2008-2-10 03:55:00
Blayne:
"However Ron Paul has said in interviews when asked that question that he would have supported fighting WWII because were attacked, just like he supported going into Afghanistan after Bin Laden."
JJ:
Of course, there is no way to prove it 100 percent but I think he would have been part of the peace movement during World War II as I think he would have blamed it on U.S. meddling somehow. He probably would have accused FDR as initiating the attack on Pearl Harbor through conspiracy.
If Iraq is an illegal war, in your opinion, then Afghanistan should be also as they did not attack us and are a sovereign nation, etc. It appears that Paul went against his own philosophy in voting for that.
Blayne:
"That nation has to have the burning desire for freedom that Patrick Henry and his patriot colleagues had before it (risking life) would be worth it. They now see us as occupiers."
JJ:
Let me repeat. We only obtained independence here because the situation of the colonists allowed for a lot of individual freedom. A country such as North Korea is too suffocated to produce people like Patrick Henry and need help.
Your philosophy is to stand back and do nothing.
Mine is to do all in our power to help as taught by Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
On a smaller level it is like the difference between a person who stands helplessly by watching a woman being raped and not helping because its not his wife, and another who stops the rapist because it's the right thing to do.
Blayne:
"Iraq is more dangerous now then when we went in."
JJ:
I would certainly prefer to live there now than under Saddam Hussein, wouldn't you? Isn't freedom worth a little danger? Under that tyrant you even had to be careful what you said around your own wife and kids for if the wrong word got out you could be imprisoned or tortured -- and I'm talking about real torture.
I the meantime violence is down 60 percent compared to last year. It would be silly to pull out just before we see the fruits of success.
Blayne:
"Telling Iraq we will be out in six months would do more for stabilizing their country then the last several years of hogtied military action there. It would be great incentive for them to get it together."
JJ:
It didn't work in Vietnam. We withdrew and over two million deaths followed.
I'm sure we could do more to spur them to action but in setting a deadline we are also telling the enemies that all they have to do is wait six months and then mount a major offensive. I am hoping that things progress enough there that we could start a major withdrawal with a new president without destroying the progress made.
Blayne:
"To put it in perspective we have to look at it in terms of how we would feel if China over threw our government saying they had a better way and stationed troops in country, parked naval ships off our coast, aircraft streaking across our skies, and started building bases and an embassy the size of the Vatican, etc. we would fight and see them as invaders."
JJ:
That would be fine with me if the Chinese were overthrowing a tyrant and were paving the way for greater freedom.
Blayne:
"By the way we are building bases in Iraq and an embassy the size of the Vatican and borrowing more money to do it. There are no plans to leave there anytime soon. McCain said he wants troops there another hundred years."
JJ:
I think we should withdraw all but a small base of advisors when stability is achieved.
Blayne:
"The only reason things have been a bit more stable recently is not because of the so called surge but because the Sunnis Saddams former troops turned on Al-Quaeda and took back there neighborhoods, And Al Sadr in Baghdad has done similar, and Kurds have since we have been there."
JJ:
And they are making this change for no reason? Of course not. The reason is the support they get from the U.S. and the realization that we are not the enemy. There is now much more cooperation with U.S. troops than before. You really seem bent on not giving any credit to the efforts of our own country.
Blayne quoting JJ:
"If the South wanted to secede to live in harmlessness Lincoln may have been wrong. Instead the South wanted to enslave their fellow men and make sure this right to slavery continued. Sure there is the doctrine of states rights, but no state has the right to enslave its people."
Blayne then writes:
"So its ok to kill millions to preserve freedom, but not ok allow slavery for little longer to preserve the constitution, which illustrates that freedom?"
JJ:
They were NOT preserving the Constitution, the main purpose of which is the protection of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The Constitution was a mockery for the South when over a third of their people had no liberty, no ability to pursue happiness and not even a right to, life if they left the plantation. The main states rights that concerned them was the right to own slaves.
Blayne:
"Once again your assuming Lincoln's motive was to abolish slavery even though the evidence and Lincoln's own words contradict that notion."
JJ:
There's no assumption need here. Lincoln expressed a desire many times in support of freedom for all humans and freedom for the slaves was even part of the Republican platform in 1864.
Here's a dialog between Lincoln and one of his closest friends, Judge Gillespie, in the days before the inauguration:
"'Gillespie,' said he, 'I would willingly take out of my life a period in years equal to the two months which intervene between now and my inauguration to take the oath of office now.' 'Why?' I asked. 'Because every hour adds to the difficulties I am called upon to meet, and the present administration does nothing to check the tendency toward dissolution. I, who have been called to meet this awful responsibility, am compelled to remain here, doing nothing to avert it or lessen its force when it comes to me.'
