|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Soldiers haven't proven effective at stopping said menaces. That said, one could easily consider such individuals guerilla soldiers in the service of the sponsoring country. I feel this is a little too semantic to be worth serious discussion, though. Do you really disagree? |
Soldiers were effective at putting down a rebellion that centered on slavery (relax pro-Confederates I'm playing Devil's advocate here)
Those soldiers were technically guerrillas because the Confederacy was not a recognized government. In practical terms the fact that they were treated as uniformed soldiers and not as guerrillas meant that they weren't executed when they were captured.
The issue of nationality and uniforms is NOT semantic. It is goes to the very heart of what makes a soldier a soldier- More so than your 'paid killers' label, which of course to me, seems semantic. A soldier wears a uniform and serves a legitimately recognized government.
| Quote: |
| And yet, they increase it with their presence |
But keep it a level lower than if there were no soldiers- see tribalism and marauding bands of Visigoths/mercenaries in employ of the Papal States or some Prince.
| Quote: |
| Legalize drug production, and drug cartels vanish and are replaced by legitimate businesses. The answer to drug cartels is not force, but to legalize drugs. |
With pot, sure. With opiates? You get China. Sorry but at some point drug freedom results in a worse-off society, not a better one.
| Quote: |
| They've proven beyond the capability of the military to handle as well...In fact, I'd say the only time the answer is military-scale force is when you're dealing with other militaries |
Various irregular rebel factions (dare I say terrorist groups) were brought under control by militaries in the Former Yugoslavia, Israel, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Soldiers were also essential to compel the integration of schools in the South in America. Soldiers were the only ones capable of quelling the Detroit, Watts, and Los Angeles riots. The military is also the only organization with the logistical capacity to engage in large-scale disaster relief, which in many countries is more of a responsibility of the soldier than killing.
None of those times were soldiers facing other soldiers (except at times in Yugoslavia). Most of the time they were facing paramilitaries, or in the case of the riots- just ordinary folks.
| Quote: |
| those individuals who want to kill are separated from the service as soon as they are identified. Psycho nutjobs are not an asset. |
Understood and already known. A guy who is going to lose control and start going berserk with his rifle is as dangerous, or more so, than the enemy. At the same time in every army, a few slip through the cracks. As with any profession, there are always a few bad apples. From Actors to Zoo-keeping there are always bozos at their jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Soldiers haven't proven effective at stopping said menaces. That said, one could easily consider such individuals guerilla soldiers in the service of the sponsoring country. I feel this is a little too semantic to be worth serious discussion, though. Do you really disagree? |
Soldiers were effective at putting down a rebellion that centered on slavery (relax pro-Confederates I'm playing Devil's advocate here) |
A rebellion of a clearly military nature, with soldiers being the medium of combat on both sides.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Those soldiers were technically guerrillas because the Confederacy was not a recognized government. |
As I've made clear in my discussions with certain Libertarians, I don't particularly care for technicalities. They were clearly soldiers in any meaningful sense of the word.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| The issue of nationality and uniforms is NOT semantic. |
It is if you try to disqualify people who are essentially soldiers from being soldiers based on things like governmental recognition by other governments, their uniforms, etc.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And yet, they increase it with their presence |
But keep it a level lower than if there were no soldiers- see tribalism and marauding bands of Visigoths/mercenaries in employ of the Papal States or some Prince. |
You're just describing another type of soldier. If anyone asked me, "Are mercenaries soldiers?" my answer would be, "Yes, of course." If anyone asked you the same question outside the context of this conversation, your answer would be the same. Let's stop with the attempts at arguing via technicality.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Legalize drug production, and drug cartels vanish and are replaced by legitimate businesses. The answer to drug cartels is not force, but to legalize drugs. |
With pot, sure. With opiates? You get China. Sorry but at some point drug freedom results in a worse-off society, not a better one. |
I don't agree at all. Legalized opiates combined with an extensive information campaign educating the public about their problems is what I suspect would result in an optimal situation, especially coupled with the fact that legalization would make treatment easier. This is especially true because the government shouldn't be telling people what they can or cannot put into their bodies anyway.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| They've proven beyond the capability of the military to handle as well...In fact, I'd say the only time the answer is military-scale force is when you're dealing with other militaries |
Various irregular rebel factions (dare I say terrorist groups) were brought under control by militaries in the Former Yugoslavia, Israel, and Sub-Saharan Africa. |
I think those individuals would consider themselves soldiers.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Soldiers were also essential to compel the integration of schools in the South in America. Soldiers were the only ones capable of quelling the Detroit, Watts, and Los Angeles riots. The military is also the only organization with the logistical capacity to engage in large-scale disaster relief, which in many countries is more of a responsibility of the soldier than killing. |
I agree many of these things are the case, but the reason they are the case is because the military soaks up an immense portion of the budget availible for such things. Imagine what our police force, our disaster relief force, etc could be with a military-style budget.
