Abraham Lincoln vs Bahir Assad. Who Is Bloodier?

So Lincoln was ahead of his time by being politically correct with his no discrimination policy

 

A problem Republicans have is how many people call themselves conservatives HATE the USA. They hate USA history. Blame the USA for anything they can dream up, like you blaming the USA for the attack on Pearl Harbor.


Such so-called conservatives won't vote for the Republican candidate whoever it is. No candidate is perfect enough. So they vote 3rd party or not at all.

Your messages are those of an angry white man, the typical Ron Paul supporter.

 

Wow this is the best laugh Ive had in quite sometime. We love the USA we just dont like what Obama and you liberals are doing to it. We love history and its libs who blame the US as being bad like invading other countries

Yes we did provoke war were not perfect either. We have done good and bad things. We vote third party because republicans in too many cases have failed to be conservatives but lib lite. You should thank your lucky stars we do that or stay home or Obama would not be there. Even so i voted republican for the 1st time since Reagan for Romney

 

I 100% agree. I do not agree with you that anyone or any state can just withdraw from the United States and make their own nation. Nor is that tenable. City-state collectives that lack federal collectivism are military conquered. Confederations ceased being viable many centuries ago militarily. That is how the Mongols could overrun much of the world - and why the Romans could too - even if overwhelming outnumbered.

Candidly, I think nearly all powers should be with the states. Virtually all criminals, civil laws, regulations. There are exceptions. Most notable the military. The environment in many ways as on state can't stop another state sending their pollutants into their state by air and water. Water rights, so one state can't take all the water before it reaches the next state etc. The federal government, from courts to Congress to the President have grabbed powers specifically assured to the states. Sedition is not an assured right and the Declaration of Independent isn't the constitution.

But that Texas or Alaska can decide to leave the union? Absolutely not and for many reasons. However, the horrific realities and mass scale of slavery certainly prominently factored in and without it there would have been no sedition and no war. The assassination of Lincoln was a huge tragedy as he proactively wanted no punitive actions against the South - and after his assassination that is what happened.

Sherman's March To The Sea had huge ethical problems, but the alternative was never ending war - basically the North chasing the Southern armies endlessly. It does take breaking the infrastructure and forcing defenders to defend everything. A defending army can't flee if it has to defend their cities and civilians.

If you study the Indian wars (which more were mini-attacks) the #1 tactic of the US Army was to attack the village/town and use the women, children and old people as hostages, deliberately abusing them to force the warriors/soldiers of the Native Americans to surrender. If instead they attacked, the US Army would use the women, children and old people literally as human shields (you never read this in history books but such orders and tactics were often outright written out.) Beyond anything of the Civil War, attrocities were committed against Native American civilians, particularly the women and children, to force the Native Americans to not fight at all. Even then, often all men of fighting age were all just slaughtered anyway even if not fighting or surrendered.

The history books do not tell of the genocidal acts of Custer prior to the Battle of Little Bighorn - a battle that Custer left no option but the Native Americans to atypically unite as Custer had 2 years earlier ordered a surprise charge against a peaceful Native American tribe for which had never fought, signed every treaty, was exactly where told to me and a chief urging other Native Americans to not fight. He had ever man, woman and child in the village shot or bayoneted. It wasn't a battle. It was charging in and kllling everyone for the goal of killing everyone. He was truly genocidal to be genocidal. Custer was in the doghouse, needed to be able to give the newspapers a victory, and needed to force Native Americans to fight so he could kill them and win battles. His written tactic before the Little Bighorn battle specifically was to attack villages to cease the women, children and old folks, thus handicapping the warriors off hunting upon their return.

I only raise this because in the scope of the history of wars including for the USA, Sherman and the North were particularly gentle. They burned cities, crops and houses. Likely isolated violations. But no mass scale ordered attrocities against the person of the civilians. No orders to kill all the women and children, No mass rape of entire towns and cities. No killing all men of fighting age. No "take no prisoners" orders. No "make an example" randomly picking people for execution. And in that era and throughout history, those were the tactics of total war. The North didn't do it. Lincoln wanted the war to end so turned to forcing Southern armies to stand and fight. But it was to win the war, not to slaughter Southerners.

