Re: [TSCM-L] {2810} Re: Definition of Honor

From: <d..._at_geer.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:52:05 -0400

> Dude, with all due respect o the military personnel because they are just d=
> oing their job, "serve and protect"? Serve who and protect who from whom? I=
> m a little confused. Do you mind clarifying? Protect the American public fr=
> om the Iraqi public? Incase you failed grade 10 Geography, Iraq is pretty f=
> ar away from the US and lacks the resources to conduct any sort of war agai=
> nst the US. And incase you're unintelligent, let me lay it out in simple te=
> rms; You go to war when your country is threatened. No one is attacking you=
> . So why is America at war? Your President has ruined your economy just so =
> he could fill his pockets with oil in the name of 'Weapons of Mass Destruct=
> ion' - which I hope you already know was a LIE. A blatant, baseless, white =
> LIE. You really think a War based on a false pretense could have been in an=
> y way in good faith? And is it really that hard to believe the Government w=
> as behind 9/11? Wake up dude. Serve and protect who? No ones docking battle=
> ships off the coast of Miami my unintelligent American friend.=20



It is about here that I remind you all that the
US Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, and
thus ask you if you have lately demanded that history
books be rewrit so as to tell the truth, or, if
symbology is what matters to you, if the stars
and bars ought not be restored to the flags of
several of these united-by-force states?

If you're not kidding about standing on principle,
then you may be assured that neither am I.

--dan

==========

The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is,
further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of
slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty. Finally,
even if justice is on the side of the North, does it not remain a
vain endeavour to want to subjugate eight million Anglo-Saxons by
force! Would not separation of the South release the North from
all connection with Negro slavery and ensure for it, with its twenty
million inhabitants and its vast territory, a higher, hitherto
scarcely dreamt-of, development? Accordingly, must not the North
welcome secession as a happy event, instead of wanting to overrule
it by a bloody and futile civil war?
        -- Karl Marx, Die Presse No. 293, October 25, 1861

The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous
oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few
poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached
it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is
poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it.
Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply
this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed
their lives to the cause of self-determination -- that government
of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish
from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue.
The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-
determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right
of their people to govern themselves.
        -- H.L. Mencken, Note on the Gettysburg Address
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:15 CST