The recent Pentagon report about China, which was announced in Financial Times, wasn’t sensation. In this report China emerges as a strategic rival to US. In fact it seemed to me that the US-China armed conflict (or at least “cold wars series”) was predicted. And no wonder: during a long time I have been watching US military plans concerning China in web. I think that this publication in FT is just the Pentagon or the White House testing of the reaction of Americans on such future trends. May be I can’t speak for the whole American community but my first reaction was that we’re all got tired of wars! There are a lot of losses in Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed shouldn’t we say no to another military conflict?

we cant say no to a war before it even starts because we dont even know what it will be over. What if China attacks us? should just say no? If china invades mongolia we could say no I guess. If china attacks an ally who we have a mutual protection treaty with we will be obligated to intervene though.

take the profit out of war, and there will be no war. just fist fights.

Openspeaker,

First off, welcome to the boards and I hope you'll post regularly as it's good to have a wide variety of opinions and different thoughts here.


Now as far as this thing about America getting involved in "too many wars," you don't exactly get invited to a war the way you get invited to a party. Saddam didn't write Bush in 1991 and say "I hear you American bastards have spent some 100 zillions dollars on weapons all through the 80s, please come attack us and bring your best troops."


Also, I don't agree with your implied thesis that the Whitehouse or Pentagon is out floating trial balloons to see whether or not Americans are gung-ho about a war with China. That simply isn't and wouldn't be true. Americans have, historically RESISTED going to war and do not relish World War Three on the horizon.

If war with China comes (and it IS coming) it will be the Chinese bringing the war to the U.S., not the U.S. bringin war to China. China isn't known for known for upholding human rights, nor is it very tolerant of different races or ideas contrary to what the Chi-com elites espouses. The U.S. isn't going to have much of a choice with a conflict with China.


I just wish America wouldn't be so lax with the Chi-Coms.

Hehe, I think we should have T-shirts and bumper stickers that say, "Just say NO to nuclear war" We can be PAVFPDERNW
"People Against Violent Foreign Policy Decisions Eventually Resulting in Nuclear Winter"

Yeah, but then when China attacks "Mongolia" or whatever, you know how America is. They'll try and "help." We've always "helped." We're "helpers." We just love "helping."

Originally posted by OpenSpeaker
There are a lot of losses in Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed shouldn’t we say no to another military conflict?

This is USA, they always pick a quarrels with other countries. It's what they do.

Yeah, it's really fun.

Gee reven,

About this China and Mongolia scheme, anytime you wish to start the third world war, just go ahead and out and out attack China. One of the rules to people need to learn is that the grandest scheme to do the most good will amount to nothing if it fails. America has other avenues, other options in winning a war over tyranny. The U.S. just needs to implement them.


Dammit.

America has other avenues, other options in winning a war over tyranny. The U.S. just needs to implement them.
Exactly what I think and why I'm against any war the US goes into, because they really didn't have to, it wasn't a last resort.

Originally posted by Travh20
we cant say no to a war before it even starts because we dont even know what it will be over. What if China attacks us? should just say no? If china invades mongolia we could say no I guess. If china attacks an ally who we have a mutual protection treaty with we will be obligated to intervene though.

Mutual Intervention Treaties.
I think these are hog wash.
It’s always our obligation to protect someone else.
If Iraq is such a threat to us where are all these helpers?
They send one platoon, have a terrorist attack at home, and it’s our fault.
What happens, they pull out their “two bits” worth of help and go home.
This is one of the reasons I’m against this war, much less starting another one especialy with China.
Protect ourselves? You bet. I agree with you, we better know what it's all about first

Currently China's youth population is 3 males to 1 female... hmmm what to do with all these testosterone filled males... send them to war of course...or seize power through fear... they learn well and they are observing their teacher.

I just wish America wouldn't be so lax with the Chi-Coms Yeah, I mean sheesh free market capitalism...the US should definatly put an end to that right Darth?Now as far as this thing about America getting involved in "too many wars," you don't exactly get invited to a war the way you get invited to a party. Saddam didn't write Bush in 1991 and say "I hear you American bastards have spent some 100 zillions dollars on weapons all through the 80s, please come attack us and bring your best troops." Nope Saddam wrote a letter to the US saying "these fucking Kuwaitis are slant drilling my countryies oil. I sure would like to beat their ass" And the US response was quote "The US has no position on Iraqs border dispute with Kuwait." Which when it comes from the country that put you into power and armed you to the teeth means 'good a head, we don't care.' Yes the US allowed the 1st gulf war to happen. If our statement had been "The US will not tolerate agression in the ME" then I'm pretty sure Saddam NEVER would have invaded Kuwait. ut then again the US wouldn't have an easy excuse for destroying the ME only significant military power.
Also, I don't agree with your implied thesis that the Whitehouse or Pentagon is out floating trial balloons to see whether or not Americans are gung-ho about a war with China. That simply isn't and wouldn't be true. Americans have, historically RESISTED going to war and do not relish World War Three on the horizon. The US sure does like beating up on little coutries without the ability to defend themselves though...chickenshits...