"I said that the condition of which he spoke was such as had never risen before, and that it might lead to the amendment of such an obvious defect in the federal Constitution.
" 'It is not of myself I complain,' he said, with more bitterness than I have ever heard him speak, before, or after. 'But every day adds to the difficulty of the situation, and makes the outlook more gloomy. Secession is being fostered rather than repressed, and if the [secession] doctrine meets with a general acceptance in the border states, it will be a great blow to the government.'
"Our talk then turned upon the possibility of avoiding a war. 'It is only possible,' said Mr. Lincoln, 'upon the consent of this government to the erection of a foreign slave government out of the present slave states....'
"'I see the duty revolving upon me. I have read, upon my knees, the story of Gethsemane, where the Son of God prayed in vain that the cup of bitterness might pass from him. I am in the Garden of Gethsemane now, and my cup of bitterness is full and overflowing....'
"I then told him that as Christ's prayer was not answered and His crucifixion had redeemed the great part of the world from paganism to Christianity, so the sacrifice demanded of him might be a great beneficence. Little did I then think how prophetic were my words to be, or what a great sacrifice he was called upon to make."
(The Life of Abraham Lincoln: Drawn from Original Sources, Vol II by Ida Minerva Tarbell - 1903, pg 200)
The key phrase here is:
"Our talk then turned upon the possibility of avoiding a war. 'It is only possible,' said Mr. Lincoln, 'upon the consent of this government TO THE ERECTION OF A FOREIGN SLAVE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE PRESENT SLAVE STATES.... I see the duty revolving upon me.'"
In his Second Annual Address to Congress in 1862, he said:
"'We know how to save the Union. The world knows we know how to save it. We even here -- hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best hope of earth....'
"'If we do this we shall not only have saved the Union, but we shall have so saved it, as to make, and to keep it forever worthy of the saving.'"
He said here very plainly that to make the union worthy of saving the slaves had to be free.
He also made sure emancipation was in the Republican platform and then executed that desire and did free them. What more evidence do you want? This is historical fact you are arguing with, not my opinion. Those Confederate endorsed Southern supremacy books you're reading aren't doing the job for you.
Blayne quoting JJ:
"The end result was the slaves were freed and this was one of the greatest advances in liberty in human history -- thanks to Abraham Lincoln -- and no thanks to the Confederacy's excuse of States Rights to enslave their brethren."
Blayne the writes:
"So the many other countries that freed slaves around that same time without killing 600,000 of their countrymen don't get any credit? You have a pretty narrow view of history my friend."
JJ:
Perhaps you need to check your own view. The other nations that freed their slaves were in a similar situation to the Northern States that freed their slaves. Emancipation in the North was natural because there were so few slaves and the economy wasn't dependent on them. Even so, England only had about 10,000 slaves and no strict law to dominate them. They were freed there because it was proven that slavery violated the law.
When England freed their slaves only about one in 800 persons was enslaved, In the South over one in three were slaves and draconian laws were in place to sustain Big Brother in making sure it continued.
To say that the Confederate States would drop this money making human machine like England and other nations is comparing apples and oranges. England and France who had basically freed their own handful of slaves wanted it to continue in the Confederate states. So much for their moral superiority.
In the Confederacy over one third of the people were slaves -- over 4 million out of around 9 million people. The South felt that they must hold on to them or their economy would collapse. Not only this but they insisted that the "right" to own slaves be expanded westward and to other nations.
You have absolutely no evidence that slavery would have ended any time soon. If it were on the verge of ending then they would not have seceded to preserve slavery.
My personal belief is that if we had not fought the Civil War that the 1960's would have been about ending slavery rather than civil rights. Please don't say that is just my opinion as this is obvious to all. But it is a well thought out one.
Blayne:
"You might try Tom DiLorenzo's 'The Real Lincoln' for starters. The tariff had been a source of friction for a long time. It almost caused secession several years earlier. It was the real reason for the civil war."
JJ:
If you use logic rather than following the mantras of southern supremacists you could never come to this conclusion.
First, let me point out that many of DiLorenzo statements are not true or slanted, but also look for what he conveniently left out of his book to mislead readers. A couple good articles on this can be found at:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27396
The tariffs were basically tariffs on the exports of the products of slave labor. Without slavery it would not have been an issue. If slavery was not the main factor then non slave states would have seceded also. This observation alone proves my case.