 

As outright false as is possible.

 

I thought you said they should follow the constitution. Can you show me where it says until death or war do we part?

Once the South left Lincoln wanted war that is undeniable

 

Explain again how the USA was responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor and WWII by "provoking" Japan in your "love of the USA." Why don't you go on to join in explaining how the USA "provoked" the attack on 911 and "provoked" terrorism against the USA. There is a point where the far left and far right are exactly the same people - just picking different examples to reach the same (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)-American conclusion.

Explain your logic? I block your driveway, contact your boss and get you fired somehow, and throw trash in your hard. In your logic I have now provoked you for which you may justifiable murder me and my family? That is your logic of economic sanctions and blockades against Japan means the USA is responsible for Pearl Harbor, a mass military attack. Just forget about Japan's genocidal invasions across large tracts of the world. That was not "provoking" of sanctions. Just like mass slavery and wanting to avoid democracy ending it and attacking a US military base wasn't "provoking." In fact, it was an act of war. An act of war IS war.

Otherwise you do make my point in your comments about voting 3rd party. You make yourself irrelevant, so there is no reason for anyone to campaign for your vote as to try to get it the candidate must be offensive and unacceptable to a majority of voters. Likely it was only after Romney had moved so far to the right and Palin even more where they would lose that they earned your vote. Inherently, you will only vote for losers.

 

A pointless slogan as it isn't in the Constitution. But OK:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
. . .
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof...

I could continue to quote "United States."

That declared purpose and then construction is for "UNITED States." Hate that as much as you wish, but that was the deal, that was the agreement and that IS the Constitution. The South declaring it was not going to pay taxes, not going to comply with the laws of the UNITED States and federal government, and in all other ways was NOT going to follow the UNITED States Constitution was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Not following the Constitution is the definition of unconstitutional.

YOU NOW QUOTE anywhere there is any reference to the right to sedition or any state government to violate all the provisions and powers of "The UNITED States." You can't, can you? Just a slogan you made up about marriages. Americans had no "right" to break from England, rather it turned out to have the power to do so. The South didn't. Claiming some justice of the South doing so? Given their motive it was the most evil of all possible motives the South had. Literally, not a more possibly evil motive. Slavery.

 

Try this out for size

I will remind you I was a Marine from 1968 to 1972 and I volunteered so dont my patriotism or love of country

You can be sure that I will vote Republican again next year no matter who it is. They are all heads above anything on the left. We cant take another 4 years of this BS. Besides i live in NY it matters not who i vote for for president the dem will win here.

 

But we more differ than that. I am glad there was the Civil War. If not, economics may have eventually - after more millions of black victims - evolved along the next medieval evolution, where blacks because the inferior race serfs, for which there no longer any need to even feed them. MAYBE, by now, it would have evolved to only the discriminations of the 1920s, after 50,000,000 more black victims. Simply put, I'm am glad the South was CRUSHED. The social order of the South, the entire concept of economics of the South, the extreme racism to the point of slavery, has to be smashed.

And Lincoln later came to realize - only latter - the greater question of justice, faulting the North, not just the South, for slavery and horrific bigotry, his view that this was a horrible history of unthinkable evil that it could only be purged by "blood."

Unfortunately, Lincoln was assassinated, so the North sent carpet baggers and the South restructured racism to share cropping and a mass collection of racist laws still defining blacks as an inferior species. It was not the Civil War that was the tragedy about Lincoln, it was his assassination. You explore history, the South was nearly as outraged over it as the North was.

Lincoln could have been calling massive war crimes trials, mass executions, the North seizing everything, turning Southern whites essentially into slaves and seizing all their property. Could have banned them all Confederates and officials from ever voting, ever holding any office, seized all their property and any other restrictions and punishment he wanted. But he announced the exact opposite. Even Jefferson Davis was only imprisoned for a short time and ultimately given a full pardon. THAT is how vicious the North was - as in NOT. FEW victors ever have been so forgiving and pursuing (again) unification on equal grounds in world history.

