Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Truth is only a hazy concept for poets and philosophers.
And what about regular folk? What then is the difference between truth and fact. I contend that the concept of truth is metaphysical whereas fact is either physical, verifiable, or both.
I am thinking here more of which war set Europe for the flourishing of its culture. I could buy the Seven Years War argument as well because it helped to cement the global superiority of European states over the rest of the world. I have read articles that claim it was also the first true world war, another plausible claim. I stand by the Napoleonic wars though as afterwards Europe enjoyed an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity.
Davis was labeled a traitor by the people of his own times, who are we to revisit their judgement, the facts of the matter are not at issue. If I am remembering correctly, he was barred from ever holding public office again by the 14th amendment and escaped the hangmans noose by the skin of his teeth because the nation wanted to get past the war. Of course Davis was seen as a patriot by other southerners; I do not deny that; but it does not mean he should be honored. Should we then honor Benedict Arnold because by spying for the Crown he was just doing his duty to the crown against colonies in rebellion? I think not, Arnold was reviled by the colonists after the extent of his calumny was revealed, just as Davis and his cause was revealed to be false by Union victory. We are not responsible for the views of partisans. The fact is that Davis actively served as the leader of states in rebellion against a constitutionally elected government, as such, he is by definition a traitor. What is worse, he served in the US Senate for many years prior to secession so he was, if anyone, in a better position to know that there were democratic methods to resolve the issues between the states than the average man on the street. Let us not confuse the issue by claiming the Civil War was about states rights it was not, it was about slavery. States rights is a convenient straw man, but the only states right at issue was whether it was right and proper to hold another human being in bondage.It is not about truth, which is a hazy concept at best. It is about facts, which are diffferent from truth. Treason is simple, it is the only crime specifically addressed in the constitution. Article 3, Section 3 of the constitution states:
Treason NoteTreason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted
I found this at the national archives website: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.htmlIt is very simple, by definition Jefferson Davis was a traitor. My opinion is that as such, he is not due honor but instead, our despite, the despite rightly due a traitor to his nation.
Well, regardless of their ethnicity, the Arabs living in that area still have valid reason to be angry at some things Israel has done and in some of the ways the U.S. has responded (or not responded).And I have to disagree that Arab nations are only using them as a stick to beat Israel. Probably the number one, or a big reason why the Western-Arab relations are tense is because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Are you then saying that the suicide bombing of civilians is justifiable? Regardless of the validity of Arab claims agianst Israel, they have forfeited any Western support for their claims by their actions. Israel occasionally kills civilians, but not as a matter of policy in the manner of Hezbullah, Islamic Jihad, or other so called Palestinian Freedom fighter groups. the deliberate targeting of civilians for the purpose of instilling terror is wrong no matter how you attempt to semanticize it. It was wrong when the allies and Axis did it in WWII, and it is still wrong today.
I am reminded of the famous quote from Jefferson, I believe. “From time to time it is necessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of patriots” I think that is correct ar at least close to it..
This harks to my other post about different moral standards at different times and which we should use when judging historical actors.
The old saying in History goes, "When dealing with Andrew Jackson, you either love the man or you totally hate him." He was that polarizing kind of figure. I give him credit for the modern Political Party system, but I will condemn him for his role in Indian forced relocation.
This is another historiographical argument. Are we justified in condemning the actions of those in the past whose acts we find unconscionable according to current values, or should we not judge them by the standards of their time? This is an argument I have had several times in classes. I think we are wrong to impose our morals on the past, if we do so then we unfairly judge those who we acknowledge were not as enlightened as we are. Instead, we should look at their actions based on their own contemporary morality as to whether they were right or wrong in their actions.I do think you are right about Jackson. He is an either or type of figure, there is no middle ground.
When discussing force levels between theaters it is important to remeber the vast scale involved in the eastern front as compared to the Western. To the western allies northern Europe was the big show, to the Germans it was a smal front when compared to the east. that being said, the western border of germany is their industrial heartland, and without it, the war was definitley lost. That is one good explanation for the Battle of the Bulge. By late in the war, both fronts were equally important to Germany, it was imply a matter of the best place to use the forces they had available. Unfortunately for the Germans, they gambled and lost in December of 1944.
The only reason I can't say Iraq was contrived, was that for 10+ years prior to the invasion, nearly every administration and intelligence agency around the world thought Saddam had or was actively pursuing WMD's.The Arabs, particularly the Palestinians, have some valid reasons for hating Israel.
I will disagree with this, but I'm not going to get into it. Suffice it to say, "Palestinian" is a modern contrivance that dates to the 1970's when the PLO successfully hoodwinked the world into believing they were somehow different than the Jordanians they actually are.
Thanks for pointing out the myth of Palestinian ethnicity. Isnt it amazing how the Jordanians dont want them anymore either. They have managed to alienate all their Arab bretheren as well as the west. The Arab nations simply use them as a stick to beat Israel with.
