Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well lets let some sparks fly i guess. 1) R.Nixon…Equal Right to Work act, (a huge step for civil rights) Actually got us on the moon(if you believe it wasnt filmed in Hollywood ;)) Ended the Vietnam Conflict and also began a relationship with China that eventually led to the end of the Soviet Union. Watergate was no worse than any other criminal act any other President has done, he would have won the election anyway.2)D.D.Eisenhower...Interstate Highway system and the integration of southern colleges. 2 worst1)W.Wilson...firmly planted America on an international stage, interventionist policy.2) W.Mckinley...started American intervention policy in the Spanish American war.We still have the after affects of these two gents right now.but thats my opinion, and wrong.
Phidippides, You are spot on about the LSAT and philosophy majors. Logic is a term bandied about, but it is an entirely different monster when studied like that. And Logic is one half of the LSAT. So it definitely helps. Now, about the lawyers, what was it Shakespeare said? 😉
i would like to posit this in regard to the Iraq war. The Kurds in the north have, in fact, viewed America as a liberator. As this is positive news, the coverage of it in any media form has been limited in extreme. Why? well that question can only be answered above my pay grade. i do remember a couple of years ago, on 60 minutes they showed American soldiers walking around and saying they found it surreal to walk around with no body armor. So cheers to the Kurds for making the most of their opportunity. Does the liberation of saddams human guinea pigs rationalize, justify or explain the war. Hell, i dont know. Who can answer such questions? But i do think it was an inherent good.
Excellent analysis Daniel. i have often wondered why the South chose Richmond as its capitol. It would seem it would have been far more beneficial to place it further south, in Georgia or Mississippi. i think the South believed they were on equal footing with the North, but any third rate military planner would have seen that any early equality would soon fade, and the North would have huge advantages in men, material and resources. Chancellorsville was the real last chance for the South. Had the attack started earlier and Hookers army been entirely crushed, the Confederacy might have obtained international recognition, and with that the North might have had to come to terms. But, History, a fickle mistress, did not see it that way. Lee would never have fought a guerrilla war. It was not in him. He said after the war that the South failed to use Forrest and Mosby more effectively, but that was hindsight.Mr. Baker, i have to humbly disagree with you, Sir. Jefferson Davis had two Generals upon which he relied, Lee and Bragg. He did not get along with any others ie Beauregard, Joe Johnston, Longstreet. Davis tied himself to Lee. After Gettysburg, Lee was the Southern cause.This does not take away from the greatness of Lee, he was an equal to Bonaparte, and will be lauded for eternity, but in the end he lost. Washington, however, won the war. And you fight to win the war. And that is why i chose him.
i think what opens the firebombing of Dresden up to a serious critical discussion is the fact that is was against a civilian population. To my knowledge, albeit limited, Dresden did not present much in the way of a military or industrial target. The objective, to terrorize and demoralize the civilian population. A sort of “Shock and Awe” before the phrase was coined. This style of warfare goes to the beginning of time, Genghis Khan was a firm proponent. Although i do not believe war was brought to civilians in the massive modern scale until the Second World War. However, the problem comes when one side judges another side, whilst performing the same actions themselves, and only because they won do they limit their own responsibilities while criminalizing the actions of the losing side. Therein lies the proverbial rub.i both agree with Phidippides, in that there must be some rules to war, however theoretical they may be. And Scout, whom i paraphrase, that it is a quixotic attempt to civilize something that is inherently uncivilized. And Sherman, "War is hell. And I intend to prove it."but thats just my opinion.
Washington was actually a compromise choice at the beginning for the head of the Continental Army. John Hancock was also in the running. The New England contingent felt that by making Washington commander, they would tie Virginia, at that time the most populous state, to the cause of revolution. Many New Englanders felt that Washington was too slow, and contemplated replacing him with Horatio Gates. Not until the Battle of Monmouth(under Gates), which was disastrous, did Washington put the naysayers to rest. That is when he became the image on the dollar bill.Lee, while not being the first choice to lead the Army of Northern Virginia(Joe Johnson), tended to have great confidence with Jeff Davis. When Lee tendered his resignation after Gettysburg, Davis refused it. At this point Davis knew that any hope for the Confederacy resided with Lee, as is evidenced by the entire collapse of resistance after the surrender at Appomattox. It is my opinion that had Lee resigned after Gettysburg, the South would have surrendered far earlier(1864) and saved the South the utter destruction that followed. After Gettysburg, i believe that most of the army fought for Lee, the politics had gone by the wayside. And there is no doubt the army loved Lee.And while i believe Lee was a great general, as evidenced by his body of work, Washington, the General(not the myth) is an Immortal to me. He belongs with the Caesars and Alexanders.Then again, i could be wrong, it has happened before, many times.
i would have to go with Washington. First and foremost because he won, but also because he actually fought a more modern(learned from the Romans v Hannibal) style of warfare. He knew that to battle the British empire you would have to outlast them, to defeat them in fixed battles was not going to happen regularly. The best way for an outmatched army to win is to make it too costly ie lives, material and money for the superior side. Time, basically, is always on the side of the underdog. Prolong warfare, and your odds of winning increase exponentially. Washington knew this, and that is why he is on the dollar bill and has a big monument in D.C..Lee, and other top echelon Southerners failed to see this and were too attached to the Napoleonic concept of warfare. One big battle to end the war was not going to happen, as evidenced by the opinion at First Manassas that one fight with picnicers in attendance would end the conflict, it didnt quite work out that way. Especially after Gettysburg and Vicksburg in 1863, Lee knew the war for the South had in reality become a lost cause, and instead of resigning(which he did attempt) he continued to fight the same style, which led to the utter ruination of the South. Great generals have to have the ability to adapt, he did not. Though he was a superb battlefield general, he has to receive demerits for overall war conduct. Now Washington v Sherman...thats an interesting one...
Thank You Scout. i appreciate it greatly. Hope i can add to some of the great discussions around here.
