Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Core Imposter]

Hardly a conservative though.

Over 55,000 soldiers died in captivity in the Civil War. We have no room to lecture other countries about war crimes.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Hardly a conservative though.

Lincoln's father moved from Kentucky to Illinois, iirc, because he didn't want to economically compete with slave owners, who he felt were unfairly advantaged, and tended to push small farmers outta the cash crop market, towards subsistence farming.

I'm not sure how well he fits into the sorta socially liberal/conservative split that's dominated American politics since the 60s. Lincoln was born into an anti-slavery tradition that probably existed as long as slavery itself did. Pretty deep roots. In a sense, he was representing the historical values he was born into.

 

[JollyRoger]

Lincoln was a Republican when it was the woke thing to be

 

[Angst]

Over 55,000 soldiers died in captivity in the Civil War. We have no room to lecture other countries about war crimes.

wait what, you were serious?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Over 55,000 soldiers died in captivity in the Civil War. We have no room to lecture other countries about war crimes.

Of those 13,000 died at Andersonville (GA)

[wiki]During the war, 45,000 prisoners were received at Andersonville prison; of these nearly 13,000 died.[19] The nature and causes of the deaths are a source of controversy among historians. Some contend that the deaths resulted from Confederate policy and were war crimes against Union prisoners, while others state that they resulted from disease promoted by severe overcrowding; the widespread food shortage in the Confederate States; the prison officials' incompetence; and the breakdown of the prisoner exchange system, caused by the Confederacy's refusal to include black Union troops in the exchanges. The stockade became severely overcrowded.[20]

During the war, disease was the primary cause of death in both armies. Infectious disease was a chronic problem, due to poor sanitation in regular as well as prison camps.[/wiki]

The further one goes back in time, the more of what we call war crimes today were committed.


Definition and conceptual development

The term war crime has been difficult to define with precision, and its usage has evolved constantly, particularly since the end of World War I. The first systematic attempt to define a broad range of war crimes was the Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field—also known as the “Lieber Code” after its main author, Francis Lieber—which was issued by U.S. Pres. Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War and distributed among Union military personnel in 1863. For example, the Lieber Code held that it was a “serious breach of the law of war to force the subjects of the enemy into service for the victorious government” and prohibited “wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country,” including rape, maiming, and murder, all of which carried the penalty of death. More recently, definitions of war crimes have been codified in international statutes, such as those creating the International Criminal Court and the war crimes tribunals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, for use in international war crimes tribunals. In contrast to earlier definitions, modern definitions are more expansive and criminalize certain behaviours committed by civilians as well as by military personnel.

War crime | History, Examples, & International Rules

War crime, in international law, a serious violation of the laws and customs of war. The term war crime has been difficult to define with precision, and its usage has evolved constantly, particularly since the end of World War I. Learn more about war crimes in this article.

www.britannica.com

 

[Voidwalkin]

That's pretty accurate, not a century, but it's been a while. It is not my position that the EU should pay for US protection, rather, pay for your own defense. You are going to need it. And hopefully you lot will not sign up to fight China over Taiwon, a fight we can't win and might lead to a catastrophe.

I'm bored enough to give commentary on an interesting post.

First, I think you're incorrect we would lose to China. I think we would leave their ships on the seafloor. Our submarine advantage would largely neuter their ability to supply any landing. In the air, we'd take losses, but they likely wouldn't be able to ever establish air supremacy anywhere for long.

Historically, post WW2, our lack of success is basically down to failures of political leadership, not military capability. We are set up to dominate exactly this sort of war.

We just don't have what it takes to be truly hegemonic, and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.

To win a war you have to be willing to do what Bibi is doing, or Putin. And even Bibi will likely come up short. To win a war you have to be willing to do all of those things that are defined as war crimes. War is a criminal thing. Even to do the necessary, like getting rid of Bin Laden and ISIS, you have to be ruthless. If it's in our nature to do that, it has become harder to summon.

So, for any unaware, Robert McNamara was amongst the primary architects of Vietnam War strategy. He wagered that with enough carnage, they'd deem the price to high. He lost his bet. They never really considered withdrawal. It's not that they had no breaking point. Everyone does. We just weren't anywhere close to it, even after causing 1 million casualties. Instead, we lost the will to wage the war. He misread America and its willingness to fight a war never unambiguously in the national interest. Simultaneously, he misread Vietnam.

