MilitaryForums.co.uk

Dude these cats got their education on slavery by watching Roots. "What that be cracking on my back?, whip, whip Fiddler be cracking on my back!"
Sound familiar? Funny thing is, those were probably the self-righteous Yankees in the multi-cultural embracing town of Boston in that flick.

We were fighting to preserve the Constitution, to keep government in its cage. Now we lost the Constitution is just a political decoration, and the government just gets bigger and bigger. Now they look at the books you check out. KGB did this in the 80's and we used to hear that this is why it is good to be American, cause our government can't spy on you.
I got a picture of Lincoln that I spit on everytime I see it. My wife hates it when I do it when the company is over. That communist, athiest, anti-christial queer, shouldn't be on the money, have a statue or anything honoring the man who raised an Army against his own people. Coerce, or force, the Lincoln motto.
Slaves, yeah we are all slaves now. We got Mexicans in the fields instead of blacks, blacks in prison instead of free, whites slaving for the economy, the Indians slaving in casinos and smoke shops, and the Asians slaving in the laundry mats, tailor shops and fast food joints. Yep we is all slaves in some fashon.

nbforrest wrote:I don't understand the snooty attitude. .

Well, daddy, was Little Lord Fauntleroy, after all.

nb,whitey,

My problem, well it's not a problem: more of a difficulty. It's trying to make sense of what you are saying. The focus seems to be on slavery -but it could equally well be on tea vs. coffee; bagels; the colour of the ocean. Whatever it is, surely the proposition should be backed up by facts, evidence, logic and reason.

I am guilty of questioning your lack of common sense. However, I stand by my request for real evidence. The problem here - and it is a problem - you ignore questions or challenges to your argument. Remember my last post where I questioned the inconsistencies in your arguments. nb: slaves should want to die; whitey: we're all slaves and should fight against it. etc.......

I don't think it's 'snooty' to point out the inconsistencies. Maybe you do?

In Saudi I was privileged to work with people of different races, creeds, religions and nationalities. Some I liked; some I didn't: and vice versa. I even worked with Yanks [ meaning Americans]. They came from all over: the Mid-West; others Texas and the other Southern States, etc... (A guy from Arizona - Ted Cline [great guy] was my bridge partner.)

I can't honestly recall anyone expressing anything like the views you do. And, no, I can't believe they were shy. A few of them you wouldn't want to meet at night in a dark alley!

I had big disagreements with them on the lines of: 'Would you give up one of your 5 cars to help someone in the 3rd world." You know what the answer was.

[and that touches on your point nb about 'what's wrong with not considering people outside your own country?' Or maybe even in your own? the Colorado Delta is about to disappear [along with a traditional ancient tribe in Mexico] because the Californians/ Nevadans etc. won't reduce water consumption by 1%. "Not in my backyard, so why should I?" By the way, most of the water is used in agriculture. A lot of it on alfalfa - a high water consumer, of very low value.

Anyway, I digress:
If I was to deviate from a thread into how the Scots/Irish/Welsh or English are communistic, tribalistic, liberal, pinko, etc..... [you get my drift]. I'd have to back up the statements with some sort of evidence.
In fact I reckon the dreaded [but much respected ] moderators would have zapped me long ago. In fact I'm thinking of proposing a title change to 'Tolerators'.

I am scouring our library and the internet to find similar views on your perspective of the political divide in the U.S. Needless to say, it ain't easy. OK, I'll admit it - so far I've failed miserably - but I don't give up easy.

Nevermind. Lincoln a Marxist! It still makes my chuckle. If only he could see the nation he had a large part in forming, which has become the most wealthy, most powerful nation on earth, entirely through the exercise of ruthless Capitalism.

Frank S. wrote: And the reason is Marseilles 1994. I'll expand on that later if need be.

Explain away Frank!
Sis, why moderate you, Whitey and NBF? Inelligent discussion / debate and the swapping of opinions, when kept civil, is encouraged. I don't have a problem with either of you and it does make interesting reading!

