Sadr runs & hides like the ***** he is!

[Gunny]

My views are states should have the right to secede from the Union and the south was partly justified in it's behavior at the time but anyway.

States do NOT have the right to secede. At the time, nothing precluded a state from leaving the union as voluntarily as it joined.

Lincoln was not a good prez, a good prez would have avoided the war to begin with and not committed a genocide of his own country men.

Lincoln being elected President was the final catalyst that led to secession. He could not have avoided war without letting the CSA go its own way. Lincoln's conviction was that the Union had to be preserved at all cost. That is where the rubber meets the road and you either consider the Constitution a suicide pact, or you suspend parts of it temporarily in order to achieve the greater good ... the continued existence of those ideals emobdied within the Constitution.

[manu1959]

My views are states should have the right to secede from the Union and the south was partly justified in it's behavior at the time but anyway.

Lincoln was not a good prez, a good prez would have avoided the war to begin with and not committed a genocide of his own country men.

your view is yours.....as for lincoln....i can lay the exact same accusation at the feet of jefferson davis.....and as my ancesteral home is in Murfreesboro don't jump to conclusions....

[Gunny]

your view is yours.....as for lincoln....i can lay the exact same accusation at the feet of jefferson davis.....and as my ancesteral home is in Murfreesboro don't jump to conclusions....

Jefferson Davis was an exceptionally poor President. Part of the problem with the Confederacy was his problem of political favoritism; especially, where his generals in the field were concerned.

[manu1959]

You think? Then why is it your political POV is a DIRECT result of his taking the Democrat party to the far left, if you think he wasn't a good President?

this one always kills me......the far left and carter are cause and effect incarnate.....and they always deny...

[Grumplestillskin]

Actually, your "boy" Jimmy Carter should have dealt with Iran.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[manu1959]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

yes it is .... it is the foundation of the democrat's arguments on everything at the moment....

[Gunny]

this one always kills me......the far left and carter are cause and effect incarnate.....and they always deny...

Well, as this young 'un points out, he wasn't even alive when Carter was President. I got the same sorta response out of Jillian awhile back.

They don't even know why they stand for what they do, nor why their party is where it is on the political spectrum.

I was a tried and true, born and raised Southern Democrat until Carter yanked the rug out from under our feet and left room only for the flower children, pacifist do-gooders living in their own little utopian world that had nothign to do with reality.

The Iran Hostage Crisis was a harsh slap upside the head for that bunch.

[Gunny]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It isn't hindsight on my part. I'd be willing to bet there is STILL a phone record of my calling the White House and, asking to speak to the President (that didn't happen) and demanding to know what the Hell he was going to do about the hostages.

And I enlsited in the Marines under the presumption war with Iran was inevitable and I was willing to put my money where my mouth was.

So "hindsight" doesn't apply in my case.

[Grumplestillskin]

yes it is .... it is the foundation of the democrat's arguments on everything at the moment....

Au contraire. I find it the other way around. In fact, when I post about certain things that I stated pre Iraq war, conservatives accuse me of Monday morning quarterbacking. It is only so if things were stated after they happened. Stating something before it happens, and then it happens, is not quarterbacking. It's predicting - accurately - what is going to occur. If a schmuck like me in the middle of nowhere can see what's going to happen in a certain situation, how come highly educated people in the US defense department - and the neocon shills like Wolfowitz - couldn't see it? Question is a bit facetious and rhetorical. I think they could see it, didn't give anybody the downside, because it didn't fit their agenda. After all, most of the cabel were chickenhawks...

[manu1959]

Au contraire. I find it the other way around. In fact, when I post about certain things that I stated pre Iraq war, conservatives accuse me of Monday morning quarterbacking. It is only so if things were stated after they happened. Stating something before it happens, and then it happens, is not quarterbacking. It's predicting - accurately - what is going to occur. If a schmuck like me in the middle of nowhere can see what's going to happen in a certain situation, how come highly educated people in the US defense department - and the neocon shills like Wolfowitz - couldn't see it? Question is a bit facecious and rhetorical. I think they could see it, didn't give anybody the downside, because it didn't fit their agenda. After all, most of the cabel were chickenhawks...

give me a break....the whole WMD argument is a hindsight argument....and the basis for all yall saying the war was a mistake....

[Grumplestillskin]

It isn't hindsight on my part. I'd be willing to bet there is STILL a phone record of my calling the White House and, asking to speak to the President (that didn't happen) and demanding to know what the Hell he was going to do about the hostages.

He tried to do something about hte hostages, remember. The debacle in the desert...

[Grumplestillskin]

give me a break....the whole WMD argument is a hindsight argument....and the basis for all yall saying the war was a mistake....

Nope, In fact, if a particular messageboard was still open I'd show you posts I made about how the intel was at best faulty, and his ability to manufacture, distribute and launch WMD's. Nothing hindsight about it...

[manu1959]

He tried to do something about hte hostages, remember. The debacle in the desert...

he didn't send enough troops............

[manu1959]

Nope, In fact, if a particular messageboard was still open I'd show you posts I made about how the intel was at best faulty, and his ability to manufacture, distribute and launch WMD's. Nothing hindsight about it...

i am please to hear that you would not have invaded iraq....good for you.

i too would not have....but for far different reasons.

however, the intel was represented to the pres, the hose and the senate.... by George Tenant, as a "slam dunk".... and was backed up by other contries intel and the senate and house both voted to "go to war"... and when they say, if i knew then what i know now i would not have been for the war before i was against it....is hindsight.

[Gunny]

Au contraire. I find it the other way around. In fact, when I post about certain things that I stated pre Iraq war, conservatives accuse me of Monday morning quarterbacking. It is only so if things were stated after they happened. Stating something before it happens, and then it happens, is not quarterbacking. It's predicting - accurately - what is going to occur. If a schmuck like me in the middle of nowhere can see what's going to happen in a certain situation, how come highly educated people in the US defense department - and the neocon shills like Wolfowitz - couldn't see it? Question is a bit facetious and rhetorical. I think they could see it, didn't give anybody the downside, because it didn't fit their agenda. After all, most of the cabel were chickenhawks...

The DoD did predict what was going to happen. The problem is when you interject politics and try to fight a PC war based on appeasing world opinion. If it was purely a matter of strategy and tactics from a military standpoint, we wouldn't be having this discussion, we'd be discussing what to do with our 51st state.

And you lefties are as much to blame for the attempts at appeasement as any Republican politician. If it wasn't for your caterwalling, the job would be a lot easier.