This link between politics and strategy has been casually discussed ever since. It's a very American thing to do. The Euros don't go "so um, how much havoc should we realistically expect to wreak, how much can we, how much should we?". At least, not anymore.

Very likely that is why the body politic summoned a , man like Trump. We are rank with the stench of 'weakness and so the beasts come to feed, both inside and out.

Well, it's one of them. Trump has no lane without a breakdown in faith of the political class.

Interesting is the reaction to your post. This link between strategy and politics is a pretty commonly discussed thing. Not every day, but it'll come up now and again. For this, despite openly stating you don't believe American softness to be bad, in comes a hero to compare the right to Nazis. How brave. Jesus Christ.

 

[Cutlass]

Over 55,000 soldiers died in captivity in the Civil War. We have no room to lecture other countries about war crimes.

Mostly killed by the Confederacy...

Lincoln's father moved from Kentucky to Illinois, iirc, because he didn't want to economically compete with slave owners, who he felt were unfairly advantaged, and tended to push small farmers outta the cash crop market, towards subsistence farming.

I'm not sure how well he fits into the sorta socially liberal/conservative split that's dominated American politics since the 60s. Lincoln was born into an anti-slavery tradition that probably existed as long as slavery itself did. Pretty deep roots. In a sense, he was representing the historical values he was born into.

But he was also representing a breaking from tradition, not the conservation of it.

 

[Lexicus]

Mostly killed by the Confederacy...

The numbers given by Google are about 30,000 Union POWs dying in captivity, and about 26,000 Confederate POWs dying in captivity. However, the total number of Union soldiers in captivity was about 211,000 while the Union held over 460,000 Confederates.

That being said, POW deaths in the Civil War weren't a matter of policy (which, IIRC, would have been a war crime even then) but simply due to lack of adequate facilities to feed & house them. The death rates for POWs held by the Confederacy were high because the CSA could barely feed its own civilians and troops in the field.

For this, despite openly stating you don't believe American softness to be bad, in comes a hero to compare the right to Nazis. How brave. Jesus Christ.

I'm old enough to remember the hooting and cheering from the live audience at the 2015 GOP primary debate as the candidates vied with each other to promise the most war crimes.

Edit: also "compare the right to Nazis" is an interesting framing given that the Nazis were right-wing and thus are part of "the right"

I'm not sure how well he fits into the sorta socially liberal/conservative split that's dominated American politics since the 60s. Lincoln was born into an anti-slavery tradition that probably existed as long as slavery itself did. Pretty deep roots. In a sense, he was representing the historical values he was born into.

Hey fellas, is it conservative to use the military to steal the largest capital asset in a country from its owners at gunpoint? Real headscratcher here

 

[Voidwalkin]

I'm old enough to remember the hooting and cheering from the live audience at the 2015 GOP primary debate as the candidates vied with each other to promise the most war crimes.

You cheapen the impact of the word Nazi by minmaxing for rhetorical effect.

Hey fellas, is it conservative to use the military to steal the largest capital asset in a country from its owners at gunpoint? Real headscratcher here

You say this, probably fully aware Lincoln was an inheritor of a strain of thought favoring the interests of small land holders that stretches back to feudal England, if not the Angeln peninsula, which was always present in America and never looked fondly on slavery.

 

[Lexicus]

You cheapen the impact of the word Nazi by minmaxing for rhetorical effect.

No, you just don't fully comprehend the depth of evil of the polity you live in. You also probably see the Nazis as cartoon villains, existing outside of and apart from history.

You say this, probably fully aware Lincoln was an inheritor of a strain of thought favoring the interests of small land holders that stretches back to feudal England, if not the Angeln peninsula, which was always present in America and never looked fondly on slavery.

This is something you literally made up

 

[Cutlass]

You cheapen the impact of the word Nazi by minmaxing for rhetorical effect.

You cheapen the impact of the word Nazi by claiming it can't possibly apply to people who would be more at home in Nazi Germany than they are in 21st century America.