Sticky Blue wrote:

Frank S. wrote: Sis, why moderate you, Whitey and NBF? Inelligent discussion / debate and the swapping of opinions, when kept civil, is encouraged.

It's no good, Sticky, you ain't winding me up on this one, you Minx, you.!

Your replies are insulting and down right antagonizing, I see what you're doing, and it is on purpose. You insult and play down the reasons for which our bloodkin fought. Lincoln was our president, not yours, maybe we know what we are talking about? I would never insult indirectly on purpose your Queen, your Marines, or the memory of the soldiers who fought for your country. Slavery was a quaker issue, and no quaker fought for it.
Sisyphus- The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor.
This explains alot. Homer thought Sisy to be the wisest and most prudent. You think of yourself this way? I mean I'm white as an albino so I'm Whitey, Nbforrest is related to the General, and so he is. Snooty? Well I guess you have your answer.

The 3rd world? Iceland and Greenland and even your Island are starved of resources, but you carve out a great living and a decent standard of living. You take Africa, abundant in resources, and land. What happened to them? What is your excuse for them oh great mystic? If I gave up my 5th car would it make a difference? We gave up 400 billion, Africa seems to be the same. My point is since you need it spelled out is, Anglo's and Asians seem to be the only cultures that can take the cards their handed and carve out Empires, make unlivable areas livable and thrive there.

You want to know where people like me and Nbforrest come from? The same kind that stood up against tyrants from Lexington to Gettysburg. We may not always win, but we won't bend for any man. So take that to the Pantheon and smoke it. Philosophers in my opinion are nothing but linguistical cowards. Have you ever fought anywhere for anything? Before you dodge the question rest assured we have. I tried to be a good Marxist Hessian trying to help those 3rd world folks you want me to give a car to.
Guess what? I found out they don't want our help. Just a hand-out.

Sisyphus: Dude, I have answered your questions. I have quoted facts. Facts which when presented you never seem to respond to. I have recommended several pieces of reading material and could recommend many more.

The issue of Lincoln being a Marxist is not so much that he was a card carrying member but the fact that he turned what was supposed to be a limited Federal government with the remainder of the power resting in the hands of the people and the states respectively, into something that would be unrecognizable by the founders of this country. That something is a huge, abusive Federal Beauracracy that answers only to itself. Mr. James Bovard wrote several books outlining this abuse of our Constitution. The first is called "Lost Rights, the Destruction of American Liberty" I recommend you pick up a copy of this and read it to understand our frustration.

The reason you don't meet too many Americans that don't share our views is that you simply haven't meet any like us before. There are secessionist organizations springing up in every State in the South and some Northern ones as well. One is called the League of the South. They have a web site.
A few years ago an SF guy started a newsletter/magazine called the Resister. He was hunted down by the SF leadership, which like most American military upper level leadership is grounded in the politics of political correctness as opposed to the reality of combat. His crime? pointing out on paper what most guys at the operator level that I know in the SF community already know.

To take an opinion of mine and then one of whitey's and combine the two and accuse us of not being rational and inconsistent is ludicrous. We are two different people. We are very good friends and don't always agree on every point. I have explained my position in a previous post, yet in your most recent post, you ignore that and harp on a fabricated inconsistency.

Your last "digression' is another example of your tendency to twist things out of context. You cited my question, posed to you, and did not answer it directly, but twisted it into an example of something happening in this country. Logical? Hardly. But I understand. Your board name, that of a philosopher is revealing. Like most philosophers, you appear to be an intellectual coward, in my opinion, as opposed to a linguistic coward. There is a difference but am sure you will find a way to lump the two together and cause Whitey and I to contradict ourselves. Keep dodging the questions and twisting things and accusing those who have given you answers you refuse to see and somehow imply that we are not quite as smart as you. I live for good conversation, a smoky wood fire and a jug. The snootiness comes in when you simply dismiss as ignorant and unlearned opinions you either do not and will not understand and facts stated which you ignore in favor of another attack on other's intelligence.

Frank: 1994 explain away. Very interested.