I'm not suggesting we sacrifice riot control and disaster relief. Those functions -- and the associated budgets -- would simply go to other groups that didn't consist of soldiers.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| None of those times were soldiers facing other soldiers (except at times in Yugoslavia). |
None of those times were situations that couldn't have been handled by properly funded non-soldiers, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mosley wrote: |
| Steelrails: So then, what KIND of art would you approve of to honour soldiers? |
As a Civil War buff I enjoy both the works of Don Troiani and Alfred Waud. Edwin Forbes did some good ones too. I do enjoy West's Death of Wolfe as well as Albrecht Altdorfer's Battle of Issus. Good portraits of soldiers have included Rembrandt's The Night Watch as well as Franz Hals' De Magere Compagnie
That painting is absolutely atrocious. It doesn't capture a moment, it creates a completely preposterous one. Created moments are fine, but this one was just so artificial. There is no 'essence' in this painting- it instead a piece-meal collection of individual points weakly tied together.
Replace all the figures with a "left-wing" interpretation/subjects and I would still call it atrocious.
| Quote: |
| A rebellion of a clearly military nature, with soldiers being the medium of combat on both sides |
Military and political and social. But this is an entirely different debate- In short I will say that the 'soldiered' conflict was in the end preferable to a guerrilla/criminal one.
| Quote: |
| You're just describing another type of soldier. If anyone asked me, "Are mercenaries soldiers?" my answer would be, "Yes, of course." If anyone asked you the same question outside the context of this conversation, your answer would be the same. Let's stop with the attempts at arguing via technicality |
Actually this 'technicality' is the essence of the issue. My answer would not be the same- too much time reading and studying military history and issues relating to 'enemy combatants'.
There is a difference between soldier and warrior.
We have already established that there is a difference between soldiers and policemen and criminals and other soldiers.
Remember that soldiers were originally created to defend people form roving gangs who pillaged and plundered. At what point though does that roving gang become a group of soldiers?
To defend the people against such foes was beyond the capability of the constabulary.
The criteria that was decided was uniforms and service to a nation-state.
| Quote: |
| None of those times were situations that couldn't have been handled by properly funded non-soldiers, either. |
I don't think so. Clearly the urban riots were beyond the capacity of the police to handle. Remember if the police had been properly funded to deal with those riots they would have been over-funded. People would complain that a massive percentage of the city budget was going towards riot police when there was no rioting and should instead be going to schools.
Likewise jobs such as peacekeeping require a level of training unavailable to police and aid workers. Those groups have to train for other tasks.
And at some point would not the police turn into soldiers? When you have mass armed organized resistance the only way to counter that is with an army.
Properly-funded is another way of saying throw money at the problem- which 1)Does not always work and 2)Is politically difficult because every dollar spent on your police is a dollar not spent on schools/healthcare/etc. Just like there is only so much training a policeman or aid worker can have- Every hour spent learning peacekeeping is an hour not spent learning crisis resolution or water purification or some other thing.
| Quote: |
| I don't agree at all. Legalized opiates combined with an extensive information campaign educating the public about their problems is what I suspect would result in an optimal situation, especially coupled with the fact that legalization would make treatment easier. This is especially true because the government shouldn't be telling people what they can or cannot put into their bodies anyway |
I agree with the latter part, to an extent, and I wish the first part were true as well...but then look at tobacco and alcohol use- people are aware of their dangers and continue on anyways. I would most certainly not equate Her-on to alcohol or tobacco. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Actually this 'technicality' is the essence of the issue. My answer would not be the same- too much time reading and studying military history and issues relating to 'enemy combatants'.
There is a difference between soldier and warrior.
