This day, a century and a half later

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:31 am

Chilidawg wrote:
cartervj wrote:just who started the slave trade in America chllidawg?


http://cofcc.org/2012/03/americas-first-slave-owner-was-a-black-man/

America’s first slave owner was a black man.


Oh, well then I guess that justifies it all then. {\snark}

Seriously?

Is that really your point, that it was justified because the first slave owner was black?

Do you have any idea just how racist that argument is?


A lot of folks on here need to take a step back and take a long hard look at mans history. Slavery has been around almost as long as we have had recorded history. This would seem to indicate it has been around a lot longer. Our world was formed on the backs of slaves. Why? Mankind has a long and storied history of conquering other men, peoples, and nations. Once you conquer another nation what do you do with them? There are a few options. You can just kill them all. This of course is a total waste of resources and leaves you with nothing but what you can loot. You can subjugate them and leave them armed leading to massive insurrections, or you can enslave them and put them to work. Most nations put them to work and often treated them far worse than any American slave was ever treated. I would say the genocide of a conquered enemy while extremely effective would not be a productive method for the conquering nation to achieve it's end goals. That and murdering a few hundred thousand people is messy, a lot of work, and in todays world completely wrong.

Slavery as an evil or wrong thing is a very modern idea. Based on world history, modern levels of slavery, and slavery activities in the US and Western Europe, I have to say it will be fully reinstated in the world before long. We will never abolish slavery in the world. We can't even manage to control it in our own nation.

I am not discussing the right or wrong of it, I am simply pointing out that it is part of humanity. Some here seem to think moral outrage can change what was, what is, and what will be. Good luck with that! Pointing out that blacks were slave owners, started slavery in the US, and I would add were the best takers / sellers of slaves in Africa is an often forgotten reality. Most particularly among our own black communities in America. They want to blame "whitey" when they first need to look to their own ancestors in Africa for the root of the problem.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 5954
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am


Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:45 am

assateague wrote:Yes, they were very much backed by other nations. But the statement that a country "lacking manpower and an industrial base will lose" is most assuredly wrong.

Why is it "most assuredly wrong" since this war was very much about resources on the battlefield. I don't believe that they are saying that applies universally, but specifically to the circumstances that governed the outcome of the war of northern aggression. I don't think Lincoln was ever going to let the south win and I think there is good reason to suspect based on the events of the 20th century that he was correct and those that wished to split were wrong as far as the future of our nation or nations.

It was a modern war where cannons, mortars, gunpowder, trains, supplies, etc. were an integral part of it. It's not my thing, but I think the lack of economic resources in what was in part a war of attrition was certainly a major contributor. If not for the north's large advantage in that areas, I think it is fair to say that the north would have most assuredly not won with out that advantage. So to flip that from the perspective of the south doesn't seem unreasonable.

BTW, what is the best example where a nation with a huge deficit in manpower and industrial base has won a major war against a determined enemy. I know your argument is that many in the north were not that determined to win, but Lincoln was clearly and he didn't let the Constitution or much else stand in his way. I think the examples you gave don't support your argument since all were backed by significant resources or at least the serious threat of them.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15200
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby assateague » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:53 am

Best example? Probably the mujahideen against the Soviets. Even before we gave them Stingers, they fought the Soviet Army to a standstill using WWI era Enfields and stolen Soviet weapons.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying that manpower and industry don't have an impact, oftentimes a large, insurmountable impact. But to say that without them, you WILL lose (as Vincent said) is wrong, and has been proven wrong many times.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby vincentpa » Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:21 am

assateague wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
The only dumb statement was comparing the Viet Cong and Mujahadeen to 19th century Southerners fighting with 19th century weapons. Industrial strength and manpower were indeed necessary to win a war in that era. You need weapons and ammunition to fight a war. The south was low on both. Were they to fight with bows and arrows, spears, maybe atlatls when the powder and ball ran out? You need an economy to fund a war. The South's was collapsing. Without the ability to fund a war and supply an army, an outside benefactor is needed. None could be found, for good reason. Nobody supports a sure loser because then they would have to eventually confront the winner; in this case was an emergent industrial powerhouse with unlimited potential to grow. By the time of the Battle of Gettysburg, the north had already isolated the South, which had already started to feel the sting of that isolation. They were finished. It was only a matter of time. Gettysburg only served to be a spectacular representation of the South's destiny.