When the secession began the rebel states cited Lincoln's belief in emancipation as their cause for leaving above the tariffs from what I have read. Of course, slavery was not the only issue, but it was the core issue and without it we would not have had the war.
Blayne:
"Lincoln wanted to keep it (the tariff) since it favored the north and left the south at the mercy of the north in many ways. Bipartisan? Hardly, 137 representatives from the north and 87 from the south."
JJ:
Bi-partisan means both Democrats and Republicans cooperated and this is a historical fact you are arguing with. Let me repeat. The tariffs you demonize were spearheaded by a Democratic president and passed by voting from both parties.
It can be argued that they were unfair to the South, but the tariffs some complained of had nothing to do with Lincoln who was not yet president. When Lincoln was elected the seceding states were more concerned with his views on emancipation than they were with his views on tariffs.
Blayne:
"Again there is ample evidence that the US Civil War was not about slavery albeit slavery was used as one of many excuses. It was about hanging on to the lucrative tariffs and taxes and expanding the north while limiting the south based on slavery."
JJ:
If you read some books that give the whole picture rather than books trying to prove the South was right you would not come to this conclusion. Nothing enflamed the South more than the threat of emancipation or curtailing their "right" to own a human being as a piece of property.
"Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson is a good book that doesn't have an agenda. It is very well written and fascinating reading.
Blayne:
"Also of note is the fact that the North was also benefiting from the slave labor as well and as Lincoln said he could care less about slavery his aim was to preserve the union, of course because it was lucrative to the north and his industrialist cronies."
JJ:
You are distorting too many facts and quotes here. Lincoln NEVER, I repeat NEVER said he could care less about slavery.
Blayne quoting JJ:
"The Confederacy also had a draft."
Blayne then writes:
"I never said the draft it was illegal, It doesn't matter what the Court ruled the simple fact is no draft is addressed in the constitution therefore it is left up to the states via the 10th Amendment. Colonial America had no constitution and it was up to the states then also. A federal draft is illegal. The courts ruling is a perfect example of the precedent Lincoln set of reading extra constitutional provisions into the constitution that are not there. What part of the 10th Amendment do they and you not understand?"
JJ:
But you only criticize Lincoln for the draft. The Confederacy, which you seem to think was the epitome of States Rights also had a national draft and executed it April 16, 1862, over a year before Lincoln did. Georgia's governor Joseph Brown warned that he saw the signs of a deep-laid conspiracy on the part of Jefferson Davis to destroy states' rights and individual liberty.
About 25 percent of Confederate soldiers were drafted, but only 3 percent of the Union Army.
If the Confederacy did not start the national draft then Lincoln probably would not have felt the need to follow.
Blayne:
"As Thomas Jefferson wrote, 'let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.'"
JJ:
Tell that to Jefferson Davis who forced Lincoln's hand. Why do you only criticize the lesser of two evils?
Some Constitutional Scholars think a national draft is constitutional and others do not. It is a judgement call that a Constitutional Supreme Court has condoned.
Blayne:
"The government is servant to the people and the people are its master even if the people are wrongly enslaving others."
JJ:
See my other comments on this. So you would approve of yourself being a slave as long as "the people" are abusing you and not the government. By the way the government is people.
Blayne:
"The federal government can only own property in the states with the consent of the sate and the legislature see Article One, Section 8, Clause 17. If the state withdraws its consent then the federal government has no right to property."
JJ:
Sorry. The Constitution does not say the states can have the property back if they secede. There is not even a hint of such thing. The federal government had the approval from South Carolina and after that approval they owned the property and the state had no right to force them to sell or giver it back.
Blayne:
"The first aggression was when Lincoln sent reinforcements showing his hostile intent."
JJ:
It is not an aggression to fortify your own property.
Blayne:
"To further indict Lincoln let it no go unmentioned that he conducted a war without the consent of Congress."
JJ:
His actions were ratified by Congress after the war started.
Lincoln and a lot of the country viewed the handling of an internal rebellion as a different Constitutional matter than war with another nation.
Blayne:
"Where do you get this idea? So the newspapers that were shut down were trying to overthrow the government, and the legislators?"
JJ:
Basically, yes. They were thrown in jail for encouraging sedition and desertion. They were not touched for mere disagreement. You ought to read some of the articles the New York Times wrote about Lincoln and the war as proof of this. Again, the South took similar action.
Blayne:
"But since you bring it up that is another lie Bush told, he said Iraqi oil would pay for the war."
JJ:
Can you give me the quote on this? I have never heard this from his lips -- just from his enemies.