However I do agree with Darth about FTimes. I highly doubt they would float such an idea in such a magazine.

Why would China chance a war with the U.S. when they can buy it?
Already I have seen evidence of purchases headed in that direction.
Plus, it is a known fact that our government borrows a lot of money from China.

Trade with China has left the advantage to them 10 fold.

I believe, thanks to our many greedy politicians and the corporate machines that support them, that economic power will shift from the U.S. to China if changes are not made.

"Good business" practice is to buy out the competition.

Most wars have economics at their root. There are ideologies and slogans in the propoganda, but at the root is competition for resources. Right now China and India are rapidly industrializing. They are both pursuing economic policies that give them advantages in trade. For the moment, the United States is tolerating this, but in the long run we can't do that and survive as the worlds dominant superpower. What the spark is that sets off the explosion is irrelevant except in the selling of the war. It is the underlying economic situation that is important in understanding why the war takes place.

Most wars have economics at their root. There are ideologies and slogans in the propoganda, but at the root is competition for resources. On the head Imagineer. In fact all wars have been fought for business. Even WW2.

++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.jceps.com/index.php?pageID=article&articleID=15
"As early as April of 1941, the Economic and Financial Group of the Council on Foreign Relations warned that: “If war aims are to be stated which seem to be concerned solely with Anglo-American imperialism, they will offer little to people in the rest of the world, and will be vulnerable to Nazi counter-promises. . . . The interests of other peoples should be stressed, not only those of Europe, but also of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This would have a better propaganda effect.*”

*Memorandum E-B32, 17 April 1941, CFR, War-Peace Studies, Northwestern University Library, cited in Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, “Shaping a New World Order: The Council on Foreign Relations’ Blueprint for World Hegemony,” in Holly Sklar (ed.) Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, pp.135-156, (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1980), p. 146.

++++++++++++++++++++

WAR IS A RACKET
Smedley Darlington Butler
Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired]

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Seems like America gets led into a situation where war is the only alternative. Then we rally around the flag.

What we need to do is look back at, and learn from, the whos and whys that allow us to purposely be placed in that situation in the first place.
This could help avoid the manipulation of the masses to such a great extent.

But alas, how soon America forgets.

I just can't BELIEVE the stuff that gets posted on these boards, I really can't. ECONOMICS drives war? Where did you guys pick up that bilge at? If this is the kind of crap learned in schools, I fear for our future. Mobil, Chevron, AT&t and Microsoft don't all get together and decide whom to beat up on to increase sales. Good God, have you all gone numb? It's IDEOLOGY and politics that is the heart of wars, not economics. Geez. Our Civil War was fought over Union and State's rights plus the idea that nobody in the U.S. should be enslaved. WW2 was fought because the Japs believe that China should be their private back yard and the Pacific their own private pond PLUS the whites should serve the Japs (their words, not mine), Hitler believed in extermination of the Jews, the conquering of all of Europe, a master race of men dominating the world and a good war every 20 years was needed to keep this "master race" in good shape. Stalin slammed the iron curtain on all of Eastern Europe to use as a buffer in case another invasion came their way. The Korean war was about keeping the southern half of Korea OUT of Cummunist hands, as was the Vietnam war and the 80s war in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Our war in Iraq is about staving off radical islamists and their dreams of world domination. This upcoming war with China is about keeping Taiwan free and keeping the Chi-coms from dominating the entire asian continent.

It ain't about economics, guys, and it's a lesson all here should learn.

Our Civil War was fought over Union and State's rights plus the idea that nobody in the U.S. should be enslaved. Bwaahhahaaaaaa....nice example. heeheee...

I am not a history buff but I thought the Civil War was fought because some people thought having slaves was their right...ya know, so I can drink my peach-julup under the oak tree while you break your ass in the hot sun picking my cotton and making me wealthy.

Hmmmmm economics seems to rear it's ugly head once again...!! Some things never change... like what's mine is mine AND what's yours ismine too!

