad incidents in an effort to disparage the military almost always fail to mention the good they do.

Cruiser


----------