Again, you assume that the conditions for "victory" for the South was a subjugation of the north. That simply sin't the case. They were not seekign to acquire territory, conquer a nation, or really anything of the sort. A cessation of hostilities WAS a victory for the South, and that most certainly does not require any of the things you mentioned. It simply requires that the enemy lose the will to fight. And that was closer than you care to think. Particularly had Lee won at Gettysburg. Sure, Mississippi was in Union hands, but do you really think that would have been close to the same to having D.C. surrounded and Confederate cavalry rampaging through Pennsylvania with nothing to stop them? Please. People would have been howling for it to just stop, and let the South have what they want.


There is no proof the will of the North would've collapsed other than a few voices. This is fantasy held onto by southerner apologists. On the contrary, the North had suffered and continued to suffer terrible losses without wavering in commitment. The North was in it for the long haul. Secondly, the North hadn't even committed its reserve capacity for soldiers it could muster. I forget the actual statistics of military aged men in the conflict for each side. I remember the North's being very low compared to the South. The South was finished. They needed a Hail Mary victory that even Gettysburg couldn't provide.


assateague wrote:
vincentpa wrote:Dumb statement number two was comparing the Minutemen to the Southerners. In reality, you were comparing the colonies to England. This is a poor comparison. The English were never able to provide an overwhelming military presence in North America that could've decisively ended the war. The English were also unable to fund a large enough expeditionary force to maintain a long protracted campaign. The English also lacked the will to do so. The North was in the exact opposite circumstance and conviction than England on every point.

You're insane. I know of NO situation where the colonies enjoyed a military advantage over the British. In every campaign, it was the colonials who backed off because they couldn't "afford a long protracted campaign". You better read your history again.


I never stated that the colonists held military advantage over the English. They most certainly did not. Overwhelming military presence by one power does not equate to military advantage by the other. I wrote campaign in the sense of the entire war, not individual battle. BTW, the colonies held military advantage at three battles: Boston, Saratoga, and Yorktown. The English were never able to field a large enough army to quell the rebellion. The proof is in the results.

assateague wrote:
vincentpa wrote:Dumb statement number three was assuming Stonewall would've made a difference. The North held the high ground, period. The North outnumbered the South, period. There is no reason to believe anyone short of God himself would've made a difference in that battle. Gettysburg was a hopeless cause for the South. It was a desperate gamble because Lee knew the entire war was a desperate gamble. That's why he fought and offensive campaign with at time reckless abandon (bold moves that if you win, you are genius, if you lose you are a fool). Lee knew his only hope was to decisively beat the north in enough battles that the North would lose the will to fight and settle for peace. 80 years later Japan thought the same thing. Both Lee and Yamamoto both knew that was a long shot at best.

You don't really have a grasp on the tactics at Gettysburg, I suspect. Stonewall Jackson was the closest confidant that Lee had. He trusted what Jackson said, and listened to him. The same is not true for other generals. Both Longstreet and Hill, two of Lee's three corps commanders, did NOT want to fight at Gettysburg for the exact reasons you said. But he didn't listen to them. In his journals, he repeatedly bemoans the lack of advice from Jackson. Stonewall Jackson had proved that he knew when and where to fight (as was the case at Chancellorsville, where they were drastically outnumbered, but used maneuver to make the Union Army of the Potomac look foolish), and that Lee listened to him. But without him, Lee was hesitant, and almost resigned to fight at Gettysburg just to "get it over with"

You presume that the battle had to be fought that day, at an advantage to the Union. Nothing could be further from the truth. Had Jackson been there, he would have agreed with Longstreet, that a frontal attack was stupid, and that they would be far better served by marching right past them and heading toward Baltimore, forcing the Union to fight them on ground of their choosing. But Lee had no such advice, and didn't trust Longstreet and Hill as he trusted Jackson. So they fought that day, and they lost. But to say "it wouldn't have mattered" is really just to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about what actually happened, and what the goals really were.


