Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Sheldon Adelson Says Obama Should Nuke Iran

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Sheldon Adelson Says Obama Should Nuke Iran
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:28 pm Post subject:

Quote:

There's no need to continue to display your ignorance of the subject. Jim Crow laws were never applied in the manner I am suggesting, as they targeted specific segments of the population rather than the whole and exempted others based solely on heredity. That is in no way descriptive of my proposal.

Ah, I see. There is a literalist, a fundamentalist, in the crowd.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:54 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

But we can not try to preempt every single possible threat. I think arguing we need a militia in case of a civil war is not credible.

Putting aside the fact that you keep reducing my position to individual, isolated rationales rather than viewing it as the total case it really is, of course you don't think it's credible. You don't think anything except slowly edging in the direction of Scandanavia is credible, except if you don't like the change, in which case, "Scandanavian countries are small, America is big!" becomes your excuse.

Leon wrote:

In recent times, the only body that overthrows democratically elected governments are militaries. I mean lets not forget that is how the current president of Korea's father gained power, or Egypt, or Argentina, or etc. etc. You can make a case for this, but the civil war thing is not a strong point in your favor.

The Egyptian military's actions were just, so I've no idea what makes you think I see them as a point against my case. They did the country a huge favor by booting out the Islamists, and I'd want the American militia to act likewise. I am not some representative-politics fundamentalist.

Leon wrote:

If you thought that I implied that they were all soldiers before hand, than perhaps I'm guilty of not communicating clearly.

"What do you think the confederate soldiers were doing before the war? They were of course soldiers." That is what you said. The Confederate soldiers, not some Confederate soldiers. You're not guilty of unclear communication, you're guilty of backpedaling. And then you have the nerve to speak of honesty later in the post? To me? Say what you will about my ideas and ideals, but one thing they are not is dishonest. You make assumptions about my position, and then snidely say, "Well we are getting a little bit closer to honesty," when I correct you. This is what I so despise about the modern academic: you live lies, trying to create a false impression of studious honesty within the context of your work instead of living in a studious and honest fashion.

Leon wrote:

We must know different Korean women. Question, is nationalism, to you, an end or a means? Also, in your view, is nationalism a neutral, positive, or negative thing?

I have a lot to say on this issue, but I won't say it, because my case does not require it, and if you cannot even address the limited position I have presented here without deviating into disingenuity, so much the worse would be your response to my thoughts on a far more nuanced matter, ones which cannot and will not be reduced into your simplistic categorization of "neutral, positive, or negative."

Leon wrote:

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Also, South Koreans have an actual credible threat to unify against when they are in the army. You have not shown how this would work in America at all.

Against what credible threat are the Swiss united?

Historically, quite a lot. They are a landlocked small country in Europe.

Right, so when looking at Switzerland we can think historically and long-term, but when considering the USA, we must only think in terms of the present.

Leon wrote:

Yes, I did pick up on the idea that if males are the only people to receive the basic wage it would push females into marrying. If it's unjust so be it.

It's not unjust in the slightest.

Leon wrote:

Its a clumsy approach, argued on unsound ground.

You've yet to provide a single objection that didn't collapse on itself. Not a single one. I'm generally tolerant of your protests because I enjoy being challenged, but you are not challenging me here Leon, and the fact that you seem willing to pretend to yourself that you are does not impress me.

Leon wrote:

Talk about how it will address the feminization or adventurism or whatever in specific ways.

To whom, you? I'm close enough to exasperation with you. The combination of total arrogance and total rhetorical ineffectiveness is not charming; one must be novel and insightful to get away with being rude or blunt, and one must actually have something to teach to feign at instructing another. It was just as unpleasant to read you ignorantly chiding Geldedgoat in saying, "You just told me you know nothing about security dilemmas or international relations, it's ok, most people don't. etc." I'm willing to take a bit of abuse here or there from Goat because for all I disagree with him at times, he's an insightful person who thinks for himself; I may not always like what he says, but his words are honest and heartfelt words. The same tone is not appropriate from someone who is just regurgitating the opinions upon which his intellectual and ideological superiors have placed their stamp of approval.