I am not a history buff but I thought the Civil War was fought because some people thought having slaves was their right...ya know, so I can drink my peach-julup under the oak tree while you break your ass in the hot sun picking my cotton and making me wealthy.
Contrary to popular belief, most southerners did not own slaves, and most southerners did not think that slavery was either good or a "god given right". The civil war started over states rights versus federal power and the power of the simple majority over the rest of the population. It was just that there was a huge schism in American politics and both sides being of a pretty much equal size but the sides were drastically different from each other so that there was no middle ground possible.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Contrary to popular belief, most southerners did not own slaves, and most southerners did not think that slavery was either good or a "god given right". The civil war started over states rights versus federal power and the power of the simple majority over the rest of the population. It was just that there was a huge schism in American politics and both sides being of a pretty much equal size but the sides were drastically different from each other so that there was no middle ground possible.

thanks Blib, that makes more sense as it eliminates the good versus bad, south versus north ethics battle

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal


If war with China comes (and it IS coming) it will be the Chinese bringing the war to the U.S., not the U.S. bringin war to China. China isn't known for known for upholding human rights, nor is it very tolerant of different races or ideas contrary to what the Chi-com elites espouses. The U.S. isn't going to have much of a choice with a conflict with China.


I just wish America wouldn't be so lax with the Chi-Coms. that will be a very sad day ! i think , if that happens, the maximum draft age will be in the 70's. we will all be at war !

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
I just can't BELIEVE the stuff that gets posted on these boards, I really can't. ECONOMICS drives war? Where did you guys pick up that bilge at? i think , with most wars, you are right. but my OPINION is, that with this war, its has money written all over it. halliburtan was building airstrips long before we decided to bomb iraq, and they were not for the iraqis. i dont think its just some coincidence that we ended up bombing iraq, instead of getting to the real root of the problem. like i say, after 9-11, i doubt that the first thing on everyone's mind was, " we have to save those poor people from saddam........ask anyone ! this country hated middle eastern people at that time. even black people in my city, were being very racist. i confronted that on my radio program.

Korg,

First last and foremost, every nation on the planet and throughout history has always looked after its own history. That's the way the world works and its the way the U.S. works. You can argue about the U.S. invasion about Iraq is about oil and you are partially right. The Middle East sits on top of vast oil fields which the U.S. does depend on to fuel its own economy. But then, you have to look at the actions of the U.S. During the Gulf War, after the U.S. freed Kuwait from Saddam, the U.S. LEFT Kuwait. No oil fields seized, no payment extracted from Kuwait. Kuwait was left sovereign, same thing with Saudi Arabia.

With Iraq and, Afghanistan for that matter, the U.S. it can be said that we are there for oil, but our own actions do say otherwise. The U.S. has not seized any oil fields, in spite of the high price of oil here in the States, plus the U.S. is working hard to try and set up a system of government that tries to free people from the rule of one dictitorial thug and radical islamists. The U.S. IS winning, terrorists have to be IMPORTED into both countries to fuel an opposition to the U.S. involvement. The terrorists KNOW that they will have poor pickings for jihad in a countries that offer its citizens a brighter future. The only method of pursuasion these "insurgents" have is terror. They are not winning converts by ideaology, but by fear. If the U.S. can manage to kill off the insurgency, those countries could be on a way to a brighter future.

You've spoken of 'the real root" of terror. The real root of terror is abject poverty, rule by Thugs Who Speak on Behalf of Allah and blaming of the West for their present poverty by various Jihadists. The U.S. is trying to stamp out the real root of terror by offering an alternative to Radical Islam.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Korg,

First last and foremost, every nation on the planet and throughout history has always looked after its own history. That's the way the world works and its the way the U.S. works. You can argue about the U.S. invasion about Iraq is about oil and you are partially right. The Middle East sits on top of vast oil fields which the U.S. does depend on to fuel its own economy. But then, you have to look at the actions of the U.S. During the Gulf War, after the U.S. freed Kuwait from Saddam, the U.S. LEFT Kuwait. No oil fields seized, no payment extracted from Kuwait. Kuwait was left sovereign, same thing with Saudi Arabia.

With Iraq and, Afghanistan for that matter, the U.S. it can be said that we are there for oil, but our own actions do say otherwise. The U.S. has not seized any oil fields, in spite of the high price of oil here in the States, plus the U.S. is working hard to try and set up a system of government that tries to free people from the rule of one dictitorial thug and radical islamists. The U.S. IS winning, terrorists have to be IMPORTED into both countries to fuel an opposition to the U.S. involvement. The terrorists KNOW that they will have poor pickings for jihad in a countries that offer its citizens a brighter future. The only method of pursuasion these "insurgents" have is terror. They are not winning converts by ideaology, but by fear. If the U.S. can manage to kill off the insurgency, those countries could be on a way to a brighter future.