 

[choxorn]

Over 55,000 soldiers died in captivity in the Civil War. We have no room to lecture other countries about war crimes.

wow it's almost like medical science wasn't very advanced in the 1860's and people died of disease during war a lot more

 

[Core Imposter]

At the Silver Bulletin the numbers show that Trump gained in every swing state but Georgia over the last week. Still, Harris gained in every state but Michigan over the last month. That appears to show a peaking of Harris but everything will probably go sideways after the debate.

One thing Silver did say was that if Harris's popularity goes back down to what it has been historically that Harris would probably lose. Buy I don't see that happening due to the lack of time, the "not Trump factor" and heck, time is shorter than short, the debate is the 10th, and Pennsylvania starts voting the week after that.

Real chance there will be another knockout in the debate and if there is expect no more.

 

[Voidwalkin]

No, you just don't fully comprehend the depth of evil of the polity you live in. You also probably see the Nazis as cartoon villains, existing outside of and apart from history.

No. To stick with the Civil War, let's look at Sherman, in Georgia, and postwar.

His Georgia campaign was harsh. Civilian casualties were actually notably light, for the time, though. I conclude he was often essentially acting in a way that frequently produced war crimes(whether these actions sped up Confederate surrender, possibly ethically justifying them by ultimately reducing carnage, is a long debate I'm sidestepping to be briefer)

Now, let's compare to his postwar career. In a letter to Grant, he wrote, "we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children".

One is just harsh action. The latter is fairly clearly a different stance altogether. This distinction is critical, and you often sidestep it like it's some casual ****. It's absurd.

This is something you literally made up

Yes. Definitely no uprisings driven by peasant revolts, no famous common law cases, nothin'.

AlThOuGh, im not following one of my usual protocols here. I've noticed when you abandon grammar, like no use of the period here, that you're usually snarking. Generally, I ignore these, as they're almost always of much lower quality than some of your other posts, which I often find at least thought provoking if sometimes inaccurate.

You cheapen the impact of the word Nazi by claiming it can't possibly apply to people who would be more at home in Nazi Germany than they are in 21st century America.

Would you compare right wingers to Nazis because one said America doesn't, and shouldn't, have the will to inflict massive civilian casualties?

That's absurd.

 

[Lexicus]

I conclude he was often essentially acting in a way that frequently produced war crimes

wrong

One is just harsh action. The latter is fairly clearly a different stance altogether. This distinction is critical, and you often sidestep it like it's some casual horsehocky. It's absurd.

What is the other piece of the analogy here? To take an example rather more relevant to the question of whether & how the current GOP resembles the Nazis, do you think Trump pardoning Eddie Gallagher is like Sherman's Georgia campaign, or do you think it's like Sherman saying the Sioux deserve extermination?

Yes. Definitely no uprisings driven by peasant revolts, no famous common law cases, nothin'.

LOL. I have to admit, attributing the free soil movement to the racial character of the noble anglo-saxon is a good bit

Would you compare right wingers to Nazis because one said America doesn't, and shouldn't, have the will to inflict massive civilian casualties?

What I said was "American conservatives," not right-wingers, and I compared them to Nazis because, among other reasons:

• they vote for a guy who openly says he wants to be a dictator and pardoned murderous war criminals and who is openly racist and created a concentration camp system for immigrants unprecedented in US history
• they are openly trying to exterminate trans people just like the actual card-carrying uniform-wearing Nazis did
• they are openly using the police to attack their political opponents
• they support and facilitate genocide abroad and support the genocides the US has committed in its history
• many display and defend the symbols of a proto-Nazi state, the Confederacy, that violently betrayed the American republic and enslaved & displayed eliminationist tendencies toward those it regarded as racial inferiors
• they tried to violently overthrow the republic in 2021 to install the aforementioned guy who wants to be a dictator as dictator. again, tens of millions of Americans are going to vote for this guy again
• they want to defund the defense of Ukraine, a country under violent attack by fellow fascists
• they are using state power to politicize and control universities
• they are banning books and other speech

 

[Voidwalkin]

wrong

This is just bias. You'd happily call Roswell a war crime if it happened to side you had more sympathy for.

Sympathy, not universal principle, is what drives you.