We have already established that there is a difference between soldiers and policemen and criminals and other soldiers. |
The salient difference between a soldier and a policeman is the same as the difference between a mercenary and a policeman: killing outside of situations where innocent lives are in immediate danger. That similarity is what causes me to lump them together. No other difference they might have is of importance to me with regards to this discussion.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Remember that soldiers were originally created to defend people form roving gangs who pillaged and plundered. At what point though does that roving gang become a group of soldiers? |
In America, gangs are delt with by police, not soldiers.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I don't think so. Clearly the urban riots were beyond the capacity of the police to handle. Remember if the police had been properly funded to deal with those riots they would have been over-funded. |
You just said the police weren't capable of dealing with a civil problem. Raising their funding to a level where they can deal with civil unrest isn't overfunding them, it's funding them properly.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| People would complain that a massive percentage of the city budget was going towards riot police when there was no rioting and should instead be going to schools. |
Right now that budget isn't going to schools or police, so that complaint would be totally baseless.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Likewise jobs such as peacekeeping require a level of training unavailable to police and aid workers. Those groups have to train for other tasks. |
With additional funding availible such training would not be out of the question. You're trying very hard to defend the existence of soldiers, and I understand that, but acting like it's fundamentally impossible for police to receive peacekeeping training of the type you describe is silly.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| And at some point would not the police turn into soldiers? |
Not if they stayed within the scope I've described, no.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Properly-funded is another way of saying throw money at the problem- which 1)Does not always work ... |
The military being able to handle civil problems the police can't is purely an issue of funding. Throwing money at problems doesn't always work, but in this case it clearly could.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| and 2)Is politically difficult because every dollar spent on your police is a dollar not spent on schools/healthcare/etc. |
The money in question isn't going to schools/healthcare/etc. right now, so it's not as if those sectors would be suffering by the redirection of funds. In fact, the funding availible to those sectors would probably increase in the scenario I'm describing, because it's not as if the police, the disaster relief corps, etc would suck up 100% of the current military budget. There would be money left over, which could easily be redirected into things like education.
This whole "politically difficult" option is a real non-starter. Education, healthcare, etc would not only not be losing funding, but would probably actually gain funding.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't agree at all. Legalized opiates combined with an extensive information campaign educating the public about their problems is what I suspect would result in an optimal situation, especially coupled with the fact that legalization would make treatment easier. This is especially true because the government shouldn't be telling people what they can or cannot put into their bodies anyway |
I agree with the latter part, to an extent, and I wish the first part were true as well...but then look at tobacco and alcohol use- people are aware of their dangers and continue on anyways. I would most certainly not equate Her-on to alcohol or tobacco. |
Smoking is legal, but I don't smoke. Drinking is legal, and I drink occasionally, but I'm certainly not an alcoholic. There are many people like me. I'm not worried about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
War never solved anything.
Except ending Nazism. And slavery. And beating back Communism. It definitely didn't create the United States of America. Do you speak Russian? No? You're welcome.
Liberalism has begotten a great many minds and wonders from therein for all of the world to benefit from. It is also one of the greatest evils born of the 20th century. From hundreds of millions of people murdered by their own governments in the name of The Worker's Paradise to Eugenics to mass abortion, Liberalism is a dangerous thing when taken to an extreme.
Both fundamentalist Liberalism and Conservatism should both be equally shunned as disgusting, bigoted, fanaticism to ideologies that are critically unnatural and inhuman.
That said: Tranquilizer guns? Are you serious? What tool box did you crawl out of? Seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| .38 Special wrote: |
Except ending Nazism. |
War started Nazism�
| .38 Special wrote: |
And slavery. |
Which war ended slavery? If you say the American Civil War, you get the prestigious honor of being ignorant in two different ways. The civil war was never about slavery and other countries were perfectly able to abolish slavery without war.
| .38 Special wrote: |
And beating back Communism. |
Yes, we must be protected from Communism, otherwise we could all wake up tomorrow Communists.
| .38 Special wrote: |
It definitely didn't create the United States of America. |
You're right, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution created the USA.
| .38 Special wrote: |
Do you speak Russian? No? You're welcome. |
Yes, Soviet Russia was such a threat to the West.
I'm hoping all of that was written in the name of satire.
| .38 Special wrote: |
Liberalism has begotten a great many minds and wonders from therein for all of the world to benefit from. It is also one of the greatest evils born of the 20th century. From hundreds of millions of people murdered by their own governments in the name of The Worker's Paradise to Eugenics to mass abortion, Liberalism is a dangerous thing when taken to an extreme. |
Eugenics is about as conservative an ideology as you can get.