You've spoken of 'the real root" of terror. The real root of terror is abject poverty, rule by Thugs Who Speak on Behalf of Allah and blaming of the West for their present poverty by various Jihadists. The U.S. is trying to stamp out the real root of terror by offering an alternative to Radical Islam. in the beginning, i thought that it was solely oil. but the reconstruction is a way to get the oil MONEY without actually taking the oil. there are companies that were going bankrupt, that are now so in the black, their great grandchildren couldnt bankrupt it.....friends of bush. that's a pretty slick backdoor way of saying that its not about oil, but using oil money to pay for it.....second : it seems to me, that we more CREATED the terrorist problem in IRAQ . i understand what people thought, but it wasnt so. he didnt have the weapons. it has been said that out of all of the middle eastern countries, saddam had the most liberal rule, and that women had more rights in his country, than in countries we left alone. i doubt that saddam was the only one killing his own people, because of the nature of dictatorships. he, and the leader of terrorism, OBL didnt like each other because OBL thought that saddam, watered down islam. as we can see, terrorism is not a COUNTRY. most of these guys we are fighting, are coming from countries we, once again, left alone. but now we have to clean up the mess. in retrospect, saddam was the easiest pick. he had little or no support from other islamic nations. and he wasnt that liked by other leaders. and now, there is lots of money to be made. you just have to be brave enough to want to go there. that was my point.

All wars are about power and today the guy with the most money has the most power. We are at war with China it's just that most Americans don't know it and much less don't give a rats butt. As long as their little world isn't being bothered they don't give a damn. Just because we are not using guns and bombs does not mean we are not slowly being beat up. If we do turn to guns and bombs with China, Americans best pull their heads out of their a**es and join together, otherwise the new common name in America will be Ching Chang. We won't be able to sit around and whine and b***h about everylittle thing we will have to pull together and fight with everything imaginable. China will not care who's feelings get hurt they will fight hard and dirty.

Originally posted by mad dog
All wars are about power and today the guy with the most money has the most power. We are at war with China it's just that most Americans don't know it and much less don't give a rats butt. As long as their little world isn't being bothered they don't give a damn. Just because we are not using guns and bombs does not mean we are not slowly being beat up. If we do turn to guns and bombs with China, Americans best pull their heads out of their a**es and join together, otherwise the new common name in America will be Ching Chang. We won't be able to sit around and whine and b***h about everylittle thing we will have to pull together and fight with everything imaginable. China will not care who's feelings get hurt they will fight hard and dirty. sooooo damn right ! if only we hadnt used all of our resources to fight a weakling , we may have had a chance with china ;)

korg:i doubt that saddam was the only one killing his own people, because of the nature of dictatorships.

Good point...throughout Africa there is so much corruption, slavery and despotism in many little countries that volunteers can not get basic food to the people to keep them alive... nobody seems too interested in removing those people from power and saving thousands upon thousands of lives... but then their countries have no natural resources...dirt poor!

maybe they have to appear to be a threat first...then they will get "help"

Korg, you make a point when we started spreading ourselfs thin I was waiting for china too make a move. China is not stupid though and they won't move until they feel the timing is perfect.

Darth, sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the Civil War was actually fought over cotton and the souths proposed trade with England. The slavery issue was the excuse needed for the war.
I will say that Iraq is over oil and that Hussien was the excuse but the civil war had a good outcome and so will Iraq. Have faith.
China doesnt need us anymore, and their issues over Tawain will remain, we must find away to solve this without war, but if China does invade Tawain I am pretty sure we will turn our backs and yell dont, stop, no, and hope it goes away fast.
My concern is if China does do this and we do nothing then NK will think it is ok to invade SK.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Darth, sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the Civil War was actually fought over cotton and the souths proposed trade with England. The slavery issue was the excuse needed for the war.
I will say that Iraq is over oil and that Hussien was the excuse but the civil war had a good outcome and so will Iraq. Have faith.
China doesnt need us anymore, and their issues over Tawain will remain, we must find away to solve this without war, but if China does invade Tawain I am pretty sure we will turn our backs and yell dont, stop, no, and hope it goes away fast.
My concern is if China does do this and we do nothing then NK will think it is ok to invade SK. welcome back BV. missed your wisdom. hope you're right about iraq. and, do you agree that china is a kind of scary situation, considering the fact that we are spread so thin ?

I am here for the conversation, the arguing is over.... I hope come on BV, you dont miss the arguments at all ? :D

Not really, well my personality does but not my blood pressure.
Thanks for the welcome back Korg :)

Beruit Veteran,

As a veiwer of the PBS Civil War documentary, a reader of both the companion book and another book by Bruce Catton, a reader of one war diary, a biography of Nathan Bedford Forrest and Robert E Lee, and a couple other books on various battles, I have to say that this idea that the U.S. went to war with the South because the South was going to open cotton trade with ENGLAND is news to me. I never heard such a thing before.


