good to see you again 13/f.13/f/taiwan wrote:
sorry you feel that way, eleven bravo
I'm sure your logic would have been of great comfort to those who were actually enslaved at the time.Macbeth wrote:
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:
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.eleven bravo wrote:
civil war was fought to end slavery
All you need to do from now on is point them to what the states actually said... (the Declarations of Causes of Seceding State).Poseidon wrote:
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.eleven bravo wrote:
civil war was fought to end slavery
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.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
As I said already, it'll be funny if it turns out Gadaffi is right and the rebels are AQ.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.
Fuck Israel
Still failing to respond to the point, why not take out all the armoured vehicles parked up in depots when you're doing UN work on the ground?FEOS wrote:
Your logic is infallible, Dilbert.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.
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.
Why must pilots have the right to vapourise any conceivable threat but soldiers on the ground not get that luxury?
Fuck Israel
Maybe that's the whole point of why the intervention happened, because they knew it was AQ, so they can get rid of gadaffi by supporting the rebels, then they can claim that terrorists have overthrown the rebel leaders and then invade the country.. for its oil..Dilbert_X wrote:
As I said already, it'll be funny if it turns out Gadaffi is right and the rebels are AQ.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.
making up conspiracy theories is awesome.
More likely they'll do another Iraq.
Let the country collapse, wait for a bunch of numbskulls to install themselves in govt, wait until they beg foreign oil co.s to take the oil away for a dollar a barrel.
Let the country collapse, wait for a bunch of numbskulls to install themselves in govt, wait until they beg foreign oil co.s to take the oil away for a dollar a barrel.
Fuck Israel
Dilbert your logic doesn't make the least bit of senseDilbert_X wrote:
Still failing to respond to the point, why not take out all the armoured vehicles parked up in depots when you're doing UN work on the ground?
Why must pilots have the right to vapourise any conceivable threat but soldiers on the ground not get that luxury?
inane little opines
It makes perfect sense, even usm gets it and he's not that smart.
Fuck Israel
This is not a ceasefire Dilbert.
inane little opines
well i bet they are. like i said one in five foreign fighters in iraq were from eastern libya....right where the rebels are. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmDilbert_X wrote:
As I said already, it'll be funny if it turns out Gadaffi is right and the rebels are AQ.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.
Dilbert_X wrote:
It makes perfect sense, even usm gets it and he's not that smart.
So they should let Gadaff&co take potshots at the jets?
inane little opines
its their country. cant take the heat get outta da kitchen.Shocking wrote:
So they should let Gadaff&co take potshots at the jets?
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.
So where's the problem with bombing his shit, I don't get it.
inane little opines
And even if he did I still don't get what the point would be in trying to impose a NFZ while leaving air defense systems in that zone intact
inane little opines
because the rebels arent cute cuddley bunnies and he can do what he wants with his country. if the people want to overthrow him fine. but if they cant get enough people to do it and need the world to help well then thats just BS.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.
Well yeah I'm not arguing the intervention itself, it doesn't make all that much sense to me. Just that when you're going to intervene and impose an NFZ, taking out air defense makes sense.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-25 06:54:57)
inane little opines
marine you're completely missing the point. if you assume that a nfz is to be enforced then what dx is arguing, rather moronically, is that bombing AA is not part of enforcing the nfz. which is, erm, moronic.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
no im not missing the point. so the people on the ground have no choice and cannot do anything yet you can pick and choose what to bomb? ya right. lemme know what you would think if that was aussie land and not libya.
Yeah well imposing a NFZ is an act of war to begin with. Once that step was taken pretty much anything was fair game.11 Bravo wrote:
its their country. cant take the heat get outta da kitchen.Shocking wrote:
So they should let Gadaff&co take potshots at the jets?
This is why I don't understand the outrage. Did people really not know what they were asking for?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Kmar wrote:
I'm sure your logic would have been of great comfort to those who were actually enslaved at the time.Macbeth wrote:
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:
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.All you need to do from now on is point them to what the states actually said... (the Declarations of Causes of Seceding State).Poseidon wrote:
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.eleven bravo wrote:
civil war was fought to end slaverySouth 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.
Tu Stultus Es
this...Jay wrote:
Yeah well imposing a NFZ is an act of war to begin with. Once that step was taken pretty much anything was fair game.11 Bravo wrote:
its their country. cant take the heat get outta da kitchen.Shocking wrote:
So they should let Gadaff&co take potshots at the jets?
This is why I don't understand the outrage. Did people really not know what they were asking for?
it's not like we're going to send in F-22s and magically not get shot down due to "stealth technology" without touching Gadaffi's AA assets
Raptors don't do that stuff.
inane little opines
that too, was just quoting someone else about the F-22s...Shocking wrote:
Raptors don't do that stuff.
They just thought we should send in stealth fighters and just shoot down gaddafi's planes
Last edited by Trotskygrad (2011-03-25 10:51:28)
*shrugs* The French helped us overthrow the British.11 Bravo wrote:
because the rebels arent cute cuddley bunnies and he can do what he wants with his country. if the people want to overthrow him fine. but if they cant get enough people to do it and need the world to help well then thats just BS.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.
It's rare that any rebellion wins without some outside help.