RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society?

RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 11:13:45 AM)
Name Wars for which economic gain was not the prime driving force. Take a chance....the US and Brit Civil Wars and the wickedest of recent History....Vietnam. The US to maintain the Union. The Brit because Cromwell was a religious fundamentalist. Vietnam...to kill the Cong ?

thompsonx -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 11:21:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *The War of 1812 is a good example - where American seamen and merchant ships were being impressed into British service.* The history books seem to indicate that the U.S. declared war on Britain. *The war with the Barbary pirates - where tribute had to be paid by all nations as an extortionary means and a US Ship was boarded and stolen because the tribute was not paid in a timely manner.* Call it tribute or tax makes no difference to me. If you do not pay your taxes your property gets confiscated. *There are others as well.* And those would be??? thompson ~J quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Perhaps you might enlighten me as to when in the history of the US that we have ever been attacked by a foreign nation. Every war we have been involved in we either started or intruded ourselves into. thompson First World War Second World War Arguably the Mexican-American War. And it is a good idea to remember that at the time reasonable people believed Spain had attacked the Maine or at the least had allowed the destruction of the ship when the Spanish-American War started in 1898.

thompsonx -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 11:30:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *You are absolutely right.* *That will teach me to talk out my rear.* Your candor, if not your consistancy, should be applauded thompson ~J

meatcleaver -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 11:31:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Name Wars for which economic gain was not the prime driving force. Take a chance....the US and Brit Civil Wars and the wickedest of recent History....Vietnam. The US to maintain the Union. The Brit because Cromwell was a religious fundamentalist. Vietnam...to kill the Cong ? Cromwell wasn't a religious fundementalist. He had both a problem with the Catholics and the Presbyterians and considered them both extremists. The reason Cromwell has had such a bad press is because the revolution failed and the crown was restored. Everything Cromwell about was denigrated. Generations of historians have assumed the propaganda against Cromwell to be true and very little primary research has been done which says a lot about many professional historians. However, take Cromwell's Irish campaigns for example. Amateur historian Terry Reilly, a citizen of Drogheda no less (the town where Cromwell was accused of masacring the local population), researched the primary evidence for the masacre and found there was none, that all the stories were made up 150 years after Cromwell's death. Cromwell had actually put to sword English Royalist soldiers. Same with many of his alledged crimes. You should read Reilly's book, Cromwell, A Honourable Enemy. Cromwell was straight and in many ways moderate and incorruptable, though human and fallible.

meatcleaver -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 11:37:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *The War of 1812 is a good example - where American seamen and merchant ships were being impressed into British service.* The history books seem to indicate that the U.S. declared war on Britain. http://www.press.uillinois.edu/f06/hickey.html Can't work out how a messed up the format.[:o]

thompsonx -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 11:39:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Name Wars for which economic gain was not the prime driving force. Take a chance....the US and Brit Civil Wars and the wickedest of recent History....Vietnam. The US to maintain the Union. The Brit because Cromwell was a religious fundamentalist. Vietnam...to kill the Cong ? seeksfemslave: ROFLMAO This is a trick question ...right? thompson

NorthernGent -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 11:55:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Name Wars for which economic gain was not the prime driving force. Take a chance....the US and Brit Civil Wars and the wickedest of recent History....Vietnam. The US to maintain the Union. The Brit because Cromwell was a religious fundamentalist. Vietnam...to kill the Cong ? The English Civil War was fought primarily for the right of either the king or Parliament to control customs and taxation. It had been brewing for decades as the king was short of money (unlike Parliament). As an example, charles ordered everyone in England to pay ship money under the pretence of the upkeep of the navy and Parliament forbade this. Furthermore, areas of the country sided based on economics. As an example, Newcastle had been granted a royal charter as the main production coal-fields in the area at the expense of its competitor Sunderland - Sunderland sided with the Parliamentarians and Newcastle with the king. Ultimately, charles needed the money that Parliament controlled and attempted to dissolve Parliament. I don't know a great deal about the US Civil War but I'll take a guess the North intended to use freed slaves to work in the industrialising North i.e. to give them the labour needed to compete with the established world powers. The South wanted the labour to run their plantations? Also, all nations bind together primarily out of economic convenience and maintaining a large union is a means of competing economically - the whole is more than the sum of its parts etc. Vietnam, again I maybe getting out of my depth here but I was under the impression Vietnam was an arena playing out an element of the cold war (a game for influence and markets in certain parts of the world).

meatcleaver -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 12:02:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent The English Civil War was fought primarily for the right of either the king or Parliament to control customs and taxation. It had been brewing for decades as the king was short of money (unlike Parliament). As an example, charles ordered everyone in England to pay ship money under the pretence of the upkeep of the navy and Parliament forbade this. Furthermore, areas of the country sided based on economics. As an example, Newcastle had been granted a royal charter as the main production coal-fields in the area at the expense of its competitor Sunderland - Sunderland sided with the Parliamentarians and Newcastle with the king. Ultimately, charles needed the money that Parliament controlled and attempted to dissolve Parliament. I don't know a great deal about the US Civil War but I'll take a guess the North intended to use freed slaves to work in the industrialising North i.e. to give them the labour needed to compete with the established world powers. The South wanted the labour to run their plantations? Also, all nations bind together primarily out of economic convenience and maintaining a large union is a means of competing economically - the whole is more than the sum of its parts etc. Vietnam, again I maybe getting out of my depth here but I was under the impression Vietnam was an arena playing out an element of the cold war (a game for influence and markets in certain parts of the world). Got to agree with the English Civil War was really a revolution but we English don't do revolutions and it was economic. As for the North wanting to free the slaves in the American Civil war, one of the posters on CM, (I think it was Sinergy but I could be wrong), said that Lincoln only agreed to the freeing of the slaves in the south under pressure from Britain and that he had no intention of freeing the slaves in the North. I can't remember which thread it was on but I'm pretty sure he gave links. There is no getting away from the fact its roots were economic, I don't see how it can be argued that there was an element of keeping the Union intact but I will stand to be corrected.

NorthernGent -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 12:25:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver As for the North wanting to free the slaves in the American Civil war, one of the posters on CM, (I think it was Sinergy but I could be wrong), said that Lincoln only agreed to the freeing of the slaves in the south under pressure from Britain and that he had no intention of freeing the slaves in the North. I can't remember which thread it was on but I'm pretty sure he gave links. I did one module at University on the US Civil War (which hardly makes me the authority on all things US history). However, I was taught there was hope/belief in the North that the freed slaves of the South would head North in search of work in the industrialised areas that desperately needed them. I've no idea on the intention to free Northern slaves but I'm fairly sure the intention was to free Southern slaves and to use them as labour (the usual story of human migration from rural to industrialising areas). There is no getting away from the fact its roots were economic, I don't see how it can be argued that there was an element of keeping the Union intact but I will stand to be corrected. Yep, a bit of a guess here and maybe I'm confusing causes and results but one of the main results of the war was the restoration of the Union.

thompsonx -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 1:18:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *The War of 1812 is a good example - where American seamen and merchant ships were being impressed into British service.* The history books seem to indicate that the U.S. declared war on Britain. http://www.press.uillinois.edu/f06/hickey.html Can't work out how a messed up the format.[:o] meatcleaver: This is a very good book and makes the point that the primary justification for the war was economic...the conquest of Canada and the eviction of the British from North America and not the impressment issue which really was a non issue since England had already agreed to quit doing it. thompson

seeksfemslave -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 1:24:58 PM)
Re the US civil War a certain Mr A Lincoln is on record as saying the he would have fought the Civil War regardless of the condition of the slaves. The issue for the Southern States was States Rights.. Both have economic implications but I believe that was not the main motivating factor. Overall economic control of the US rests in the "big cough" nominally democratic, but at least representative Federal Govnt. with a large amount of States ability to control their own affairs. ie local income tax. Actually Puritan that I am I wish Cromwell had lived longer so that a republican "small R" form of government could have taken root. I would have to disagree that Cromwell was not a religious fundamentalist, in fact he tried to establish a regime of simple piety based on devotion to the Christian God. He totally rejected the extravagent flim flammery of the monarchial form of government. The issue control by Parliament or Monarchy transcends economics, though clearly it, economics, will play a large part. Cromwell, I am fairly sure was opposed to the supposed Divine right to rule of Monarchs, as am I lol As for Viet Nam, no resources for the US to plunder only an indigineous nationalist movement associated , probably of necessity to get the weapons, with the communist bloc.

thompsonx -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 1:36:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Re the US civil War a certain Mr A Lincoln is on record as saying the he would have fought the Civil War regardless of the condition of the slaves. The issue for the Southern States was States Rights.. Both have economic implications but I believe that was not the main motivating factor. Overall economic control of the US rests in the "big cough" nominally democratic, but at least representative Federal Govnt. with a large amount of States ability to control their own affairs. ie local income tax. Actually Puritan that I am I wish Cromwell had lived longer so that a republican "small R" form of government could have taken root. I would have to disagree that Cromwell was not a religious fundamentalist, in fact he tried to establish a regime of simple piety based on devotion to the Christian God. He totally reject the extravagent flim flammery of the monarchial form of government. As for Viet Nam, no resources for the US to plunder only an indigineous nationalist movement associated , probably of necessity to get the weapons, with the communist bloc. seeksfemslave: The state right the south wanted to preserve was slavery. It was tin, rubber and oil that we sucked out of Viet Nam for twenty plus years before we finally left. thompson