I am willing to entertain your challenges to the extent that they are sound challenges, and only to that extent. If you cannot help me refine my thoughts, then you aren't serving a purpose. Try harder or do not try.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:26 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

But we can not try to preempt every single possible threat. I think arguing we need a militia in case of a civil war is not credible.

I don't believe I mentioned Scandinavia once in this post. coincidentally I don't think we can be the same as them, largely because of the differences in size. Not excuse, but actual sincere reason. I see your total case, and see that it is built on shaky ground made up of individual isolated rationales that don't pan out.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Leaving aside the just or not just aspects of the Egyptian coup, that is just one case among many coups, and goes against your stability argument.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

If you thought that I implied that they were all soldiers before hand, than perhaps I'm guilty of not communicating clearly.

Fox, obviously they weren't all soldiers, that's obvious, everyone knows that, but they got their structure from the existing army, and were lead by people trained in the existing army. We both took American history courses in school, you and I know that there wasn't this kind of militia, so unless you think I was completely ignorant of history, why would you assume that I meant all of them? I do think you are honest about your ideas, but not so honest at looking at how they would actually be implemented. That's ok, your ideas won't be, this idea won't happen, so I can understand why you wouldn't be so interested in getting into specific details.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

We must know different Korean women. Question, is nationalism, to you, an end or a means? Also, in your view, is nationalism a neutral, positive, or negative thing?

I have been fairly sincere in my responses, but you never seem to believe that I actually believe what I say. Fair enough, I didn't think you'd answer this one, I couldn't answer it using just those three answers either.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Also, South Koreans have an actual credible threat to unify against when they are in the army. You have not shown how this would work in America at all.

Against what credible threat are the Swiss united?

Historically, quite a lot. They are a landlocked small country in Europe.

Right, so when looking at Switzerland we can think historically and long-term, but when considering the USA, we must only think in terms of the present.

Historically there has been no threat of external invasion to America, and Switzerland is more likely because of its location and size to be invaded in the future than America. I don't think it's that likely, but more likely.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Yes, I did pick up on the idea that if males are the only people to receive the basic wage it would push females into marrying. If it's unjust so be it.

It's not unjust in the slightest.

You misunderstood me here. You accused me of being unjust to your position, so actually the sentence about being unjust actually goes with the sentence below this one.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Its a clumsy approach, argued on unsound ground.

Remember, I don't do this to impress you. You don't deal with my specific objections, therefore aren't challenged. Here's one. How would you get this passed in America. Here's another, how would you fund it, how would you implement it. I like the idea of a basic income, and some sort of national service, not militia, would probably be a good thing. I don't think it's likely to happen, but I would in general be in favor of it.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Talk about how it will address the feminization or adventurism or whatever in specific ways.

Fox, you have basically called me insincere, more or less a liar, a backpeddler, etc. etc. so please do not go into tone with me. His words are heartfelt and honest, that seems pretty clear, but what does that matter if they are wrong? These are the things that I study, and yes what I wrote was basically the basic assumption that what I study revolves around and has for a very long time. Because it's not an original, hypothetical idea, it's wrong, or not worthwhile? What's the point in me trying harder when you gloss over my challenges.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:02 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

I don't believe I mentioned Scandinavia once in this post.

Leon wrote:

Leaving aside the just or not just aspects of the Egyptian coup, that is just one case among many coups, and goes against your stability argument.

"...unless their cause was blatantly, obviously, and fundamentally just, in which case the entire militia turning against the government would be an obvious good thing," said Fox, in a previous post articulating his position. Yes, it's easy to disprove my case when you ignore what I say and invent my case for me, Leon.

Leon wrote:

Fox, obviously they weren't all soldiers, that's obvious, everyone knows that... so unless you think I was completely ignorant of history ...

I hastily and thoughtlessly misspoke about a historic topic once on this forum. I had the dignity to simply admit my error and move on. Face-saving is not admirable.

Leon wrote:

Historically there has been no threat of external invasion to America ...