I'm no expert on the Civil War, but I'm pretty good at the politics that got the war rolling. Let me do the educating (once again). Contrary to what you believe, it wasn't a proposal that the South was going to sell cotton to England. They had been selling cotton to England and France, for that matter for decades. In fact, one of the first mistakes the South made was withholding of millions of bales of cotton from England and France during the first year or so of the Civil War. The South hoped that withholding cotton would strike at the economic heart of France and England and get them involved in the war. This tactic didn't work and was a major mistake on various levels. Had the South traded their cotton for arms, munitions and other supplies, the South would've been well off in that regard for years to come. They didn't and it caused the South to start scraping for weapons from the get go. PLUS, Southern action of not trading in the opening months of the Civil War, the real effect was to enforce the blockade the Union was trying to put in place BEFORE it had the ships to do so. Bad mistake. Also, while England DID need cotton for its industry, what it needed even more was Northern WHEAT. The English were very reluctant to have their food supply cut off by going to war with the Union. There were a couple of incidents, and England would've stepped in and negotiated a truce with between North and South had it become obvious that the North wasn't going to win. But such an oppurtunity never really presented itself. Then there is the fact that the Union had, at that time, the largest standing army on the planet. For England to have gone to war with the South wouldn't have been an easy affair to say the least. Shelby Foote, THE Civil War historian noted that the Union fought the Civil War with one hand tied behind its back. Had there been more Southern victories and the prospect of Europe intervening, the North would've "pulled that other hand from behind its back." I can also point out that while the aristocracy of both England and France DID like the South for its own budding Aristocracy, slavery was absolutely repugnant to both countries and were somewhat less than willing to go to war to defend such and institution.

The one thing you'd have to explain, Beruit if you wish to push this idea that trade with England ignited our Civil War, is why oh why did the entire southern half of the United States drop out of the Union within weeks of Lincoln being elected. It was the South that took the first steps toward war, not the North. I think your thesis just got shot down.

Dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Beruit Veteran,

The one thing you'd have to explain, Beruit if you wish to push this idea that trade with England ignited our Civil War, is why oh why did the entire southern half of the United States drop out of the Union within weeks of Lincoln being elected. It was the South that took the first steps toward war, not the North. I think your thesis just got shot down.

Dammit.

Sorry but if you read the the companion books on the US civil war you would know that once the talk of withdrawing from the Union started then the idea of war became apparent. The Union was going to lose king cotton and millions of dollars in revenue. Not only in the taxes on cotton crops but also a cheap supply of fabric for the sweat shops of the NE. THis is what brought the Union to war to reunite the Union not the idea that slavery was wrong.
The trade with England was the reason we blockaded Fort FIscher and many other southern ports, if we could cut the trade of cotton we could deprive the south of its revenue and bring about an early end to the war.
There are many references to the meaning of losing King Cotton and its revenue in well researched works on the war.

Wow, that actually makes sense. While the South split from the United States, it was the North that decided to bring that decision to war...

BV,

I DID read the campanion book plus another. It wasn't trade with England that forced the North to take arms against the South, I POINTED OUT that the Election of Lincoln is what caused the South to secede from which was the begining of the war.

NOW, I POINTED OUT that trade with England by the South and their cotton was going on long before the outbreak of hostilities. Foreign trade of cotton by the South wasn't a factor in the Civil War. This war didn't start over a trade dispute over England, I POINTED THAT OUT as well. I also POINTED OUT that the South BURNED their cotton bales to get England and France involved in the war and doing so helped enforce a blockade the Union Navy didn't have the power to put in place. I am aware that the Union did try to blockade Southern ports. Of course they were trying to blockade Southern ports, the South just declared themselves independent from the rest of the Union, what do you expect these guys to do? I can also point out that the Lincoln Administration declared a blockade of the Southern ports, which was a public relations disaster. A government that is trying to quell a rebellion CLOSES the ports in the areas held by rebels, a country at war with another country will BLOCKADE ports of that particular foreign power. The governments of England and France, who were debating whether or not to recognize the South (and therefore intervene in the conflict) took note that the Lincoln Administration itself seemed to be recognizing an idependent country that was the Confederate States of America. Both countries would dabble a bit in power politics right up to the Emancipation Proclamation. England and France were willing to stick their noses into a war for Union, but slavery was anathema to both countries and after the Proclamation declaring that the North was out to end slavery, Europe left the U.S. and Confederacy alone. But that's beside the point, as is the fact that when New England textile mills could no longer acquire cotton for their looms, they switched to Mid West wool.

I'm also aware that neither the North nor the Lincoln Administration didn't go to war to free slaves. Though slavery was key to the conflict. It was the clash of two cultures, one rapidly industrializing and growing exponentially, the other was a static agrarian society with a budding Aristoccracy (which the Royals in Europe really liked) that was dependent on slavery to keep its own economy going. The South was well aware of Northern growth and spread and its hostility to the institution of slavery. Sooner or later, the growing North was going to outlaw slavery and bring down the Southern way of life. Lincoln's election cemented that idea that the North was going to end the Southern way of life and the South decided it was time to drop out.