Mass abortion? What does that even mean?
Everything is dangerous when taken to an extreme.
| .38 Special wrote: |
Both fundamentalist Liberalism and Conservatism should both be equally shunned as disgusting, bigoted, fanaticism to ideologies that are critically unnatural and inhuman. |
I wasn�t aware nature and humans had in their essence any ideology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| If you say the American Civil War, you get the prestigious honor of being ignorant in two different ways. The civil war was never about slavery |
The leaders of the Confederacy stated that the war was to preserve slavery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The salient difference between a soldier and a policeman is the same as the difference between a mercenary and a policeman: killing outside of situations where innocent lives are in immediate danger. That similarity is what causes me to lump them together. No other difference they might have is of importance to me with regards to this discussion. |
But they aren't the same thing, otherwise we would have the same word for them. Semantics can be a case of over-generalization or of splitting hairs.
| Quote: |
| In America, gangs are delt with by police, not soldiers. |
In America. For now.
| Quote: |
| You just said the police weren't capable of dealing with a civil problem. Raising their funding to a level where they can deal with civil unrest isn't overfunding them, it's funding them properly. |
But to fund them properly to deal with civil disturbances would require having 20,000 part-time riot cops on the payrolls, complete with training, equipment, health care, pensions, etc. That's what I mean by over-funded.
As long as the Army is a 'necessary evil' it also serves the back up purpose of handling large-scale civil disturbances which are beyond the capacity of the police.
| Quote: |
| Right now that budget isn't going to schools or police, so that complaint would be totally baseless. |
I'm talking about your hypothetical future where the Army has been abolished, if instead a large part of funding went to riot police (which would be necessary) people would complain that we're funding 'jack-booted' thugs with batons and not playgrounds or something like that.
| Quote: |
| but acting like it's fundamentally impossible for police to receive peacekeeping training of the type you describe is silly |
Police already seem stretched to their limits presently and you want to add overseas peacekeeping as part of their training?
| Quote: |
| Not if they stayed within the scope I've described, no |
So when the organized criminal gang maintains a stronghold and starts to restrict natural resources or rob people (but not killing) in order to arest and apprehend them the police are going to have to use the methods of soldiers.
| Quote: |
| Throwing money at problems doesn't always work, but in this case it clearly could. |
Okay, how?
| Quote: |
| This whole "politically difficult" option is a real non-starter. Education, healthcare, etc would not only not be losing funding, but would probably actually gain funding. |
Or people would vote to cut taxes thanks to the new surplus.
But that's a political impossibility. Since when have Americans ever voted for politicians who promise to lower taxes?
| Quote: |
| Smoking is legal, but I don't smoke. Drinking is legal, and I drink occasionally, but I'm certainly not an alcoholic. There are many people like me. I'm not worried about it. |
And there are people in prison for alcohol-related offenses.
The only people who take a care-free attitude to Her-on addiction are those who've never dealt with Her-on addicts. It's not the same as those other 'drugs'. Yeah, libertarianism has its limits too, I think Heroin might be one of those. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The salient difference between a soldier and a policeman is the same as the difference between a mercenary and a policeman: killing outside of situations where innocent lives are in immediate danger. That similarity is what causes me to lump them together. No other difference they might have is of importance to me with regards to this discussion. |
But they aren't the same thing, otherwise we would have the same word for them. Semantics can be a case of over-generalization or of splitting hairs. |
No, they're not the same thing, but they're in the same category. Chickens and Eagles aren't the same thing, but they're still both birds. Mercenaries and members of national militaries aren't the same thing, but they're still both soldiers.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In America, gangs are delt with by police, not soldiers. |
In America. For now. |
And it's how it should be.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You just said the police weren't capable of dealing with a civil problem. Raising their funding to a level where they can deal with civil unrest isn't overfunding them, it's funding them properly. |
But to fund them properly to deal with civil disturbances would require having 20,000 part-time riot cops on the payrolls, complete with training, equipment, health care, pensions, etc. That's what I mean by over-funded. |
Those 20,000 part-time riot cops on the Federal payroll would be replacing 20,000 soldiers though. I don't have any problem with that what so ever. In fact, I think it's ideal.