Is that your final answer, or do you want to think it over again before we end up in another, "Oh, obviously <blah blah>, that's obvious, everyone knows that..." situation?

Leon wrote:

His words are heartfelt and honest, that seems pretty clear, but what does that matter if they are wrong?

Leon wrote:

Because it's not an original, hypothetical idea, it's wrong, or not worthwhile?

No, because it's both non-original and wrong it's not worthwhile. Truth is always worthwhile.

Leon wrote:

What's the point in me trying harder when you gloss over my challenges.

"...or do not try."

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:42 pm Post subject:

[quote="Fox"]

Leon wrote:

I don't believe I mentioned Scandinavia once in this post.

See, this is what I mean. What do I care about the boundaries of posts or threads? This entire forum is a single ongoing conversation from my perspective, and all of my posts can and should be understood in relationship to one another. If the same cannot be said of you, you are just reinforcing my point regarding the insincerity of a certain demographic. [\quote]

No, I see it that way. I think size of country is a major factor of why we can't be like Scandanavia, and a major reason your militia idea wouldn't work.

[quote="Fox"]

Leon wrote:

Leaving aside the just or not just aspects of the Egyptian coup, that is just one case among many coups, and goes against your stability argument.

Leon wrote:

Fox, obviously they weren't all soldiers, that's obvious, everyone knows that... so unless you think I was completely ignorant of history ...

I hastily and thoughtlessly misspoke about a historic topic once on this forum. I had the dignity to simply admit my error and move on. Face-saving is not admirable. [\quote]

I said I was guilty of not communicating clearly. In other words I misspoke.

[quote="Fox"]

Leon wrote:

Historically there has been no threat of external invasion to America ...

Is that your final answer, or do you want to think it over again before we end up in another, "Oh, obviously <blah blah>, that's obvious, everyone knows that..." situation? [\quote]

Shall I preempt you, yes the British invaded us, obviously. Any other cases?

[quote="Fox"]

Leon wrote:

His words are heartfelt and honest, that seems pretty clear, but what does that matter if they are wrong?

When a genuine man speaking in heartfelt fashion is wrong, that wrongness does not encroach upon his identity or worthiness; a wrong person can still be a good person. When you are wrong, it's more of a character with a book being wrong, and unlike a person, a book which is wrong is nothing but a bad book, to be discarded. And besides, he's often enough correct in what he says.[\quote]

An insincere liar and more akin to a book then a person, you are getting rather personal lately. I'm not interested in his character, or yours, just the ideas on their own merits.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Because it's not an original, hypothetical idea, it's wrong, or not worthwhile?

No, because it's both non-original and wrong it's not worthwhile. Truth is always worthwhile.[\quote]

So we have me saying it's right and you saying its wrong, and that's it? Convenient. Also convenient how you ignored my direct challenges.

Leon wrote:

What's the point in me trying harder when you gloss over my challenges.

"...or do not try."

Well that's that then. Your hypothetical situation sounds like night work in your hypothetical America.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:51 am Post subject:

Leon wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Leon wrote:

geldedgoat wrote:

Leon wrote:

If you can not see how quickly increasing the size of the world's most powerful army ten times over would cause a security dilemma for other countries, I'm not sure what to tell you.

If you can't see how keeping our armed forces home rather than displaying our already vastly superior military might all around the globe works directly against your complaint here, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

Oh, do your militia's also come with a constitutional amendment to only be used domestically like Fox's? There are so many hypothetical militias running around it's hard to keep track of them all.

You just told me you know nothing about security dilemmas or international relations, it's ok, most people don't. This is 101 stuff, but basically since the international system is in a state of anarchy there is no central force to maintain order or enforce rules each state is responsible for their own security. Since it is impossible to ever truly know other states intentions, i.e. many states have said that they are only defensive or just want some living space only to attack when it was strategic, states judge other militaries by capability rather than stated intentions. If we increase our military by such an exponential amount, then other countries will, by dictates of history and basic IR theory, increase their capabilities and work to balance against us.