Don't argue with me on the Civil War, Bruce Catton schooled me well, dammit.

Thanks for making my point BV. Additionally if Darth wants to press the slavery issue it is one of sole economics as well. What is slavery but a low cost, high production business model. The Civil war was about trying to maintain this. Apparently he has problems making such connections.

Darth- why don't you go back and actually read the lin kI posted. Its from a career military veteran from teh early 1900's descibing himself as a 'thug for big business'.

All wars are about economics or religion (or both).

Reasons why China's will be THE superpower (ignore the stupid title)-
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/27/112319/605

Freethinker,

Leave it to you to reduce the Civil War into its meanest, ugliest, lowest common denominator.

Having read people's attitudes about slaves and blacks, and the Amistad incident, Dinesh D'Souza's book on America, reading onthe Civil War, I can see the picture as much broader and more complex than you seem to be capable of. You just seem to pick up on the America is Evil and the Big Corporations are out to get us angle.

What a shallow way to live.


Also, I do read bits and pieces of you links, though they make me want to vomit. And if you are interested, I listen to this alternativeradio.org bilge on my way to work, which is equally nauseating. Why don't you just give up the pretense and start linking to Pravda? The official newsletter of the soviet union.

Darth every war has been for economic gain.
Reread my last post, I put in the timeline for what I brought up earlier. The Union lost taxes and cheap fabric, the south didnt want to give up states rights nor did they want to lose their cheap labor and BOOM war was born. All of it was based on what?
MONEY, nothing more.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Freethinker,

Leave it to you to reduce the Civil War into its meanest, ugliest, lowest common denominator.

Having read people's attitudes about slaves and blacks, and the Amistad incident, Dinesh D'Souza's book on America, reading onthe Civil War, I can see the picture as much broader and more complex than you seem to be capable of. You just seem to pick up on the America is Evil and the Big Corporations are out to get us angle.

What a shallow way to live.


Also, I do read bits and pieces of you links, though they make me want to vomit. And if you are interested, I listen to this alternativeradio.org bilge on my way to work, which is equally nauseating. Why don't you just give up the pretense and start linking to Pravda? The official newsletter of the soviet union.


HOw does saying that the civil war was over money, or the lost revenues mean that we are ugly or vile. We are not the only country to war over money. Like I said every war on the face of the earth was based around economics.

Veteran,

Ok then, let's forget about the rising tide of anti-slavery sentiment in the North. Let's forget the underground railroad, William Loyd Garrison, Frederick Douglas, John Brown and Harriet Beecher Stowe. Let us forget that the North was growing, rapidly expanding, industrial and becoming less and less tolerant of slavery. Forget the fact that the South was stagnant, wasn't interested in industrializing, didn't have a large influx of immigrants and Southern awareness of the North's increasing intolerance of slavery made it hold on to its own traditions and institutions that much tighter. From the South's point of view, the North's wasn't just attacking slavery, they were attacking their very way of life. And they became willing to do anything necessary to uphold their way of life. This doesn't sound like economics was the root cause to me. The North and South could've resolved their differences, had it not been for slavery. It was slavery, not economics that was the driving force behind the war.

Guerilla's post, while correct in a small way, gives a pale, narrow view of what was going on in the 19th century. Guerilla seems to delight in viewing this country in a bloodless, inhuman, compassionless sense that would make one believe that the dollar was the only thing America stood or fought for. It's simply isn't true and I resent such a view. If guerilla could've gotten away with it, he would've blamed the Civil War on Bush giving sweet cotton deals to Haliburton.

Geez.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Freethinker, Leave it to you to reduce the Civil War into its meanest, ugliest, lowest common denominator.


Could you point out where I posted that *reduction*?

Maybe a quote or two.....?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Veteran,

Ok then, let's forget about the rising tide of anti-slavery sentiment in the North. Let's forget the underground railroad, William Loyd Garrison, Frederick Douglas, John Brown and Harriet Beecher Stowe. Let us forget that the North was growing, rapidly expanding, industrial and becoming less and less tolerant of slavery. Forget the fact that the South was stagnant, wasn't interested in industrializing, didn't have a large influx of immigrants and Southern awareness of the North's increasing intolerance of slavery made it hold on to its own traditions and institutions that much tighter. From the South's point of view, the North's wasn't just attacking slavery, they were attacking their very way of life. And they became willing to do anything necessary to uphold their way of life. This doesn't sound like economics was the root cause to me. The North and South could've resolved their differences, had it not been for slavery. It was slavery, not economics that was the driving force behind the war.

Guerilla's post, while correct in a small way, gives a pale, narrow view of what was going on in the 19th century. Guerilla seems to delight in viewing this country in a bloodless, inhuman, compassionless sense that would make one believe that the dollar was the only thing America stood or fought for. It's simply isn't true and I resent such a view. If guerilla could've gotten away with it, he would've blamed the Civil War on Bush giving sweet cotton deals to Haliburton.