The old saying in History goes, "When dealing with Andrew Jackson, you either love the man or you totally hate him." He was that polarizing kind of figure. I give him credit for the modern Political Party system, but I will condemn him for his role in Indian forced relocation.
This is another historiographical argument. Are we justified in condemning the actions of those in the past whose acts we find unconscionable according to current values, or should we not judge them by the standards of their time? This is an argument I have had several times in classes. I think we are wrong to impose our morals on the past, if we do so then we unfairly judge those who we acknowledge were not as enlightened as we are. Instead, we should look at their actions based on their own contemporary morality as to whether they were right or wrong in their actions.I do think you are right about Jackson. He is an either or type of figure, there is no middle ground.
Western Civilization is a generalization that is just a tool for historians when dealing with the epochs of History. There is literally no Western Civilization only segments of related histories ranging from Israel, to the Greeks, to the Romans, to Western Medeival Europe, and then the Americas.
Does this then equally apply to defining other world civilizations as well? Say Chinese, Eastern, African, and Latin American. They are all just as abstract in the end are they not?
According to the Global Terrorism Database, the first recorded Islamic attack that I could find was an attack by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) on an El Al airline bus in Munich on February 10th, 1970. I would guess that attacks go back farther than that though. Jews and Arabs have been fightin each other in the Holy Land since at least the 20's and the first major wave of Zionist settlement after the Balfour declaration and the granting of the Palestinian Mandate to Britain.As I understand it, the modern growth of Islamic terrorism is a direct result of the founding of Israel and the Arab states demonstrated inability to eliminate said state. It is more or less an expression of rage at the impotence of the Arab armies and Arab frustration with their inability to destroy Israel. If you cant beat 'em in a stand up fight, why not kill women and children right?
I am not advocating Bakuninesque anarchy. However, I do think that we have become a society under constant surveillance. Often, in ways we do not even know about. I question the need for this kind of surveillance and I especially question the constitutionality. I guess you could say that I am a big privacy advocate, even while I readily acknowledge that privacy is largely an unattainable goal in today's world unless one is willing to live in a cave. On the issue of civil liberties, I definitely side with the Libertarians. My basic belief is that unless the government or any other entity can demonstrate a pressing security or financial need for information about me, they should not be allowed to keep it on file. I specifically reject the concept of companies that I do business with selling my name and address without my explicit consent, if I wanted to receive unsolicited advertising I could place my name in a database, it should not be up to a company on whether or how they can use my name and other information except to verify my identity or conclude financial transactions, it should be up to me. I do not think the state should have the right to invade my house and take my or anyone else's children out of a supposed abundance of caution because they suspect abuse. If nothing else, that is a violation of due process.I do not expect the system to be perfect. However, I do expect lawmaker to err on the side of individual liberty and freedoms when crafting laws. I do not think they do this very often, often it seems that they craft the law based not on the constitution, but on what their biggest financial contributors want and not the constitution. I especially, resent the constitution as living document crowd. I have read the constitution and can find no evidence of a right to abortion, a right to gay marriage, a right to not be offended, a right to free health care, or a right to unlimited immigration. Nowhere does the constitution say I have to register my guns, it just says that I have the right to own them.I do however; see a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, a right to keep and bear arms, a right to freedom of association, freedom of religion, the right to a speedy trial and to be judged by a jury of my peers. The key passage in the constitution that is often quoted but not so often followed is right in the preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Notice it does not guarantee anything except the freedom to succeed or fail of our own volition.Before we can debate freedom, we must establish what freedom is. My definition is: The ability to choose a lifestyle of my choice so long as it harms no one else, regardless of whether others find it objectionable on moral grounds. The defining difference is whether it harms others, not whether it harms me. Freedoms is also the ability to read, watch, or listen to what I want, not what others think I should watch. Lastly, freedom is the ability to raise my children with MY values, not the values of others who think they know better."As I see it, the role of government is not to regulate behavior, except where it is harmful to others. The role of government is to provide for the security of its citizens and ensure that conditions exist whereby the individual is free to conduct business and live their life without fear of assault, theft, or other harm to their person or property. It is all right there in the preamble to the constitution, which is perhaps the greatest, most profound and succinct documents ever written by the human hand.
The Tank is from the 1920,s. Here is the picture: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/US_Light_Tank_1920s.JPG[/img]
Bot the Huertgen Forest and Vosges fights were strictly American on German affairs. It was the US 7th Army in the Vosges and something like 15 or 20 green american divisions were fed into the Huertgen Forest over the course of 6 weeks. I think the average casualty rate in the Huertgen Forest was something like 60-70%, but I may be off a little, it has been years since I studied either battle.In my book, a defeat is any battle in which losses are unsustainable or progress is stopped. That puts most of WWI as defeats in my book, I dont count the capture of 1000 yards of ground for 100,000 plus casualties an acceptable or sustainable casualty rate. That is what the fights in the Vosges and Huertgen more closely resemble than a war of movement.