Leon,

The US is militarily supreme and the world has not armed itself to the teeth in response. Only China and Russia remain vigilant.

Reviving the state militias would be de-escalation. It would be prioritizing homeland defense again instead of Imperialism in the name of the memory of 9-11.

In Gelded Goat's hypothetical militia, I think based on his description, they would be used overseas with the idea being that it would be politically less possible to use the military if everyone's kids had a chance of going. If it were to be some kind of national reserve that trains once a month, like in Fox's version, I think it would still create some security dilemma, but obviously not as much.

Why do you think Iran is (probably) trying to get Nuclear weapons, or North Korea has them. My post was mainly referring to China, and to Russia somewhat, though.

I was going to retort your earlier point and say, ok, why didn't Iran build up its military when we invaded Iraq and significantly built up our forces following 9/11. Alas, Iran DID in fact significantly raise its military budget between 2000 and 2010. And that's not even factoring in the nuke program.

Anyway, that being said, I do not think your "theory 101" really would apply in this case. Shifting resources from super high tech weaponry, drones, and foreign military bases to funding a bigger force that was entirely based in US territory and more focused on people than weapons would hardly be a sign of aggression. I think if Gopher was still on this board, he'd raise concerns of a power vaccum and countries such as China and Russia stepping in and becoming more a security threat to the US and our allies.

North Korea has nukes because it needs money and it is the best way to squeeze aid and concessions from its neighbors and "enemies". I really don't think it helps your case (but the DPRK's massive army and artilery capabilities might).

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:22 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

Leon wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Leon wrote:

geldedgoat wrote:

Leon wrote:

If you can not see how quickly increasing the size of the world's most powerful army ten times over would cause a security dilemma for other countries, I'm not sure what to tell you.

It does apply, but it's hard to say exactly how it applies because the hypothetical military situation is very sketchy at the moment. Gelded goat didn't say anything about reducing our investments in tech, but if those were reduced by a significant amount then things would be different. From a purely defense standpoint I don't think that would ever happen, DOD and others love military tech, and it has more utility than an increase in manpower does.

As for countries like NK and Iran, conventional build ups are part of what I was talking about, but really unless you are a major power the only way to balance against the US is to get nukes, or get China, or maybe Russia, to sponsor you. Both of which are reasonable responses for regimes like Iran and NK. Both Iran and NK are actually fairly sophisticated at taking advantage of international relations. When you consider Iranian buildup you have to also look at what's going on with their proxies and how they have expanded their power in that way.

Again I'm not sure exactly what all the Gelded Goat proposal entails, but working on what I think it would reasonably entail we would still have forces in Guam at the least, and still have a large navy presence in the East Pacific. Also, unless I misunderstood his point, the militia would be able to be engaged in foreign engagements in order to make the political cost higher to use them. Having an 11 million man army is not going to go unnoticed, and if we aren't using them for things like national work projects other states are going to very reasonably wonder why we have this program, especially since it is basically not really necessary for our defense. As the theory goes, you look at enemies capabilities not what they say when you are planning. I have classes with several defense officials from the major Asian states, they are learning this stuff with me, and their governments have been sending them for years. This is how they are trained to think.

The idea of a power vacuum in the Pacific is an interesting one, with China having the most to gain. If that happened, and US troops left the Pacific Japan would almost certainly rearm, and so on and so forth. Not sure if this is a bad thing in the sense that we can't really stay there forever, but it would be something to be seriously considered.

Interesting point, technically China already has this system in place in their laws. They have never used it, they get enough volunteers and they would have the same logistical problems as us, but on a larger scale, but if we had an 11 million man army all of a sudden, they might feel inspired as well.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:40 am Post subject:

Leon wrote:

There are so many hypothetical militias running around it's hard to keep track of them all.

Yes, you made it clear enough even without this admission that you've chosen to thrash about wildly in some bizarre display of feigned scholastic expertise rather than give any sort of genuine consideration to the discussion.