What is the other piece of the analogy here? To take an example rather more relevant to the question of whether & how the current GOP resembles the Nazis, do you think Trump pardoning Eddie Gallagher

Closer to the latter. You coulda picked this. But ya didn't. You just took an opinion that harsh measures are probably necessary to win against guerilla tactics, pretty standard take post Vietnam, and claim it is evidence American conservatives are Nazis, totally ignoring that it was stated American unwillingness to employ mass violence isn't a bad thing. Given that you're making a very strong statement, you should probably cross your T's first.

What I said was "American conservatives," not right-wingers, and I compared them to Nazis because, among other reasons:

• they vote for a guy who openly says he wants to be a dictator and pardoned murderous war criminals and who is openly racist and created a concentration camp system for immigrants unprecedented in US history
• they are openly trying to exterminate trans people just like the actual card-carrying uniform-wearing Nazis did
• they are openly using the police to attack their political opponents
• they support and facilitate genocide abroad and support the genocides the US has committed in its history
• many display and defend the symbols of a proto-Nazi state, the Confederacy, that violently betrayed the American republic and enslaved & displayed eliminationist tendencies toward those it regarded as racial inferiors
• they tried to violently overthrow the republic in 2021 to install the aforementioned guy who wants to be a dictator as dictator. again, tens of millions of Americans are going to vote for this guy again
• they want to defund the defense of Ukraine, a country under violent attack by fellow fascists
• they are using state power to politicize and control universities
• they are banning books and other speech

You definitely should've picked any of these before deciding to instead take something grossly out of context, wildly claiming it evidences a very severe characterization, while actually only giving evidence that you're mistake prone at best, and dishonest at worst. You wrote all that knowing we are discussing something far more particular, btw.

LOL. I have to admit, attributing the free soil movement to the racial character of the noble anglo-saxon is a good bit

Truly, it is wild to suggest the Jeffersonian romanticization of yeoman has deep cultural roots that manifest in myriad ways. Suggesting the class tension between yeomen and gentry that drove the WV VA split was part of a far older clash of interests that influenced numerous generations and individuals? It is fitting to describe such a view as being indicative of a bizarre supremacist leaning in language Madison Grant woulda loved, because any who'd suggest it are members of the secret Cecil Rhodes society of imperialists bent on world domination. Or somethin.

I'd happily acknowledge this same class happily became the engine of Bacon's Rebellion, in which they used violence to demand the colonial government exterminate Native Americans in Virginia, Bacon himself using terms as explicit as Sherman. Wouldn't matter, would it?

 

[Arakhor]

If we're going to talk about American war crimes, the Trail of Tears jumps to mind. That can't even be blamed on British-American settlers or on "dubious actions in a time of war", where the only prevarication seems to be whether it was genocide or 'just' ethnic cleansing.

 

[Samson]

whether it was genocide or 'just' ethnic cleansing

I thought these words are understood to be pretty synonymous these days.

 

[Arakhor]

I'd agree. Arguing about it tend to make you look bad either way.

 

[Lexicus]

This is just bias. You'd happily call Roswell a war crime if it happened to side you had more sympathy for.

The Union committed actual war crimes against the Confederates at times. What happened to Roswell just isn't one of them.

Closer to the latter. You coulda picked this. But ya didn't. You just took an opinion that harsh measures are probably necessary to win against guerilla tactics, pretty standard take post Vietnam, and claim it is evidence American conservatives are Nazis, totally ignoring that it was stated American unwillingness to employ mass violence isn't a bad thing. Given that you're making a very strong statement, you should probably cross your T's first.

You definitely should've picked any of these before deciding to instead take something grossly out of context, wildly claiming it evidences a very severe characterization, while actually only giving evidence that you're mistake prone at best, and dishonest at worst. You wrote all that knowing we are discussing something far more particular, btw.

Core Imposter's posts exist in the context of all in which they live and all that came before them.

It is fitting to describe such a view as being indicative of a bizarre supremacist leaning in language Madison Grant woulda loved, because any who'd suggest it are members of the secret Cecil Rhodes society of imperialists bent on world domination. Or somethin.

Oh my god
Thatsthejoke.jpg