Geez.

Gotta agree with Guerilla. Slavery wasn't even an issue untill 9 months into the war. It was a strugle in economics, Just like every other war is. Including this one !!

Ralph,

It is tiring to lay out the facts and have people ignore them.

To correct, did you not read the parts about Frederick Douglas? The runaway slave who "stole himself" from his master, ran away to the North, then to England, bought his own freedom and returned to the U.S. to speak out against slavery. William Lloyed Garrison who printed an anti slavery newspaper for some 35 years. John Brown, who stood up during a church sermon and dedicated his life against slavery. He was executed for attempting to lead a slave revolt against their white masters. Harriet Beecher Stowe, who published "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and brought to the world the horrors of Southern slavery (she made most of it up, but that didn't stop the book from inciting anti-slavery sentiment and Queen Victoria wept over it). The underground railroad where people smuggled slaves from their Southern homes to sanctuary in the North and in Canada. All these activities and more caused the South to view the North with increasing suspicion, to hold even tighter on their institution of slavery, to start the ball rolling on the Civil War. Had slavery not been THE issue of the pre Civil War America, had it been mere economics the North and South could've worked out their differences and compromised. Shelby Foote claimed that the Civil War was the result of a failure of the U.S. to compromise. Slavery made the differences between North and South uncompromisable.

The only part, Saxton, where you are correct is that neither side laid hands on the institution of slavery, at least in the beginning. The North and the Lincoln Administration were fighting for Union. Lincoln himself said that if he could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves, he would do so, could he preserve the Union by not freeing the slaves, he would do so, and could he preserve the Union by freeing some of the slaves and leaving others alone, he would do that. But this war, like all wars, took on a life of its own. The North needed a higher purpose than just preserving the Union to give purpose as to why tens of thousands of Northern men were dying and to keep Europe from intervening. The death of slavery meant death to the Southern cause and the North eventually embraced abolition with as much fervor as William Loyd Garrison or Frederick Douglas.

So to say the Civil War was fought over cheap labor in the South is just narrow minded, ignorant and dead wrong.

Dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Ralph,

It is tiring to lay out the facts and have people ignore them.

To correct, did you not read the parts about Frederick Douglas? The runaway slave who "stole himself" from his master, ran away to the North, then to England, bought his own freedom and returned to the U.S. to speak out against slavery. William Lloyed Garrison who printed an anti slavery newspaper for some 35 years. John Brown, who stood up during a church sermon and dedicated his life against slavery. He was executed for attempting to lead a slave revolt against their white masters. Harriet Beecher Stowe, who published "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and brought to the world the horrors of Southern slavery (she made most of it up, but that didn't stop the book from inciting anti-slavery sentiment and Queen Victoria wept over it). The underground railroad where people smuggled slaves from their Southern homes to sanctuary in the North and in Canada. All these activities and more caused the South to view the North with increasing suspicion, to hold even tighter on their institution of slavery, to start the ball rolling on the Civil War. Had slavery not been THE issue of the pre Civil War America, had it been mere economics the North and South could've worked out their differences and compromised. Shelby Foote claimed that the Civil War was the result of a failure of the U.S. to compromise. Slavery made the differences between North and South uncompromisable.

The only part, Saxton, where you are correct is that neither side laid hands on the institution of slavery, at least in the beginning. The North and the Lincoln Administration were fighting for Union. Lincoln himself said that if he could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves, he would do so, could he preserve the Union by not freeing the slaves, he would do so, and could he preserve the Union by freeing some of the slaves and leaving others alone, he would do that. But this war, like all wars, took on a life of its own. The North needed a higher purpose than just preserving the Union to give purpose as to why tens of thousands of Northern men were dying and to keep Europe from intervening. The death of slavery meant death to the Southern cause and the North eventually embraced abolition with as much fervor as William Loyd Garrison or Frederick Douglas.

So to say the Civil War was fought over cheap labor in the South is just narrow minded, ignorant and dead wrong.

Dammit.
No one is arguing that the end result of the “Emancipation Proclamation” was a just and much needed moral victory. How ever it was not the CAUSE of the civil war. The entire continent of Europe was losing favor with slavery in any form. It was the country’s good fortune to have those valiant people and their efforts you site. However, history writes that few wars are started over right or wrong. In most all conflicts the underling CAUSE is the need for economic growth. It starts with the aggressor firing the first shot, so to speak, and the defense of those aggressions by whoever the state may be. Simple, Every action has a reaction. The reaction ends in the conflicts we call wars. Please don’t misunderstand what I’m trying to say here. I have no problem with doing what ever it takes to make America strong so long as it has moral value. My problem is with an administration that is trying to sell us a bill of goods and not being up front with us from the beginning. In my book it’s economics. The rest is hog wash. I guess it always has been, always will be. Watch out world here we come is not a healthy tactic.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Freethinker,

Leave it to you to reduce the Civil War into its meanest, ugliest, lowest common denominator.