Sticky Blue: I will always make every attempt to remain civil as I am an appreciative guest here, but doesn't a man have a right to defend an insult hurled at his intelligence however frail it may be? I have never considered myself a very smart man, ergo, I have spent most of my life taking college courses, after earning a degree in Theology (another story that requires a chilled bottle of whiskey to tell), voluteering for every course the Army would send me to, becoming a registered and practicing Respiratory Therapist, and reading at least two or three books a month on subjects my wife regards as dull as dirt. I have a real problem with people who lack the wisdom to temper great intellect with humility.

Once again, thanks for allowing me to be a part of this forum. [/i]

Same here Sticky, Sisy has insulted my ancestors, and I think on purpose, so if he goes crying to you that I hurt his little feelings please take that into consideration. I'm done talking to a guy who insults my people and their memory and models himself after a King who futily rolled rocks around a hill. This is the type of wordsmithing that PC was born from.

For those of you who cannot figure the fuss, remember, the South was invaded by a group of people who were, at the time of invasion, a foreign power. Your own countrymen upon visiting the United States in the 1800s remarked that indeed the South and North were two separate cultures. Imagine if the French 150 years ago had managed to subdue your nation by waging bloody and total war on your soil, destroy your economy, force you to take loyalty oaths to France, and systematically destroy your culture for 150 years to include rigging the history books, teaching your children it was best you lost.

In the South our few remaining symbols and reminders of the great courage and skill with which our ancestors fought have come under viscous attack in only the past twenty years or so. I remember the Dukes of Hazzard T.V. show with the general lee car with a big rebel flag on the top. It wouldn't even be considered an option a mere twenty years later. Some rollover and take it. For the sake of Captain John Spriggs, CSA, who rode with Mosby's Rangers, was captured and sentenced to hang as a horse thief until R.E. Lee wrote a letter to Grant and secured his release, I will not give in. Instead a great many of us are going on the offensive.

Before this P.C. onslaught, there was a gentleman's agreement between the North and the South. It was generally understood that our symbols, heritage, the much vaunted 'Southern Pride' and our gentle remindeers of such were to be left alone and in exchange for playing the Union game. That agreement has been broken by the Radical Left wing of American politics. We are in a culture war over here. Some of us still value our culture and refuse to surrender. Our anscestors made that mistake once and we will not.

So if you see us blow snot and beat our chests and reach for the well oiled muskets hanging over the mantle, understand, we Southern boys can get along with just about anyone and have no quarrel with any man until he crosses that line of good manners and shows contempt for who and what we are.

Enough said.

Whitey wrote:Your replies are insulting and down right antagonizing, I see what you're doing, and it is on purpose. You insult and play down the reasons for which our bloodkin fought.

Pardon? When have I ever played down the reasons for which your bloodkin fought? I raised questions about you stating such things as slavery was essentially over, etc.... whilst acknowledging that the main cause of the war was the South's desire to secede from the Union.
You know full well, (I assume) that slavery wasn't abolished in North America until the signing of the 13th Amendment of the Constituion in 1865. You also know that the issue wasn't just about the abolition of slavery it was also, crucially, about Emancipation.

You reply with a distortion of the 'truth' [whatever that is] For example, by accusing Lincoln of being a Marxist; then staying silent on the fact that the Nation he had a fairly major part in developing is the major Capitalist nation in the world.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I've never read 'Roots'. (I did read Mandingo by Lance Horner many years ago, though!) However, what I know about slavery came from neither. I was born and bred in Liverpool. Once the second port of the Empire. It has more historically important buildings than any other city in Britain, apart from London. It was once wealthy. It's wealth derived from the fact that it was one 'point' in the triangle of slave trading. Naturally, when I was younger, many schools ran history projects exploring the city's past. The slave trade obviously formed a big part of the project. Plus I read a lot. By the way, a few years ago in the UK there was an excellent documentary on the War. It was, I think, 13 x one hour episodes (maybe someone can correct me?) It was an objective, balanced view from both sides. I guess you might dismiss it as another piece of Yankee propaganda. But the strongly pro-Confederate historian was Sheldon [surname forgotten]. He didn't pull any punches with his views. I remember vividly the pictures of cities levelled by Northern artillery. Every bit as bad as Dresden or Hamburg.