The only stated difference between mine and Fox's proposals, beyond his expanded scope to address more social ills, is the approach to limiting the militia's use in wars of aggression. He suggests income as a sedative, while I suggest the combined efforts of voting rights and universal threat of conscription as a deterrent. The end result of both is the same, though: a drawdown of military presence overseas and an increase of available self-defense forces in the homeland (which could be used for any number of constructive purposes).

Argue the effectiveness of the two ideas if you like, but the idea that either would cause other nations to panic at the sudden increase in our might is beyond absurd; we already have such a vastly superior military presence around the globe that the only probable international responses would be either celebration or worry, with the latter being for nations we currently protect.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:23 am Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Leon wrote:

There are so many hypothetical militias running around it's hard to keep track of them all.

This idea isn't so original, so I have already thought about this issue. It was first raised by my friend in Singapore right before he had to do his service. It's not feigned, by the way, I'm not an expert, but this does touch on things that I study, and honestly from my view you haven't given any genuine consideration to how this idea would work in practice rather than in theory.

geldedgoat wrote:

The only stated difference between mine and Fox's proposals, beyond his expanded scope to address more social ills, is the approach to limiting the militia's use in wars of aggression. He suggests income as a sedative, while I suggest the combined efforts of voting rights and universal threat of conscription as a deterrent. The end result of both is the same, though: a drawdown of military presence overseas and an increase of available self-defense forces in the homeland (which could be used for any number of constructive purposes).

Why would you assume this would result in a drawdown of our military presence overseas? They aren't overseas to protect the continental US, they are they to protect our interests. We aren't in Korea to protect the homeland, we don't have bases in Saudi Arabia or Germany to protect the homeland, etc. The militia doesn't change our interests. If you want a drawdown in foreign troops, why not just mandate a drawdown of foreign troops? That even seems more politically feasible than this militia scheme. As far as limiting wars, Kuros' war tax idea seems more simple, yet would accomplish the same task without the other difficulties in creating something so massive.

We also have mutual security pacts with around 20 countries, so even if this still goes through, unless we pulled out of those, we could find ourselves pulled right back into conflict due to treaty obligations.

geldedgoat wrote:

Argue the effectiveness of the two ideas if you like, but the idea that either would cause other nations to panic at the sudden increase in our might is beyond absurd; we already have such a vastly superior military presence around the globe that the only probable international responses would be either celebration or worry, with the latter being for nations we currently protect.

How often are these militia training, being active, etc. If it's some 8 week boot camp, and maybe 4 or so training weekends a year, than perhaps it would not matter as much. Hard to really judge without having specifics about how it would work.

I never said it would cause them to panic, just to change their military policies. It might even be gradual. It's a very simple idea. A country with more than 10 million trained soldiers is unprecedented, so it would be more absurd to think that there would be no reaction to it.

You keep saying that we have such a vastly superior military force, and it's true that we do, but we are not so vastly superior that we don't face constraints on our use of force. Other countries could see that we were strained just being in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other powers like China are relatively powerful enough to counter us in their region at the moment. If we tell China we are creating this massive force for self defense, why should they believe us? They actually theoretically require national service in China but don't enforce it, but perhaps they would follow our lead.

We have a history of interfering in other countries, and there is no actual defensive purpose for this force. Even if we intend to only use it domestically, how can they be sure that a future administration will not change that, or if there is another terrorist attack it would be easy for us in that atmosphere to use it. If you're Iran why would you believe us, you would of course see it as another reason to get a nuclear weapon.

This all seems like a needlessly complicated way to go about achieving your basic goals. If you want to cut down on adventurism, mandate the troops coming home and instate a war tax or somesuch thing.

The IQ thing for voting seems a bit silly as well. Do you really thinking intelligent individuals would do that much better? It's more a matter of, I think, short term self interest versus long term interests that might not pay off in the short term. I've also met plenty of otherwise smart people who get pulled into the same partisan stuff as anyone else, or who don't really follow politics or understand policy because it is not relevant to their daily lives.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:15 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Mandatory military service for all (perhaps police service for those with extreme physical handicap or religious/moral reservations about military service). Tack on passing a basic IQ test as a further requirement for voting rights, and we'd be well on our way to having a functional republic once again.