Could you point out where I posted that *reduction*?

Maybe a quote or two.....?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
It is tiring to lay out the facts and have people ignore them.

It might help if you didn't assume the role of "educator" when making your points, and I'd like to point out that your "facts" are somewhat speculative. We have the luxury of looking at the Civil War from a comfortable historical distance, and there are many valid theories as to what "caused" the Civil War. I doubt there was one sole reason, more likely there were several.


To correct, did you not read the parts about Frederick Douglas? The runaway slave who "stole himself" from his master, ran away to the North, then to England, bought his own freedom and returned to the U.S. to speak out against slavery. William Lloyed Garrison who printed an anti slavery newspaper for some 35 years. John Brown, who stood up during a church sermon and dedicated his life against slavery. He was executed for attempting to lead a slave revolt against their white masters. Harriet Beecher Stowe, who published "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and brought to the world the horrors of Southern slavery (she made most of it up, but that didn't stop the book from inciting anti-slavery sentiment and Queen Victoria wept over it). The underground railroad where people smuggled slaves from their Southern homes to sanctuary in the North and in Canada. All these activities and more caused the South to view the North with increasing suspicion, to hold even tighter on their institution of slavery, to start the ball rolling on the Civil War. Had slavery not been THE issue of the pre Civil War America, had it been mere economics the North and South could've worked out their differences and compromised. Shelby Foote claimed that the Civil War was the result of a failure of the U.S. to compromise. Slavery made the differences between North and South uncompromisable.

The only part, Saxton, where you are correct is that neither side laid hands on the institution of slavery, at least in the beginning. The North and the Lincoln Administration were fighting for Union. Lincoln himself said that if he could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves, he would do so, could he preserve the Union by not freeing the slaves, he would do so, and could he preserve the Union by freeing some of the slaves and leaving others alone, he would do that. But this war, like all wars, took on a life of its own. The North needed a higher purpose than just preserving the Union to give purpose as to why tens of thousands of Northern men were dying and to keep Europe from intervening. The death of slavery meant death to the Southern cause and the North eventually embraced abolition with as much fervor as William Loyd Garrison or Frederick Douglas.

So to say the Civil War was fought over cheap labor in the South is just narrow minded, ignorant and dead wrong.

Dammit.

There seems to be some conflict in your argument. You seem to be saying that the war was about slavery, not cheap labor for the south. I don't think it's a credible argument to say that the moral outrage surrounding the institution of slavery was the cause of the Civil War, and ignore the fact that slavery existed strictly for economic reasons. People kept slaves because they were a source of cheap labor, not because they were evil people who enjoyed being cruel. In short, slavery itself is an economic institution, and any war fought over the issue of slavery is inherently an economic conflict.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
It might help if you didn't assume the role of "educator" when making your points, and I'd like to point out that your "facts" are somewhat speculative. We have the luxury of looking at the Civil War from a comfortable historical distance, and there are many valid theories as to what "caused" the Civil War. I doubt there was one sole reason, more likely there were several.



There seems to be some conflict in your argument. You seem to be saying that the war was about slavery, not cheap labor for the south. I don't think it's a credible argument to say that the moral outrage surrounding the institution of slavery was the cause of the Civil War, and ignore the fact that slavery existed strictly for economic reasons. People kept slaves because they were a source of cheap labor, not because they were evil people who enjoyed being cruel. In short, slavery itself is an economic institution, and any war fought over the issue of slavery is inherently an economic conflict.

I agree with you. Wars most certanly have economic roots.
For those of you who can keep an open mind I would like to refer you to two books written by Howard Zinn.
No 1 is "A Peoples History of the United States"
No 2 is "Declarations of Independence".

The writings in chapter 5 in "Declarations of Independance" Is titled "Just and Unjust War". Very interesting and some what perplexing.

Vile,

Perhaps you are right that I've been a bit arrogant in my posts lately. My role as the "educator" that you pointed out.

My reaction is a bit on the defensive. Having read, and been engrossed in the history of the Civil War, I've become aware of what that society was like and just how complex the events leading up to the Civil War were, and just how complicated the feelings were during that war. It just rubbed me the wrong way when the claim was made that wars were fought simply for economic reasons. I pointed out the Civil War, amongst others, as a war that certainly wasn't fought solely over economics and have been arguing about it ever since. You could say that I lashed out at a few of the members here.

Admittedly, economics did play a part in that war, the real problem became the issue of slavery. That was THE issue that couldn't compromised, gotten around or worked out.