What is an illegal war?

[NYBURBS]

The point is that slavery in the U.S. was on its way out. It was already gone in Great Britain and waning in the western world. The U.S. Civil War was quite unnecessary. Slavery would've ended in the U.S. in the mid-nineteenth century regardless of whether a war was fought or not. It's the Proclamation that marks the end of slavery in the U.S. Ask any historian. It's the Proclamation that grants that freedom its legal force and authority. The war means shit.

The Proclamation didn't end slavery, the 13th Amendment did.

[trish]

Yes, as hippiefried pointed out, the Proclamation only ended [slavery] in the offending States.

[russtafa]

Oh, so that was the reason South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter...Charleston was over populated and Colonel Chestnut took it upon himself to attack the fort, thinking the return cannonade might reduce the population somewhat.

what a good idea for compulsory population reduction

[hippifried]

what a good idea for compulsory population reduction

Isn't it quicker to just slam planes into buildings?

[dana295]

I'm just curious. Place your vote and then tell us what you voted. Be careful, some posters might be intolerant of your opinion.




WARNING!

Intolerance will not be tolerated!

i'm afraid i got here to late to vote or something but i thought i would put my two bits in.

there no such animal as an illegal war that name only exists under international law which in my view is no law and then it only means your have the political sopport of the security counsol for your actions which again really doesn't mean anything at all. but i am curious about one thing . if Alexander or Ceasar where to have been born in this climate would the world have ever remembered there name ? i think the times we live in will be recorded as the false peace before the great storm . cause frankly i dun think we can all hold hands and sing coom-by-ya with out someone going postal and killing the rest of the circle

[russtafa]

ceasar or alexander would be called a fascist aggressor until they won then they are heroes

[hippifried]

Julius Caesar & Alexander were both assholes, & it killed them.

Justification can be made for Alexander's conquest of Persia, since they had invaded his country. Much is made of his extracurricular exploratory adventure, but the reality is that he didn't actually conquer anything in his move east. He established a few forts in what is now Afghanistan, but with no support, they were quickly assimilated. His trek over Hindu Kush followed an already established trade route. He barely made it out of the Indus Valley, & the wounds he received there are what finally did him in. He never made it home. His exploits were impressive, but their significance is way overblown.

Julius was good at getting his legions to kick ass on poorly led barbarians, but when he decided to end the Roman Republic, he didn't make it out of the Senate chamber. He camped his troops just outside the the gates of Rome & demanded to be made dictator for life. They acquiesced, & his last dictatorial tenure lasted less than an hour. That was the beginning of the end. Once Rome became an empire, it started on its long slow decent into oblivion. Pax Romana was a myth.

War is a stupid way to settle things. It never brings lasting stability or peace. Peace & stability come from open trade & freedom of movement. Every time.

[yodajazz]

Ron Paul explicates it pretty well:

Great vid! Finally someone talking publically about the objectives of the enemy. I always questioned the fact, that if the Taliban were able to hold off the Soviet Union, who had a much much shorter supply route, including direct land routes, how could the US defeat them on a permanent basis. Their strategy was just to go home and wait. You cannot distinguish who is a real friend or foe. It's not that difficult for one of them to infiltrate US security, by pretending to be friendly.

But back to the video. When people display intolerance towards Muslims, it helps Al Queda in it's recruitment efforts. See how the people that we are spending billions and billions rose up in protest over the Koran burning controversy. Not to mention that intolerence goes against the values of our Constitution regarding religious freedom. So I am saying, that the strategy of some Republicans to stir up anti Muslim feelings is directly aiding Al Queda. But I'm also disappointed that Democrats are bringing this out. Obama did say that the proposed Koran burning would put out troops in harms way. But the larger issues have not been brought up.

One more point. If the Taliban are able do a guerilla insurgency in their poor nation, what nation could possibly take over the US? Was there any real possibilty: 1. that Saddam was going to attack the US, even if he had weapons? 2. If he did attack the US that some army was going to come in and take over a passive US public? The US, though attacked on 9/11 was never in any other real imminent danger that required us to invade anywhere. People have just been manipulated by fear, for political power.
Right after 9/11 a candle light vigil was held in Terhan,(Iran), attended by over 100,000 people, I believe in support of the US. Who even remembers this? Yet the media chose to focus on a video of about 10 Muslims celebrating (if its even true that they were actually celebrating 9/11). Anger = political power for the "military industrial complex", who has spent trillions of unaccounted for dollars.

Ron Paul is right on, here.

[circ]

No it wasn't celebrating 9/11 at all. It was taken completely out of context, and if I recall, an Israeli news agency or the like was responsible for the initial clip. People like Woodward, Bernstein, Pilger etc are getting rarer and rarer.

[russtafa]

democracy is the weakness of the west and it enables the radicals to wins