I think connecting citizen participation, a healthy republic, and proper balance of powers to enforcement structures, with strict authoritarian hierarchies, and a tendency to pursue violent solutions to problems might exacerbate, rather than ameliorate the failings of the Republic.

Quote:

would be to make real and immediate the threat of overseas military action to all members of society, not just those who voluntarily seek it out

However, this would really come close to infringing on the principle of civilian control of the military.

Our soldiers retain the right to express their opinion through the vote.

Also, this might not solve the problem of small scale police actions. All it might lead to is an escalation of drones, lobbing cruise missiles, using proxy forces, and air strikes.

==============================================

As for the question of the militia system and the Civil War, I will go in depth.

First, it is necessary to understand the context of the American militia system, I have detailed this in another thread, but to be succinct- it is largely born out of an extreme distrust of standing armies, in particular Cromwell's New Model Army in England.

Prior to the Civil War, the militia system was prevalent, but had largely turned into something of a joke. Essentially an excuse for the men of the town to get together, shoot guns, and go for a drink afterwards, and a way to hand out some fancy titles to bigwigs. However, with the eruption of abolitionist vs. Pro-Slavery faction violence in Kansas and Missouri, and the export of that violence to Virginia via John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, the Southern states began to rapidly improve their militia systems as they feared that Yankee agitators were on the verge of organizing slave uprisings.

How the two sides got their soldiers is a fascinating study. Much of what I write here is detailed in James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom". At the start of the war, the Union Army was made up of the standing army of US Regulars (something like 20,000 men total, scattered across the entire US) and an initial call up of somewhere around 75-100 thousand volunteers. Some of which were organized around existing militia companies, others in patriotic sign up drives. As for the CSA, I believe initially started as a volunteer force, rapidly sought conscription, and towards the middle-end of the war declared all non-exempt white males of military age as being in the army. The Union would later move towards conscription as the war expanded.

However, conscription was never really the true means of producing soldiers. The laws on both sides allowed men to hire substitutes or procure exemptions. Also, significant bounties were offered to people who volunteered for service. A whole cottage industry of substitute/bounty men emerged as due to the primitive state of paperwork and record keeping, they would sign up, get paid, and then desert to get another substitute/bounty payment. The only time they'd stick around to actually serve was if their unit was deployed to an occupied Confederate town or border area and there was a chance to smuggle goods back and forth.

Now, one may think such a system would disproportionally affect the poor. In fact the data gathered by McPherson indicated it did not. Between community groups, "draft insurance" lax enforcement towards people who failed to report, and local Democratic Party politicians offering to pay substitution fees, few conscripts actually ended up serving who had no desire to. If you look at the percentage of people who served, broken down by occupation (farmers, unskilled laborers, skilled laborers, clerks, and white collar professionals) you will see that all groups served in percentages extremely close to their actual numbers in society. Farmers were slightly overrepresented in initial numbers and clerks slightly underrepresented, but when you correct for age and upward mobility (lots of young farmers, many clerks were beyond military age and fitness), you actually find that unskilled laborers were slightly under-represented and professionals slightly over-represented. The same was true for soldiers in the Confederate Army.

The fact is that for both sides, conscription was little more than a tool in a clumsy carrot and stick system and of limited effectiveness. Depending on local politics, North or South, the people there might be actively disinterested or even against the national government. Copperhead districts in the North and Unionist areas in the South often sent virtually no soldiers to fight and in the case of Unionist Southern areas, even sent units to fight for the Union.

As for Confederate and Union officers who had served in the US Army, it should be noted that many of them had left the Army and were pursuing far more lucrative civilian careers. It sounds strange, but West Point was as much an engineering school as a military one. If you look at engineering projects and constructions from 1840-1880, you'll notice a surprisingly large number that share names with generals from the Civil War. Others went into law or taught at state military schools such as VMI. US Grant was famously borderline destitute and working in his father's leather shop as a clerk. Stonewall Jackson was an instructor at VMI. George McClellan and Ambrose Burnside were railroad men. Sherman was a military instructor at an academy. Braxton Bragg ran a plantation.