We're all ready paying this money in the military budget.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| As long as the Army is a 'necessary evil' it also serves the back up purpose of handling large-scale civil disturbances which are beyond the capacity of the police. |
I agree. As long as we are forced to have an army by other nations also having armies, we may as well use them for things like civil disturbances. What I'm saying is that if our race gave up the convention of having soldiers, we wouldn't have to sacrifice things like riot control and disaster relief in the process. These aren't things soldiers and only soldiers can provide, so they aren't really a selling point for having them. We can get rid of our soldiers without getting rid of riot control and disaster relief.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Right now that budget isn't going to schools or police, so that complaint would be totally baseless. |
I'm talking about your hypothetical future where the Army has been abolished, if instead a large part of funding went to riot police (which would be necessary) people would complain that we're funding 'jack-booted' thugs with batons and not playgrounds or something like that. |
I'm talking about the same future as well. Sure, there will be some people who might say such things, but if most people can be talked into paying what we currently pay to maintain our paid killer corps, they can just as easily be talked into paying a lesser amount for things like riot control specialists.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| but acting like it's fundamentally impossible for police to receive peacekeeping training of the type you describe is silly |
Police already seem stretched to their limits presently and you want to add overseas peacekeeping as part of their training? |
Again, police are stretched to their limits because of lack of funding and personelle. If we removed the military, an immensely larger amount of both funding and personelle would be availible to our police forces. In short, this isn't a problem.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Not if they stayed within the scope I've described, no |
So when the organized criminal gang maintains a stronghold and starts to restrict natural resources or rob people (but not killing) in order to arest and apprehend them the police are going to have to use the methods of soldiers. |
Firstly, if a large, organized criminal gang is hanging out and robbing people while not killing a single person, I don't want soldiers busting in and murdering them anyway. That's not a crime someone should die over. Second, if a situation like that occurs, it demonstrates that police presence is insufficient to maintain order. If the police had been properly funded in the first place, things never would have gotten that bad. In short, I don't feel your hypothetical situation hurts my case at all.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Throwing money at problems doesn't always work, but in this case it clearly could. |
Okay, how? |
I've explained how several times now. Part of the money freed up from our current massive defense budget could be reassigned to things like disaster relief specialists, federal riot control, etc. With better funding and more personelle, these organizations could handle things which currently must be handled by soldiers. In fact, the only real difference would be that the people handling it wouldn't be paid killers.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This whole "politically difficult" option is a real non-starter. Education, healthcare, etc would not only not be losing funding, but would probably actually gain funding. |
Or people would vote to cut taxes thanks to the new surplus. |
Departments like education, health care, etc not getting funding because politicians voted to cut taxes is totally irrelevent to my case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
The leaders of the Confederacy stated that the war was to preserve slavery. |
The confederacy was primarily concerned with states� rights. Slavery became the most (for lack of a better term) colorful example of that. The confederacy cared about preserving a state's right to choose to be pro or anti slavery. The Civil War was in some respects a continuation of an ideological war that started in the American Revolution. Heck, seceding from the union started, or was at least attempted, decades before what is now known as the start of the war.
Regardless, the Civil War did not end slavery. If something ended slavery it�d be the Age of Enlightenment. Slavery in the US may have ended around the same time, but the institution of slavery did not end because of the Civil War. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The American Civil War was about the states' rights to preserve slavery. The Confederacy's loss in that war did end slavery in the United States. Only a fool would say that particular war ended slavery anywhere else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I suspect it also had something to do with the more industrial north hoping to outcompete the agrarian south, which was difficult so long as the south had slaves. But I don't really know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry to hijack this thread but to give my opinion on this tangent...
A Collection of Causes for the Civil War:
1) It was a very naive time, people tended to really think about 'lofty issues' and such. People took the whole democracy and rights thing pretty seriously. It was a time where due to lifestyles, people would spend a lot of time talking about important matters.
2) The abolition of the slave trade- With the overseas slave trade virtually dead, the South had to rely on slaves born into servitude. This often led to the forced separation of slave families. This forced separation was dramatically depicted in Uncle Tom's Cabin. How influential was Uncle Tom's Cabin? Take all of Michael Moore's movies combined and times them by 100 and I think that will get close to it. This relates to point 1, People would sit around talking about Uncle Tom's Cabin (And actually have read the thing!)
3) The Mexican-American War and the consequences of it. The addition of territory, the financing, the training for war. The Mexican-American War and its impact on the Civil War is a book in and of itself. Maybe several.
