"...but they cannot long prevent the progress of a movement sanctified by its justice and sustained by a virtuous people."
How is breaking off from the UNITED States a manifestation of justice? Did the average Joe Southern have a voice in making that decision? Were slave owners virtuous people? Yes, I know, different time, different values, and looking back, we see that the Northern states were exploiting the South, but that is a completely different 55-gallon drum of worms...let me close it now.
Damn, I was gonna guess Lincoln during the Civil War. Oh well, Rose knows her Confederates. ;)
Tim, do you really want to argue the legality of a group of peoples choosing their own governmental form? Or do you just want to make comments and then "close" the lid to prevent opposing ideas?
do you really want to argue the legality of a group of peoples choosing their own governmental form?
I hear that.
But, shoot, I live in Louisiana (where there are streets and parishes named after Jefferson Davis) and I don't know of anyone who wants to seriously argue the practical outcome of a war that was fought over 140 years ago?
d-p-u:
...in Canada, the question of [secession] pops up over Quebec seperation. Generally, it's illegal.
As it is the US. That's what the war decided.
After all, the slavery issue was most definitely NOT why the Southern states seceeded. Lincoln strove mightily to keep the issue of slavery off the table in the years leading up to the war and even during the first half of the conflict itself, despite strong urging from selected members of his own Cabinet.
He was quite adamant about that saying,
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
"What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
His later issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation should be judged in that context.
The slavery issue was exactly why the Southern states seceeded. They knew Lincoln was an abolitionist from an abolitionist party, and viewed all his protestations to the contrary as mere temporizations on the way to future abolition.
It doesn't matter what Lincoln strove mightily to do in the years leading up to the war. The Southerners were right. He was an abolitionist. And he believed his plans to limit the spread of slavery would eventually lead to its abolishment. The southern slave owners agreed that limiting the spread of slavery would eventually lead to its abolishment.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Fine Wince. You go right ahead and take that stance as long as you never again challenge anyone who claims Operation Iraqi Liberation Freedom was all about Oil.
I thought you were the State's rights fanatic. You know better. Try using an emoticon next time, because you must be funnin'.
His later issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation should be judged in that context.
Here's a good trivia question, "How many slaves did the Emancipation Proclamation actually free?"
Answer, by a weird coincidence, it's exactly the same number as the number of planes the US Air Force shot down in WWII.
None, nada, zip, zilch.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves in the Confederacy and not those in Union states, like Maryland. The Confederacy wasn't really intested in implementing Lincoln's proclamations as they were at war.
And yes, Operation Iraqi Freedom was at least partially about oil. Not to steal it, but to ensure that we had access to it and to keep a warmongering, WMD using, country invading maniac (Saddam not Bush) from controlling too much of it.
If the Middle East didn't have oil they would basically be a bunch of stone-age tribes killing each other with no means of attacking anybody else. There would be no reason for us to care about them. Think "Africa". As long as African genocidal leaders can only kill their own people the rest of the world doesn't really care. The M-E has oil, the sweet, sweet oil that the world needs so their genocidal maniacs get attention.
Mike, what you say in your last paragraph is true. But I would like to go on record as believing that we should care about Africa. I hope that Darfur doesn't end up being Bush's Rwanda. But your point is taken that the more globally dangerous maniacs tend to reap the lion's share of attention and resources.
If the Middle East didn't have oil they would basically be a bunch of stone-age tribes killing each other with no means of attacking anybody else.
If the Middle East didn't have oil, they might basically be a number of ethnic groups and nations at peace. As that region of the world has given us math, medicine, physics, chemistry, philosophy, the alphabet and numeric systm, I'm not sure why they'd be referred to as "stone-age".
But I would like to go on record as believing that we should care about Africa. I agree. The problem is that most of the world disagrees and is actively stopping people from doing anything about it. Like in the Sudan where you have the rulers trying to kill any non-Arabs, whether black Muslims in Darfur or black Christians and pagans in the south. And nobody is doing anything at all. See also, Rwanda.
If the Middle East didn't have oil, they might basically be a number of ethnic groups and nations at peace. As that region of the world has given us math, medicine, physics, chemistry, philosophy, the alphabet and numeric systm, Hundreds of years ago and they weren't Arabs, they were centered in Turkey.
I'm not sure why they'd be referred to as "stone-age". What do they produce? Oil and? Who works on the oil fields?