Did Lee miss Jackson's advice when he was winning battles without him? Did Stonewall tell you what he would have advised to Lee in your dreams or did you talk to him through an Ouija board? You don't know what Jackson's advice would've been. One might argue that Jackson was as big a gambler as Lee. Jackson may also have become too confident in his abilities by that time. It may have led him to believe he could achieve the impossible. Jackson may have reinforced Lee's decision. I though Lee was a genius. How could he have made such a mistake?

There is also no way to know what would've happened had the South disengaged from Gettysburg. The South may have lost the next battle. The next battle could've been a draw with large losses on both sides. The North could absorb the losses. The South couldn't. Besides, the South never had enough men and material to mount a siege of Washington let alone defend themselves when the regrouped army and reserves would've arrived to relieve them. This is probably the reason Lee never attempted an attack on Washington. You don't get to rewrite history and you don't get make decisions for men long dead in situations and battles that never occurred. Washington was an armed castle at that time.

To address your other point, I do indeed know what the goals were. The South never meant to occupy and dominate the North. They couldn't if they wanted. They wanted to make their own country. If you read my posts a little more closely, you will see that I agree with you on their goals and objectives. I disagree with you on the possibilities and the outcomes. Of course, the outcome was the outcome. The South lost. That we know.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby assateague » Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:31 am

Of course all of those things could have happened. But you are the one speaking in absolutes, not me.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:31 am

assateague wrote:Best example? Probably the mujahideen against the Soviets. Even before we gave them Stingers, they fought the Soviet Army to a standstill using WWI era Enfields and stolen Soviet weapons.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying that manpower and industry don't have an impact, oftentimes a large, insurmountable impact. But to say that without them, you WILL lose (as Vincent said) is wrong, and has been proven wrong many times.

If he did say in all cases, that is obviously not true. If one side is not determined and committed, that is a huge factor that is hard to overcome with military might.

Would the stalemate have continued if the Soviets were committed or would the resource advantage ultimately prevailed? I think, it is pretty clear, but an ill-advised war without the support of the population, you had better win it very fast. This is why I believe the support for the war in the north had to be pretty deep because as determined as Lincoln was, it is tough to see how they sustain the fight as they did otherwise. It's something that interests me, but not enough that I have ever read very deeply into military history.

I've been to Gettysburg many times. I grew up 2 hours away and went there on a number of school field trips as well as having an uncle that lived in the areas for a number of years and have another uncle that is an absolute history buff and actually writes a column on history for a paper and at least one book. I used to go fishing with him all the time and I could tell that he would actually get a bit aggravated with me for not being more intellectually curious about history, especially when I moved to Richmond and didn't visit any of the historical sites in the area (my in-laws now live on part of I believe the White Oak Swamp battlefield of the Seven Day Battles). I was however always interested when we were driving places to hear him talk about history, but I never caught the bug.

I guess I can promote his book :yes:

http://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Pottstown-Historic-Pennsylvania-Chronicles/dp/1596298421
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15200
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby vincentpa » Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:32 am

assateague wrote:Best example? Probably the mujahideen against the Soviets. Even before we gave them Stingers, they fought the Soviet Army to a standstill using WWI era Enfields and stolen Soviet weapons.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying that manpower and industry don't have an impact, oftentimes a large, insurmountable impact. But to say that without them, you WILL lose (as Vincent said) is wrong, and has been proven wrong many times.



You have a funny way of twisting history or at least interpreting it. The mujahedeen were a thorn in the side of the Soviets. The Soviets had developed tactics to go at the hajis that were successful until we started to supply the hajis with advanced weaponry, i.e. stinger missles. Prior to that, the hajis had access to weapons and not all were WW1 era that kept them in the fight but time was running out. The Soviet tactics were working.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby cartervj » Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:36 am

Chilidawg wrote:
cartervj wrote:just who started the slave trade in America chllidawg?


http://cofcc.org/2012/03/americas-first-slave-owner-was-a-black-man/

America’s first slave owner was a black man.


Oh, well then I guess that justifies it all then. {\snark}

Seriously?

Is that really your point, that it was justified because the first slave owner was black?