 

I will give you one thing. In the end Lincoln discovered god and changed dramatically. The worst thing that could have happened to the South was his assassination. Its also rumored that the bank of England was really behind his death as well as Kennedys as both wanted to print their own money

I guess we can officially call you a war monger now

 

Great. Hope you stick to that. Unfortunately, most states are so partisan one way or the other than usually only a few states have any relevancy at all. Being in Florida I'm in the 2nd most important state in national elections. You are correct. Unfortunately for president you are irrelevant (and that is wrong). This state, Ohio and maybe 3 or 4 others will be who picks the president.

At this point, the ONLY Republican I absolutely would not vote for is Bush. Otherwise, you and I will be casting the same vote unless something extreme happens along the way.

 

Thats the only one that would give me pause. Enough Bushs already

 

The South wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes as an Independent nation. The British would take it over in a year and then take the Union if they interfered. Many Brits wondered why they didn't take their colonies back, as slavery gave them a perfect excuse, but abolitionism usually headed the idea off. The Brits were the first naked imperialists, but they generally needed at least an ostensible moral justification

 

Maybe so maybe no

 

You go on believing Lincoln = Assad = Mao = Hitler = Stalin = Pol Pot = Idi Amin.

 

They all made war on the innocent, the non combatant.

For the same, lame reason too.

 

You cannot compare Abraham Lincoln with Assad.

There is nothing in common between the two.

AboveAlpha

 

The civil war was never about slavery. In fact the day the 14th amendment was signed blacks just transferred from one master to another. To be subject to an authority means you are property to be told what to do. I'm sorry but the propaganda from the past will not survive here in the future. Now every American citizen (subject) is property. With the master being uncle Sam. If you think you are not property call the police and tell them you are going to kill yourself. If you were a free individual they could do nothing but I think you know what is going to happen if you make that call. They are going to show up and secure uncle Sam's property. If you think you own anything think again. Subjects can not own anything just like slaves. Don't believe me??? Start destroying your perceived property and make sure you inform the police of what you are about to do, they will be there with in 20 minutes (depending on your location) to arrest you for destruction of property. It's your property! How could they charge you for a criminal crime? Answer: it's not really your property! Your children can be taken away for any given reason just like slaves. Don't pay your slave tax.. because buy all means you are a free man living in a free country. They will take all of your perceived property and move you to a more restricted location.

 

Sided with Hitler... 65 years later after an event that also may have affected WWI... now that's speculation.

Well it's mostly moot since Lincoln did not continue to war against the south over slavery. But I'm saying that the South weighed the North down. The North not being weighed down and allowing a greater degree of equality would have provided a counterexample to racism that would have changed the South over time, as opposed to slavery being officially abolished but segregation preventing a demonstration of equality so that Black people continued to be treated poorly, just not officially enslaved. It also becomes easier over time since industrialism and automation would make the intensive manual labor required for their industry that made slavery so attractive obsolete.

 

Yes, yes ...... and the U.S. committed war crimes by bombing German and Japanese cities. I suppose we should have just boycotted German and Japanese products instead of going to war with them.

Delusional liberals are funny.

 

If they had won the war guess who would have been facing war crime tribunals History once more is written by the winners. Thats why Abe seems so great to many

 

They both make war on civilians for the cause of holding their nation together.

 

Also Lincoln is responsible for far more deaths and all of them Americans

 

Or recognize like Assad, America did a bad thing for a cause.
Assad, like Lincoln's cause is to hold a nation together as one nation.

Unlike the situation in Lincoln's War; a break-up, a loss of an authoritarian strong man in Arabia results in lots and lots of blood as different groups fight for mafia like control. Iraq. Libya. Egypt. etc.

Like Crack Cocaine and White Man's Cocaine - the same crime deserves the same time,
even if the vernacular is diff.


Moi
Recovered Liberal
If any Liberal can truly be termed, "recovered"


r > g
self evident

View attachment 37957 ​