Read some history of the area from before 1900 (when oil started becoming so important). It was basically a bunch of tribes, many of them nomadic, killing each other and anybody who happened by. Any guns they had were stolen or bought (with stolen goods). Most of their edged weapons were stolen or bought (with stolen goods), they weren't produced by the nomadic tribes living there.
They did do a lively slave trade for some currency and goods, much as today.
They did do a lot of trading, but quite often they were slave traders, not just traders in normal goods.
Don't conflate "Muslim" with "Arab". Much of what the Islamo-fascist types believe is Arabic in nature and not Islamic. Hell, read the Romans talking about Arabs, they treated their women just about exactly the same as today. Much of what they believe was probably believed by Mohamed, but he didn't write that stuff down, it was just the way it was. So Muslims from the Ottoman Empire weren't bound to act that way.
Hundreds of years ago and they weren't Arabs, they were centered in Turkey.
Who was? al-Khwarizmi? No, he was Persian, and lived in Baghdad. Omar Khayyam? Nope, Persian. Avicenna? Nope, Persian again. Al-Jazari? Nope, Iraq again. Al-Razi? Persian.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Mike whined:
Read some history of the area from before 1900 (when oil started becoming so important). It was basically a bunch of tribes, many of them nomadic, killing each other and anybody who happened by.
That's just because they weren't reporting the "good news" from the Middle East....
I understood an Arab to be someone who primarily spoke Arabic. It's similar to referring to an Australian or American as "English." Of course we do have the term "Anglo" to cover that. We need new terminology. [Sorry ++UG, Kanucks are still just Kanucks until you figure out what to do with Montreal] ;^)
Islamo-fascist doesn't come close. Too inflamatory, too ambiguous. Equating Islam with fascist political/economic models is a non sequitur and wholly inaccurate historically.
It's just name-calling and an indication that you aren't trying to achieve either better understanding of how to deal with the situation or making a serious effort to pursuade those with differing approaches that you have any of the answers.
It's a slur, no more productive than any other racial or ethinic epithet -- but if it makes ya feel better, go for it.
Sorry ++UG, Kanucks are still just Kanucks until you figure out what to do with Montreal
The official terms are "anglophone" and "francophone" up here in the Great White North, depending on one's mother tongue. Residents of Ottawa, who change languages halfway through a sentence without anyone noticing, are called civil servants.
Who was? al-Khwarizmi? No, he was Persian, and lived in Baghdad. Omar Khayyam? Nope, Persian. Avicenna? Nope, Persian again. Al-Jazari? Nope, Iraq again. Al-Razi? Persian. Proving my point, they weren't Arabs.
I was responding to this from you: If the Middle East didn't have oil they would basically be a bunch of stone-age tribes killing each other with no means of attacking anybody else.
Where did you equate "the Middle East" with "Arabs"?
My guess is Jefferson Davis because the wording is very Civil War sounding and I know it can't be Lincoln.
My thoughts on how this is relevant in a follow-up post. (though I'm sure it's not hard to guess)
How is breaking off from the UNITED States a manifestation of justice? Did the average Joe Southern have a voice in making that decision? Were slave owners virtuous people? Yes, I know, different time, different values, and looking back, we see that the Northern states were exploiting the South, but that is a completely different 55-gallon drum of worms...let me close it now.
Tim, do you really want to argue the legality of a group of peoples choosing their own governmental form? Or do you just want to make comments and then "close" the lid to prevent opposing ideas?
Intersting, in that in Canada, the question of that exact legality pops up over Quebec seperation.
Generally, it's illegal.
do you really want to argue the legality of a group of peoples choosing their own governmental form?
I hear that.
But, shoot, I live in Louisiana (where there are streets and parishes named after Jefferson Davis) and I don't know of anyone who wants to seriously argue the practical outcome of a war that was fought over 140 years ago?
d-p-u:
...in Canada, the question of [secession] pops up over Quebec seperation. Generally, it's illegal.
As it is the US. That's what the war decided.
After all, the slavery issue was most definitely NOT why the Southern states seceeded. Lincoln strove mightily to keep the issue of slavery off the table in the years leading up to the war and even during the first half of the conflict itself, despite strong urging from selected members of his own Cabinet.
He was quite adamant about that saying, His later issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation should be judged in that context.
It doesn't matter what Lincoln strove mightily to do in the years leading up to the war. The Southerners were right. He was an abolitionist. And he believed his plans to limit the spread of slavery would eventually lead to its abolishment. The southern slave owners agreed that limiting the spread of slavery would eventually lead to its abolishment.