Do you have any idea just how racist that argument is?



dig a little deeper into your rational,

aka your excitement it's a white and black issue, mine is a right and a wrong without assigning race issue

I'm simply saying why was this not taught in history, along with numerous other black heros of the past? The Libs rule education so go figure. I see it as the war on women etc... the left raises for a cause to promote liberal ideology, I think overall they are a group of rebels without a clue :lol3:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 6927
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby assateague » Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:41 am

Really? They fought the Soviets basically to a standstill for almost 8 years before we gave them Stinger missiles. I am not twisting anything. Massoud withstood attack after attack after attack on the Panshjir Valley, and eventually the Soviets left that area alone. They could not beat him. Hekmatyar made them look foolish from Jalalabad to Kandahar. The Soviets were not winning, nor were they anywhere close to winning. Even the Politburo was looking for ways to draw down and yet save face. Unfortunately for Gorbachev, he did it a little too fast for anyone's liking.

I haven't twisted anything. I don't pretend to tell you anything about engineering. You're in my wheelhouse, now.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:00 am

assateague wrote:Really? They fought the Soviets basically to a standstill for almost 8 years before we gave them Stinger missiles. I am not twisting anything. Massoud withstood attack after attack after attack on the Panshjir Valley, and eventually the Soviets left that area alone. They could not beat him. Hekmatyar made them look foolish from Jalalabad to Kandahar. The Soviets were not winning, nor were they anywhere close to winning. Even the Politburo was looking for ways to draw down and yet save face. Unfortunately for Gorbachev, he did it a little too fast for anyone's liking.

I haven't twisted anything. I don't pretend to tell you anything about engineering. You're in my wheelhouse, now.

I know that and that is why I ask. I don't believe I told you anything and if something nuclear related didn't make sense to you I would hope you would ask, if interested.

I think (I am using these words very intentionally and never used I know) there are two things that are relevant.

1. The Soviet Union did not have nearly the economic resources many people thought. Their economy was terrible, so they had little excess resource to fight. It's not about size, but about excess capacity. They had a lot less as would be shown soon than most people realized. However, I believe if the second were true, they would have prevailed. It was Star Wars and the race to massively stockpile weapons that broke them. Afghanistan helped, but I believe was secondary.

2. The population was not committed to this. Unlike the Germans invading their neighbors or the spread of the British Empire, I don't think there was the commitment and determinate to win, even if for nothing more than the pride of your country. This is why we did not prevail in Vietnam, maybe poorly written here, but this lack of commitment or whatever the right wording.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15200
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby vincentpa » Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:02 am

assateague wrote:Really? They fought the Soviets basically to a standstill for almost 8 years before we gave them Stinger missiles. I am not twisting anything. Massoud withstood attack after attack after attack on the Panshjir Valley, and eventually the Soviets left that area alone. They could not beat him. Hekmatyar made them look foolish from Jalalabad to Kandahar. The Soviets were not winning, nor were they anywhere close to winning. Even the Politburo was looking for ways to draw down and yet save face. Unfortunately for Gorbachev, he did it a little too fast for anyone's liking.

I haven't twisted anything. I don't pretend to tell you anything about engineering. You're in my wheelhouse, now.


Your wheelhouse now. Don't maker laugh. I thought we gave the haji is missiles before then. One point about Afghanistan does not make your argument. If the South wanted to continue the fight, they could've. They did not. Obviously, they were finished when the war was. The good old boys could've made a guerrilla war of it if they wanted to. They did not. You have no point. Every one you make is not supported by what occurred.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby vincentpa » Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:12 am

assateague wrote:Really? They fought the Soviets basically to a standstill for almost 8 years before we gave them Stinger missiles. I am not twisting anything. Massoud withstood attack after attack after attack on the Panshjir Valley, and eventually the Soviets left that area alone. They could not beat him. Hekmatyar made them look foolish from Jalalabad to Kandahar. The Soviets were not winning, nor were they anywhere close to winning. Even the Politburo was looking for ways to draw down and yet save face. Unfortunately for Gorbachev, he did it a little too fast for anyone's liking.

I haven't twisted anything. I don't pretend to tell you anything about engineering. You're in my wheelhouse, now.