Another thing that should be noted about the armies in the Civil War is the degree to which politicians and "the rich" fought and died in the war. Civil War generals faced an extraordinary degree of danger and were expected to "lead from the front". This was the end of the last traces of chivalry. When officers would wear soldiers and bear guidons and flags with their staff. Generals suffered casualty rates higher than those of private soldiers and experience quickly taught them that they were at special risk as an officer made a conspicuous target. Afteraction reports from officers often mention given orders to entire platoons of men to train their rifles on Generals making a charge. On the Confederate side, you had men such as Wade Hampton, probably the richest man in the South, who was seriously wounded at Gettysburg. John C. Breckenridge, former Vice-President and Southern Democrat candidate for president in 1860 who was wounded in battle multiple times. Nathan Bedford Forrest a millionaire in 1860 (likely a billionaire in today's money) who was wounded multiple times and had 30 horses shot out from under him. And politicians such as Howell Cobb former Treasury Secretary; William Barksdale (killed), congressman; John Flyod (wounded), Governor of Virginia; Samuel Gholston (wounded), congressman; RH Hatton (killed), congressman; AG Jenkins (mortally wounded), congressman; Jimmy Kemper (wounded in Pickett's charge), Speaker of the House of Virginia; Sterling Price (wounded), Governor of Missouri; A.M. Scales (wounded), congressman; Extra Billy Smith (wounded), congressman; Robert Toombs (wounded), congressman.

For the Union, you have James Wadsworth, who was killed at the Battle of the Wilderness, a politician and a member of one of the foremost New England families; Daniel M. Sickles (lost his leg at Gettysburg), perhaps the most colorful and notorious politician in the history of the United States (shot dead the son of Francis Scott Key for having an affair with his 16 year old wife, was acquitted thanks to a legal "dream team" and the first ever use of the temporary insanity plea, censured for bringing a known prostitute into the Capitol building, Medal of Honor recipient, and later had an affair with the deposed Queen of Spain). Others include John White Geary (wounded), Governor of Kansas and Pennsylvania; James S. Jackson (killed); Congressman; BlackJack Logan (wounded), one of the best civilian generals and a former congressman; Benjamin Prentiss, candidate for congress and the man who held the Hornet's Nest at Shiloh; The famed philosopher, German revolutionary, and writer Carl Schurz, who narrowly avoided death/capture at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, Edwin Baker (killed), US Senator.

In addition, there were numerous other figures from wealthy backgrounds and society who had the good fortune not to be seriously wounded or killed, but were nonetheless in as much danger as a private soldier.

Whether this full involvement of society in our nation's ghastliest conflict, but also one which had enormous implications for equality, freedom, and democracy is something that enobled it or led to it is something we must consider.

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:23 pm Post subject:

Look what else Adelson funded:

http://www.jta.org/2013/10/27/news-opinion/united-states/inflammatory-poll-of-israeli-americans-and-american-jews-withdrawn

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israel-and-the-us-drawing-up-lines-of-allegiance-8911365.html

Quote:

Ask British Jews whether they feel more loyal to this country or to Israel – and expect to be instantly labelled anti-Semitic and sent packing. The same, only more so, applies in the USA.

The issue has always been sensitive. Nowadays, with Israel being increasingly criticised for its harsh treatment of the Palestinians and asking to be allowed to bomb Iran, it is potentially explosive.

When Israeli positions conflict with British ones, nothing is more inflammatory than allegations of “dual allegiance”, not to mention putting Israel first. The pro-Israel lobbyists do their work subtly, although in the US their activities, especially among politicians, attract more attention.