Blayne:
"I remember hearing it live a few times: here is one quote I know there are more but don't have time to find them all:
"'That item is of particular concern to administration officials' postwar planning because they are counting on Iraqi oil revenues to help pay for rebuilding the nation.'"
"Source: David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker, 'Threats and Responses: The Military; War Planners Begin To Speak of War's Risks,' The New York Times, February 18, 2003, final edition, page A1."
JJ:
Wow. To prove your case that Bush said this you quote a New York Times Columnist who hates Bush, but you do not quote Bush. How about trying again and this time give me a quote from Bush.
Blayne:
"Saddam and Ahmadinejad said a lot of things but they did not have power to accomplish it. Iran is a 3rd world country and they have no army, navy or air force to speak of."
JJ:
According to Wikipedia: "As of 2006, the regular Iranian Army was estimated to have 650,000 personnel (530,000 professionals and 120,000 conscripts)."
If you call that 'no army' then you have to say that we have no military in Iraq also.
Blayne:
"And they have no nuclear capabilities and according to our CIA will not for at least ten years."
JJ:
The report was not definite on this and many think they are only a year or two away. There is no way to tell for sure.
Blayne:
"Even if they did they have no delivery system. Israel has 300+ nuclear weapons and could wipe them off the map anytime they want."
JJ:
They are developing a delivery system. Israel has proven they will not use their nukes without good cause, but Ahmadinejad is a nut case who thinks its his destiny to pave the way for the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. He thinks an end of the world scenario must precede this. All he needs is one nuke to lob over to Israel to create chaos and possibly drawn many nations into a conflict. He is willing to be nuked by the whole world to accomplish this. To put our head in the sand and pretend this is no danger is reckless.
Blayne:
"We faced down the Soviet Union without a war when they had 40,000 nukes pointed at us and we're worried about some 3rd world country with no army navy or air force. Sigh indeed! I guess you can't have perpetual war without a perpetual boogeyman."
JJ:
It's not how powerful and enemy is but how dedicated and how far he is willing to go. We were fortunate that the leaders of the Soviet Union wanted to preserve their own lives. On September 11, 2001, 19 men with box cutters created more damage to us than did the powerful Soviet Union. Why? Because they cared not for their own lives and were willing to sacrifice everything for their God.
A leader of an entire nation with this attitude is dangerous indeed and I am glad Bush is keeping a jaundice eye on him. I am concerned about the next president, however. The day may come when this country will wish they had someone like Bush back.
Blayne quoting JJ:
"Did you watch this video before you referenced it. It has nothing about Bush having intent to bomb Iran. Try again."
Blayne:
"Of course I watched the video did you? Did you miss it? He said ALL options are on the table. This is just one of many."
JJ:
That's not what he said. Are you sure you watched it? He said, "There will be serious consequences if they attack our ships. My advice to them is -- don't do it." Why you would find fault with this statement is beyond me. Tell me again. Where did he threaten to bomb Iran?
If you're going to debate me I wish you would be more careful in presenting accurate information. I'm learning I must check all the data you present.
Blayne quoting JJ:
"I would like to see some proof that China has loaned us a trillion dollars for the war. Can you provide a reference?"
Blayne:
"It is well know fact but here is a link showing China for one year in the billions:
" http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
"Another:
" http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2007/0626budgetdeficit_rogoff.aspx
JJ:
We all know that China holds reserve assets but that doesn't mean they have loaned us a trillion dollars for the war. We haven't even spent a trillion on the war yet.
Blayne then related our dire financial situation as if it is about to collapse.
Anyone who has studied our financial situation for the past 50 years has had the living daylights scared out of him. Yes, if a perfect storm arises our situation could be very perilous. If it does not then we'll continue with our ups and downs.
Blayne:
"Our founding fathers predicted quite accurately many of the monetary woes even to this day quite accurately.
"'If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'
"Thomas Jefferson, letter to then Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, 1802"
JJ:
You should be appreciative of Lincoln then because he bypassed the banks and gave the government power to print its own money. Many students believe that the Banks were part of a conspiracy to kill Lincoln because of this.
The issuance of Lincoln's greenbacks were immediately ceased after his death.
Kennedy also created money similar to the greenback and was killed.
There is an interesting article on this at:
http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/pres.htm
Blayne:
"You don't have a clue how bad our money problems are; go watch the video of the Comptroller General and maybe you'll get one. But unfortunately you may soon see how prophetic Jefferson's statement is."
JJ:
And maybe it is you without a clue as to how aware I am. When we first met you thought I didn't have a clue as to how bad Y2K was going to be and we know how that turned out.
Copyright © 2008 by JJ Dewey, All Rights Reserved