I know more about this conflict than I am letting on. We started to supply the hajjis when regan assumed office. We didn't give them missles until later. The claim you made about the weaponry was off. But hey, we're in your wheelhouse, right. Unfortunately, the fact that we supplied the Hajjis through Pakistan is directly linked to my post that stated there needed to be a benefactor if the rebels couldn't supply themselves. Whoops.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby vincentpa » Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:35 am

If only Jose Tabata was back from the DL last night. the Pirates could've pinch hit him for Mercer when the bases were loaded down 3-1 to the Phillies in the bottom of the 8th with two outs. I'm sure they would've won then.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby vincentpa » Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:01 am

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His day is marching on.
I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Since God is marching on.
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
While God is marching on.
He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave,
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
Our God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby assateague » Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:29 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
assateague wrote:Really? They fought the Soviets basically to a standstill for almost 8 years before we gave them Stinger missiles. I am not twisting anything. Massoud withstood attack after attack after attack on the Panshjir Valley, and eventually the Soviets left that area alone. They could not beat him. Hekmatyar made them look foolish from Jalalabad to Kandahar. The Soviets were not winning, nor were they anywhere close to winning. Even the Politburo was looking for ways to draw down and yet save face. Unfortunately for Gorbachev, he did it a little too fast for anyone's liking.

I haven't twisted anything. I don't pretend to tell you anything about engineering. You're in my wheelhouse, now.

I know that and that is why I ask. I don't believe I told you anything and if something nuclear related didn't make sense to you I would hope you would ask, if interested.

I think (I am using these words very intentionally and never used I know) there are two things that are relevant.

1. The Soviet Union did not have nearly the economic resources many people thought. Their economy was terrible, so they had little excess resource to fight. It's not about size, but about excess capacity. They had a lot less as would be shown soon than most people realized. However, I believe if the second were true, they would have prevailed. It was Star Wars and the race to massively stockpile weapons that broke them. Afghanistan helped, but I believe was secondary.

2. The population was not committed to this. Unlike the Germans invading their neighbors or the spread of the British Empire, I don't think there was the commitment and determinate to win, even if for nothing more than the pride of your country. This is why we did not prevail in Vietnam, maybe poorly written here, but this lack of commitment or whatever the right wording.



That was actually for Vincent, not you. Sorry about the confusion.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby assateague » Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:45 am

vincentpa wrote:
assateague wrote:Really? They fought the Soviets basically to a standstill for almost 8 years before we gave them Stinger missiles. I am not twisting anything. Massoud withstood attack after attack after attack on the Panshjir Valley, and eventually the Soviets left that area alone. They could not beat him. Hekmatyar made them look foolish from Jalalabad to Kandahar. The Soviets were not winning, nor were they anywhere close to winning. Even the Politburo was looking for ways to draw down and yet save face. Unfortunately for Gorbachev, he did it a little too fast for anyone's liking.

I haven't twisted anything. I don't pretend to tell you anything about engineering. You're in my wheelhouse, now.


I know more about this conflict than I am letting on. We started to supply the hajjis when regan assumed office. We didn't give them missles until later. The claim you made about the weaponry was off. But hey, we're in your wheelhouse, right. Unfortunately, the fact that we supplied the Hajjis through Pakistan is directly linked to my post that stated there needed to be a benefactor if the rebels couldn't supply themselves. Whoops.



No, we didn't. We started giving them money, and buying surplus arms from third parties (mostly through Egypt) to be delivered to them through the ISI. Nor were the weapons distributed equitably, or where they would do the most good. The Pakistanis gave the arms to whomever they chose, primarily Hekmatyar and Haqqani (who would later found the Haqqani Network, a huge pain in the ass Islmaic terrorist group), because they were more "muslim" than any others, but were far from the best fighters. A large portion of the mujahideen commanders fighting the war fought for at LEAST 8 years with nothing aside from what they could scrounge. Stingers didn't get there until 1987 at the earliest, 8 years after the war started.

And it wasn't really us. The Saudis matched our official government contributions dollar for dollar when it came to buying arms, but their informal system of donations was more like a 3 to 1 ratio on top of that. All this went into buying surplus arms and supplies as well. So they actually did far, far more than we did.

But again, you never said "support" or "benefactor". What you said was that because the South had a manpower and industrial disadvantage, that they were destined to lose. This assertion was proven wrong in the Revolutionary War, The Vietnam War, and Afghanistan, among others. We won the Revolutionary War because of France, lost the Vietnam War because of the Soviet Union, and the mujahideen won because of us. America in 1776 could not touch England's manufacturing capacity nor their manpower draw from across their empire, nor could North Vietnam come close to our industrial capacity or manpower in 1968. If you think the mujahideen had the capacity to make anything other than goatskin canteens, you're nuts, and they had nowhere near the manpower of the Soviet Union, particularly with their forced conscription.

So no, manpower and industry are not the determining factors as you claim. And had Lee won at Gettysburg and marched on Baltimore, destroying the Army of the Potomac, do you really think that then, according to realpolitik, England or France would not have thrown support Richmond's way? Please.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby vincentpa » Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:04 pm

assateague wrote:
No, we didn't. We started giving them money, and buying surplus arms from third parties (mostly through Egypt) to be delivered to them through the ISI. Nor were the weapons distributed equitably, or where they would do the most good. The Pakistanis gave the arms to whomever they chose, primarily Hekmatyar and Haqqani (who would later found the Haqqani Network, a huge pain in the ass Islmaic terrorist group), because they were more "muslim" than any others, but were far from the best fighters. A large portion of the mujahideen commanders fighting the war fought for at LEAST 8 years with nothing aside from what they could scrounge. Stingers didn't get there until 1987 at the earliest, 8 years after the war started.

And it wasn't really us. The Saudis matched our official government contributions dollar for dollar when it came to buying arms, but their informal system of donations was more like a 3 to 1 ratio on top of that. All this went into buying surplus arms and supplies as well. So they actually did far, far more than we did.


I'm glad you admitted the hajjis were being supplied by the Pakis, the Saudis and the US.

assateague wrote:But again, you never said "support" or "benefactor". What you said was that because the South had a manpower and industrial disadvantage, that they were destined to lose. This assertion was proven wrong in the Revolutionary War, The Vietnam War, and Afghanistan, among others. We won the Revolutionary War because of France, lost the Vietnam War because of the Soviet Union, and the mujahideen won because of us. America in 1776 could not touch England's manufacturing capacity nor their manpower draw from across their empire, nor could North Vietnam come close to our industrial capacity or manpower in 1968. If you think the mujahideen had the capacity to make anything other than goatskin canteens, you're nuts, and they had nowhere near the manpower of the Soviet Union, particularly with their forced conscription.


I know it's unseemly but let me quote myself from a post on page three:

vincentpa wrote: Industrial strength and manpower were indeed necessary to win a war in that era. You need weapons and ammunition to fight a war. The south was low on both. Were they to fight with bows and arrows, spears, maybe atlatls when the powder and ball ran out? You need an economy to fund a war. The South's was collapsing. Without the ability to fund a war and supply an army, an outside benefactor is needed. None could be found, for good reason.


By the way, the Soviets supplied the North Vietnamese with weapons and training; the French and Dutch supplied the US during the Revolution with loans, weapons, navy and soldiers; and as you stated above the Saudis, the Pakis and the US supplied the Hajjis in Afghanistan.

assateague wrote:So no, manpower and industry are not the determining factors as you claim. And had Lee won at Gettysburg and marched on Baltimore, destroying the Army of the Potomac, do you really think that then, according to realpolitik, England or France would not have thrown support Richmond's way? Please.

Your conclusion is incorrect. Every example you have given supports my position, not yours. Every point you've made throughout this exchange has been easily countered. You tend to cherry pick your way through an argument. Go back and read my posts. The answer to your last question is in them. I don't feel the need to restate them.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby boney fingers » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:03 pm

Ive often wondered if Lee and Jackson were that brilliant or were some of the Northern generals (Burnside and McClellan come to mind) just that bad?
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby assateague » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:03 pm

The Northern generals were just that bad.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:26 pm

WTN10 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Spinner......It's a Family Thang
What does that mean? If you had family running Auschwitz would it be close to you? That's the part I don't get. It wouldn't make you or your family any different. It's like the silly statements about Obama not being authentic because he doesn't have slave blood. Or the royal bloodline. Or whatever a family thang is.