Which makes it even more peculiar that tens of thousands of leaflets have recently been distributed to Jewish Americans, as well as to Israelis living in the United States, asking them to indicate where their allegiance would lie in the case of a crisis between the two countries. Almost incredibly, the leaflet was originally endorsed by representatives of Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

There is no republic or democracy or anything in between when people like Adelson are permitted to dump 100 million dollars on elections. All political discussion should begin with this: It is not your country. It is not your government.

catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:48 am Post subject:

Well you can thank Citizens United for that.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:08 am Post subject:

Obama Fights Push to Add Sanctions Against Iran

Uggh. 16 Democratic Senators are siding with the Republicans. I'm guessing POS Feinstein is one of them. Thankfully Harry Reid isn't:

Quote:

Much will depend on the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, who has so far resisted pressure to allow a vote on a sanctions bill. Mr. Reid is balancing a record of robust support for Israel with an equally strong alliance with the White House. Aides say Mr. Reid will not bring a bill to the floor before the State of the Union address on Jan. 28.

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:51 pm Post subject:

The Israel Lobby is relentless.

http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2013/12/27/aipacs-fed-candidate-stanley-fischer-on-a-warpath-against-iran/

^ Long read. Summary: the Fed enforces global sanctions and Israel's boy is the right man for the job. For an interview with the guy who wrote the above see: http://scotthorton.org/interviews/2013/12/27/122713-grant-f-smith/

Quote:

Obama Fights Push to Add Sanctions Against Iran

I don't believe Obama is going to give them their war. He may even sign a long-term deal. I'm happy to see him pushing back against additional sanctions.

Putin!:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/10/us-iran-russia-oil-idUSBREA090DK20140110

Quote:

(Reuters) - Iran and Russia are negotiating an oil-for-goods swap worth $1.5 billion a month that would enable Iran to lift oil exports substantially, undermining Western sanctions that helped persuade Tehran in November to agree to a preliminary deal to curb its nuclear program.

Russian and Iranian sources close to the barter negotiations said final details were in discussion for a deal under which Russia would buy up to 500,000 barrels a day of Iranian oil in exchange for Russian equipment and goods.

I'm a big fan of trade by barter. No trade deficit created. Russia can use/sell the oil (probably sell it). Russian farmers and manufacturing get a stable market. No trade credit needed. This agreement, should it be completed, will really screw up American sanctions.

Quote:

U.S. Representative Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he was deeply troubled by the report of the Iran-Russia talks. "This reckless and irresponsible move raises serious questions about Russia's commitment to ending Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons," Engel said in a release.

xxx

Russian purchases of 500,000 bpd of Iranian crude would lift Iran's oil exports by 50 percent and provide a major boost to its struggling economy. With current oil prices near $100 a barrel, Iran would earn about an additional $1.5 billion a month.

Plain Meaning

Joined: 18 Oct 2014

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 2:04 pm Post subject:

So is this the Israel Lobby thread?

I don't know.

Anyone who is on twitter this week knows about the The New Republic fallout and bruhahaha. Apparently, some rich person named Chris Hughes took over TNR and fired some editors there and many contributing editors resigned. It was so bad that The New Republic will not have a January issue.

How does this relate to this thread?

Well, The New Republic would qualify as Israel Lobby and foreign media influence if anything. This is Peter Beinert, no anti-Semite.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-the-new-republic-lost-its-place-on-the-american-left/383544/

Peter Beinert wrote:

Even when the Cold War ended, TNR’s battle with the left over the legacy of Vietnam continued. In 1990, most respectable liberals, and most Democratic politicians, opposed the Gulf War. TNR, by contrast, joined with George H.W. Bush and the GOP to support it. That decision owed something to the magazine’s passionate (or obsessive, depending on your perspective) support for Israel. But TNR’s hawkishness was about more than Zion. In the mid-1990s, when many liberals saw the Balkans as another Vietnam, TNR was maniacal—and eloquent—in its support for humanitarian war there. As in the Reagan era, TNR’s hawkishness did not make it a clone of the right. (Many conservatives opposed the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and even those who supported them offered national-interest rationales rather than humanitarian ones.) But in insisting that there were foreign enemies—be they Leonid Brezhnev or Slobodan Milosevic—who posed a greater threat to global decency than did the 101st Airborne, TNR was doffing its cap to a core argument of the American right.

Yes, another bastion of obsessive support for Israel is crippled. We may see the Israeli Lobby weakened yet.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe