BF2S Forums The Situation in Libya

Macbeth wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

civil war was fought to end slavery

You don't know how many people I've seen claim that the Civil War was a war about state's rights and that "slavery would've naturally stopped over time". Horseshit.

The civil war was about slavery yes.But slavery would have ended over time on it's own without or without the civil war. It's not economically viable to keep slaves in industrialized countries. Housing, food, healthcare, and enforcement cost would make any increased productivity a slave would have over one or several minimum wage workers meaningless.

Poseidon wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

civil war was fought to end slavery

You don't know how many people I've seen claim that the Civil War was a war about state's rights and that "slavery would've naturally stopped over time". Horseshit.

South Calorlina wrote:

The primary focus of the declaration is the perceived violation of the Constitution by northern states in not extraditing escaped slaves. The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. .

Texas wrote:

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them? For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

Florida wrote:

It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act. This has never been charged by any one. But it has been announced by all the leading men and presses of the party that the ultimate accomplishment of this result is its settled purpose and great central principle. That no more slave States shall be admitted into the confederacy and that the slaves from their rapid increase (the highest evidence of the humanity of their owners will become value less. Nothing is more certain than this and at no distant day. What must be the condition of the slaves themselves when their number becomes so large that their labor will be of no value to their owners. Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves.

It is in so many words saying to you we will not burn you at the stake but we will torture you to death by a slow fire we will not confiscate your property and consign you to a residence and equality with the african but that destiny certainly awaits your children – and you must quietly submit or we will force you to submission – men who can hesitate to resist such aggressions are slaves already and deserve their destiny. The members of the Republican party has denied that the party will oppose the admission of any new state where slavery shall be tolerated. But on the contrary they declare that on this point they will make no concession or compromise. It is manifest that they will not because to do so would be the dissolution of the party.

Mississippi wrote:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

As I said already, if you're enforcing a ceasefire, or a safe-zone, wouldn't it be a good idea to take out all the tanks and artillery?  Good idea for them to be taking potshots at you?

This logic only applies to air wars apparently.

Your logic is infallible, Dilbert.

Until you apply it to the real world.

Let's do that, shall we?

Don't touch the air defenses, radars, or C2. Put up your Tornados, Typhoons, Rafales, etc. within the threat range of those SA-5s, SA-6s, SA-8s, and the like. They've got their ATC and long-range civilian radars linked in to their military air defenses (radar's radar, right?). The fighters' RWR keeps going off, but they can't do anything, because Dilbert said it would be stupid to respond. Suddenly, there's telephone poles with rocket motors on one end and explosives on the other end heading their way, cued by the radars that have been painting them right and left. Too late to do anything...they're totally defensive, and dead shortly. Because it's "stupid" to do anything about the threats.

Sure...you can respond later. Once you generate the additional sorties and figure out how to replace the planes and aircrew you just lost because of your brilliant planning.

You get to write all the letters and explain to the public why you told them to do nothing.

Fucking brilliant.

Dilbert_X wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Jay wrote:

I'm just sick of the whole 'they're rebels, so they must be right' mentality displayed by people in their teens and early twenties.

As I said already, it'll be funny if it turns out Gadaffi is right and the rebels are AQ.

Shocking wrote:

But the whole point was to impose an NFZ, Gadaffi didn't agree and stated he was going to fight back - he did try to do so.

So where's the problem with bombing his shit, I don't get it.

11 Bravo wrote:

Shocking wrote:

So they should let Gadaff&co take potshots at the jets?

its their country.  cant take the heat get outta da kitchen.

Jay wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Shocking wrote:

So they should let Gadaff&co take potshots at the jets?

its their country.  cant take the heat get outta da kitchen.

Yeah well imposing a NFZ is an act of war to begin with. Once that step was taken pretty much anything was fair game.

This is why I don't understand the outrage. Did people really not know what they were asking for?

Shocking wrote:

Raptors don't do that stuff.

Last edited by Trotskygrad (2011-03-25 10:51:28)