seeksfemslave -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 1:59:38 PM)
It seems unlikely to me that the US could have extracted minerals from VietNam, which I must admit I did not know were present, since VietNam had been in a permanent state of War from about 1936 to 1976. Re States Rights and slavery, control of the cotton trade was just as likely to have exploded into a major issue of conflict. I havent "looked anything up" so I may be wrong. Did find out that China/VietNam have agreed a 10 billion dollar mineral extraction programme.

meatcleaver -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 2:25:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave He totally rejected the extravagent flim flammery of the monarchial form of government. This is not true. Cromwell wouldn't have even been a fundy in these days but one can't divorce him from the times he lived in and he thought he was the tool of god but so did Charles, that was how it was in those days. He also loved to dance and party, enjoyed the company of women and he was something of a flirt. He did dress in plain clothes and he didn't like decadence and waste but this was as much a trait of his provincial upbringing and his tight financial position up to him inheriting a little money from his uncle. He was actually going to emigrate to the American colonies until his uncles bequest. He was also an amazing commander of genius.

Archer -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 2:26:04 PM)
There was hardly a shortage of cheap labor in the North. Immigrants coming over in droves from Ireland at the time. The Emancipation proclamation only applied to slaves in the rebellious states. ""That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free..." Slaves held in the few states not in rebellion were left unaffected by the proclamation. I think this is where the british influence came into the story, freedom for slaves in those states that were not in rebellion. One of the often ignored State's Rights that was being fought for by the South was the right to trade with European nations. Northern states having the voting power bullied Tarrifs through on European goods that the South was trading their cotton and agricultural products for. The Northern Mills were unwilling to compete with the European factories on a level field. So in order to secure raw materials for the northern factories they imposed export tarrifs on raw materials the South produced. Certainly that can be traced back to slavery in some ways, as anything in the Southern economic system had something to do with slavery at the time. There were some real economic reasons that went into the US Civil War.

BDSM05478 -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 2:31:13 PM)
Exactly the war between the states was not as humanitarian as some people would like to believe. The Real Lincoln is an excellent read. It is a pet peeve of mine when people talk about Lincoln being "The Great Emancipator" when in reality he didn't free anyone, during that same time slavery was still going strong in Mass and upstate NY. The movie Gangs of NY addressed some of the popular points of view for the time.

Michaelat92544 -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 2:58:53 PM)
The war that tore this nation apart, between 1860 and 1865, was a civil war. Not civil in that the opponents practised civility, but in that it was internal to the United States, practically. It wasn't about slavery. It was about the republic's ability to maintain the union of the states. And it was a financial affair, as well. The north had long abused the south, commercially. The south was an agrsrian society. The north was far more advanced, infrastructure-wise, with rail and road. The south was still back-woods-like. This war was about fiscal and territorial control. And due to one man, A. Lincoln, control remained in the republic's favor.

thompsonx -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 5:34:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave It seems unlikely to me that the US could have extracted minerals from VietNam, which I must admit I did not know were present, since VietNam had been in a permanent state of War from about 1936 to 1976. I am unsure what you are refering to as a permanent state of war from 1936-76. The japanese were invited into Viet Nam by the Vichy french government. Viet Minh struggle against the french was fairly limited in scope. Durring the 60's when I was there I was able to view first hand the removal, from that country, of its resources. thompson Re States Rights and slavery, control of the cotton trade was just as likely to have exploded into a major issue of conflict. I havent "looked anything up" so I may be wrong. Did find out that China/VietNam have agreed a 10 billion dollar mineral extraction programme.

Real0ne -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 9:57:08 PM)
Simple. We put our asses on the line and many of us die doing our job to protect your ideals and way of life while you sit in your easy boy sucking on a barley pop watching football. We are often times responsible for equipment that costs upwards of 50 million. We go in as boys grow up fast and come out men that often live several years of civilian experience crammed into a couple short years. How many civilian doctors and nurses do you know that have died in the line of duty while putting a bandaid on your ouee?. i suppose if accelerated experience and dying for you has no value then we are no different than anyone else.

meatcleaver -> RE: Soldiers....unique service or just another part of society? (12/19/2006 11:39:09 PM)
As my Uncle was prone to say on Remembrance Day, we were idiots, we should have all turned round and shot the bastard politicians. Rarely are wars in defence of ones homeland, they are almost always for subjugation and exploitation.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875