I would imagine someone with family in Auschwitz would feel a certain closeness with it.

My family has been in the South since the 1700's or earlier. I have Confederate soldiers on both sides of my family and list Nathan Bedford Forrest as an ancestor. Confederate Park is 300 yards away from me as I sit. Shiloh is a couple hours drive from me. BDD2 is a history-loving dude, so I can understand his affinity for it. In the South, we are surrounded by memorials to Confederate soldiers and battles. We still feel the effects of Reconstruction (Mississippi still hasn't recovered). Racial tension still exists in areas. And many people still take pride in the fact that we told the Federal government to go screw itself. Had England or France provided support, and if we hadn't of lost Stonewall, I'd probably be in a different country right now. People hold Stonewall and Lee in very high regard, really as the last of a gentile class of man that no longer exists.

A noteworthy accomplishment since reconstruction has finally been achieved in Louisiana. We now have a top notch Rum distillery back in production. All the distilleries were burned to the ground during the civil war and prohibition was the last nail in the coffin, the industry never recovered....until now. :thumbsup:
google Bayou Rum.... :beer:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 54621
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby boney fingers » Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:46 am

assateague wrote:The Northern generals were just that bad.


Ive come up with the theory that Lee was emboldened by the incompetence of leadership in prior engagements and became reckless. Its the only reasonable explanation I can find for an otherwise smart general to make such a huge blunder. So in a weird twist, Burnside and McClellan actually had some responsibility for the victory at Gettysburg.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby vincentpa » Fri Jul 05, 2013 5:50 am

boney fingers wrote:
assateague wrote:The Northern generals were just that bad.


Ive come up with the theory that Lee was emboldened by the incompetence of leadership in prior engagements and became reckless. Its the only reasonable explanation I can find for an otherwise smart general to make such a huge blunder. So in a weird twist, Burnside and McClellan actually had some responsibility for the victory at Gettysburg.



The entire invasion of the North was a huge gamble. Lee had to gamble like that. He understood that although they were winning battles, the South was losing the war. If the South fought a few more battles like Antietem, the army of Northern VA would be shattered from losses they could not replace. The generals from the North were bad but they had good ones. Lee knew this. He knew the North would eventually find the right ones, spelling certain defeat for the South. Time was not on the side of the South. And that is exactly how things turned out.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby assateague » Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:33 am

vincentpa wrote:
boney fingers wrote:
assateague wrote:The Northern generals were just that bad.


Ive come up with the theory that Lee was emboldened by the incompetence of leadership in prior engagements and became reckless. Its the only reasonable explanation I can find for an otherwise smart general to make such a huge blunder. So in a weird twist, Burnside and McClellan actually had some responsibility for the victory at Gettysburg.



The entire invasion of the North was a huge gamble. Lee had to gamble like that. He understood that although they were winning battles, the South was losing the war. If the South fought a few more battles like Antietem, the army of Northern VA would be shattered from losses they could not replace. The generals from the North were bad but they had good ones. Lee knew this. He knew the North would eventually find the right ones, spelling certain defeat for the South. Time was not on the side of the South. And that is exactly how things turned out.



I don't know if he was concerned with the prospect of better generals coming to be in charge in the Union army, but he was definitely aware that a war of attrition was not something that the South could ever win. As far as Gettysburg goes, everything I've read makes it appear as if he just wanted to "get on with it", and let the chips fall where they may. Which is a piss poor way to conduct a battle. But he really did seem to be "weary" of waiting for the large confrontation that everyone knew was coming somewhere.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby boney fingers » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:51 pm

A few pics from this weekend

Image

This is my southern sympathizer son acting as color bearer for the kids battle

Image

Image

Image

Image

We had a great time; it was well organized and was rich in history.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:11 pm

vincentpa wrote:Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His day is marching on.
I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Since God is marching on.
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
While God is marching on.
He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave,
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
Our God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.

Did you write that VP? That's pretty good! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 9810
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: On the X and 7 guests