4) Political Turmoil and the decline of Whigism and the rise of the Republican Party. Skimmed over this part, can't talk in depth, I just know it WAS a factor. After all it gave us Lincoln.
5) Bloody Kansas, Charles Sumner and John Brown. Fighting by proxy isn't just for the 20th century. Before the 'Real' Civil War Kansas experienced a 'low intensity' conflict between abolitionists and pro-slavery forces. John Brown got his first taste of armed conflict over here and the whole episode served to harden people's opinions. Many Democrats & Whigs with moderate views on slavery ended up taking sides one way or the other on the issue.
Preston Brooks' beating of Senator Charles Sumner in his office. Pro-Slavery Congressman Preston Brooks, in response to one of Sumner's abolitionist speeches on the Senate floor, walked into Sumner's office and proceeded to beat him with a cane, striking him 20-30 times and leaving the man traumatized and was unable to return to the Senate for four years due to his injuries. Needless to say this incensed the North. What amplified matters was the response of the Southern public. Instead of condemning Brooks, he was lionized. The 121-95 vote to expel Brooks failed to reach the necessary 2/3rds majority due to Southern opposition. Brooks resigned, returned to South Carolina, and was re-elected to Congress. During this time Brooks proudly showed off his collection of canes that supporters had sent him.
John Brown. John Brown. John Brown. Up until this time everything had been a 'dress rehearsal'. When John Brown and his followers seized the arsenal at Harper's Ferry that was the first step to people actually viewing this as a serious conflict that had 'worked its way East'. The South was terrified of a slave uprising and a race war and accused Brown of being supported by Northern industrial and financial backers (which was true). At first the North disapproved of Brown's attack. However his subsequent trial in which he spoke eloquently about the evils of slavery and his willing acceptance of the verdict of execution turned him into a martyr in the North. John Brown was risen to the level of Socrates and a step below Christ. Indeed, many abolitionists linked Brown to the Cross. When he was executed Church bells rang out across the North and there were special services held. (Imagine that for someone being executed nowadays) Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, William Cullen Bryant, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow all celebrated Brown's actions and understood the significance of what he'd done. The most popular marching tune for Northern soldiers in the War was 'John Brown's Body'. Remember these were volunteers and what they were singing about was the reason they were fighting. (Slavery was a cancer in America, and the only way to cut it out was through force. The South was not to be reasoned with. The only way to get rid of it was for people to become soldiers.)
There are other reasons for the conflict. I would heartily recommend James McPherson's 'Battle Cry of Freedom' for a history of before The War and The War itself.
EDIT- These 'Causes' are decidedly Northern in view. Since most of us now are 'Northern' in our leanings, I decided to go from that angle. Antebellum history is not my strong point in Civil War knowledge. Most of that knowledge is on the Eastern Front with the campaigns of The Army of the Potomac and The Army of Northern Virgina, as well as the Generals who fought on both sides..
As for the topic at hand....
| Quote: |
| Chickens and Eagles aren't the same thing, but they're still both birds. |
There is a world of difference between an Eagle and a Chicken.
| Quote: |
| Departments like education, health care, etc not getting funding because politicians voted to cut taxes is totally irrelevent to my case. |
What I'm trying to point out is that the "Massive Budget Surplus" that the dissolution of the military would produce would probably be dwindled down due to tax cuts and pork-barrel projects. Remember these decisions are in the hands of democratically elected politicians, not an enlightened panel of 'wise men and women'. Therefore there probably would NOT be enough budget to go to 20,000 part time riot cops. I wish voters were rational and could calculate things like that, but they are not. The public wouldn't vote for the Politician who promised to spend that money on wonderful happy social projects, it would vote for the politician who promised to give them a $10,000 rebate check from Uncle Sam's defunct military.
Last edited by Steelrails on Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In a related subject, people might find these books to be an interesting read. There are a few examples of why we do need soldiers but the biggest one for me is an example in the last chapter of this book.
"Blood Money" by Trisha Stratford
or you might find the following books an interesting read. At least it provides a different perspective on Iraq from most Newspapers articles.
"Highway to Hell" by John Geddes
"Making a killing" by James Ashcroft
and finally
"The last true story I'll ever tell" by John Crawford
I actually found them quite educational and some of the experiences written about do explain why we need soldiers in this day and age. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