It was all about slavery.
Yours,
Wince
LiberationFreedom was all about Oil.I thought you were the State's rights fanatic. You know better. Try using an emoticon next time, because you must be funnin'.
Here's a good trivia question, "How many slaves did the Emancipation Proclamation actually free?"
Answer, by a weird coincidence, it's exactly the same number as the number of planes the US Air Force shot down in WWII.
None, nada, zip, zilch.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves in the Confederacy and not those in Union states, like Maryland. The Confederacy wasn't really intested in implementing Lincoln's proclamations as they were at war.
And yes, Operation Iraqi Freedom was at least partially about oil. Not to steal it, but to ensure that we had access to it and to keep a warmongering, WMD using, country invading maniac (Saddam not Bush) from controlling too much of it.
If the Middle East didn't have oil they would basically be a bunch of stone-age tribes killing each other with no means of attacking anybody else. There would be no reason for us to care about them. Think "Africa". As long as African genocidal leaders can only kill their own people the rest of the world doesn't really care. The M-E has oil, the sweet, sweet oil that the world needs so their genocidal maniacs get attention.
If the Middle East didn't have oil, they might basically be a number of ethnic groups and nations at peace. As that region of the world has given us math, medicine, physics, chemistry, philosophy, the alphabet and numeric systm, I'm not sure why they'd be referred to as "stone-age".
I agree. The problem is that most of the world disagrees and is actively stopping people from doing anything about it. Like in the Sudan where you have the rulers trying to kill any non-Arabs, whether black Muslims in Darfur or black Christians and pagans in the south. And nobody is doing anything at all. See also, Rwanda.
If the Middle East didn't have oil, they might basically be a number of ethnic groups and nations at peace. As that region of the world has given us math, medicine, physics, chemistry, philosophy, the alphabet and numeric systm,
Hundreds of years ago and they weren't Arabs, they were centered in Turkey.
I'm not sure why they'd be referred to as "stone-age".
What do they produce? Oil and? Who works on the oil fields?
Read some history of the area from before 1900 (when oil started becoming so important). It was basically a bunch of tribes, many of them nomadic, killing each other and anybody who happened by. Any guns they had were stolen or bought (with stolen goods). Most of their edged weapons were stolen or bought (with stolen goods), they weren't produced by the nomadic tribes living there.
They did do a lively slave trade for some currency and goods, much as today.
They did do a lot of trading, but quite often they were slave traders, not just traders in normal goods.
Don't conflate "Muslim" with "Arab". Much of what the Islamo-fascist types believe is Arabic in nature and not Islamic. Hell, read the Romans talking about Arabs, they treated their women just about exactly the same as today. Much of what they believe was probably believed by Mohamed, but he didn't write that stuff down, it was just the way it was. So Muslims from the Ottoman Empire weren't bound to act that way.
Who was? al-Khwarizmi? No, he was Persian, and lived in Baghdad. Omar Khayyam? Nope, Persian. Avicenna? Nope, Persian again. Al-Jazari? Nope, Iraq again. Al-Razi? Persian.
To whom are you referring to in Turkey?
That's just because they weren't reporting the "good news" from the Middle East....
I understood an Arab to be someone who primarily spoke Arabic. It's similar to referring to an Australian or American as "English." Of course we do have the term "Anglo" to cover that. We need new terminology. [Sorry ++UG, Kanucks are still just Kanucks until you figure out what to do with Montreal] ;^)
Islamo-fascist doesn't come close. Too inflamatory, too ambiguous. Equating Islam with fascist political/economic models is a non sequitur and wholly inaccurate historically.
It's just name-calling and an indication that you aren't trying to achieve either better understanding of how to deal with the situation or making a serious effort to pursuade those with differing approaches that you have any of the answers.
It's a slur, no more productive than any other racial or ethinic epithet -- but if it makes ya feel better, go for it.
The official terms are "anglophone" and "francophone" up here in the Great White North, depending on one's mother tongue. Residents of Ottawa, who change languages halfway through a sentence without anyone noticing, are called civil servants.
Proving my point, they weren't Arabs.
Mike -- You had a point?
I was responding to this from you: If the Middle East didn't have oil they would basically be a bunch of stone-age tribes killing each other with no means of attacking anybody else.
Where did you equate "the Middle East" with "Arabs"?