Hurt my feelings, whitey? Sorry, but you don't need to worry: I can debate issues without letting emotion cloud reason or logic. I am quite happy for someone to disagree with me without feeling 'insulted'. If you feel 'antagonized' then I have some sympathy for you. But it's your problem, not mine.

And, no nb, you never answered questions I put to you about what your views really are. If someone want to establish the 'truth' it is not inconsistent nor ludicrous to take statements in an argument and try and find out which has more 'merit'. It's called 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. Let's try one last time. Your words and whitey's:

Whitey: we are all slaves;
A nb: a man should die rather than be a slave;
B whitey: a man should fight against slavery.

(We need to assume whitey's statement is true [it's a whole other debate about whether it is or not - I would argue I'm no man's slave.])

Now only one of you can be right. So which is it? A or B?

If it's A then the only logical conclusion is that the person who subcribes to it should follow their own convictions - or admit it is, perhaps, hyperbole.

If it's B' then the proponent of that view should be fighting. I did ask what you were actually doing about it you never responded. A fair assumption, then is - nothing.

Trading insults? Hardly. You do, though, seem rather sensitive. Anyway, as whitey thinks I'm a 'great mystic' [I accept it as a compliment, not an insult, whitey] - the answer to his question on Africa could be summed up [in modern times] in one phrase - the Third World Debt. Or, in another word: exploitation. Something which whitey, himself, seems to feel is abhorrent in relation to CEOs. It can't, then, be wrong for CEOs to exploit the human race and right for the 'First World' to exploit the 'Third World'.

Okay oh great mythical philosopher you got us rednecks on that one. People like you is the reason we have political correctness. I stand by my claim, Lincoln was an admirer of Marx and even corresponded with him, Lincoln applied some of Marx to his tinkering with America. Slaves for 200+ years toiled about the continent. Why did they not resist, rise up? We rose against Britian over some tax on tea, come over here and send me to Africa and subjugate me to slavery, and you'd just have to kill me, cause I'd fight. Lincoln needed a bloody revolution and an opressed face in true communist fashion to usurp the Constitution.
Africa, loans? We owe more money in the US than anyone. Besides just proves the point, they can't obviously govern themselves, not that I'd want to.
Do I agree with slavery? No, did most Southern troops? No. Look at their letters they fought for their country, to preserve the constitution. You think for a minute that the victors would tell the truth for the war? No, they won't even hardly touch the war that shattered our country and constitution in school, they skip it almost entirely even in college history. The American Empire is based and perched on a faboulous lie, that only needs to be questioned to collapse. In 100 years will history say we fought in Iraq to free the Iraqis? We care less about freedom in this country, we just want something to back the dollar with. The south was to Lincoln what Iraq is to Bush, "Payday".
I would think someone so mystical could see that?

Whitey wrote:We rose against Britian over some tax on tea

Do I agree with slavery? No, did most Southern troops? No. Look at their letters they fought for their country, to preserve the constitution.

So you did, whitey. And the revolt was justifiablel. My North American geography isn't that good but isn't Boston pretty far up North? Which is why I'm so interested [and disappointed] in your 'them and us' attitudes. The world is descending into a morass of self-indulgent consumerism. (Well, the wealthy part at least). We should be striving for a world where men are treated equally, not festering over past wrongs, however awful and unjust.
Looking back is useful to see where we've come from and what makes us who we are. But mankind can only prosper if we focus on the future, not the past.

If Europe adopted a similar stance as you we'd be hammering at Germany's door again (they bombed our chippy, you know. And Kapitan Weissman in U258 sent my grandfather to the bottom of the Atlantic. ) Japan would be sent back to the stone ages.


I don't doubt for a second that the Confederate troops were against slavery. Well, maybe a second. Aren't most Ku Klux Klan members 'normal' working class Southerners? (Should that be weren't? Maybe - but I suspect there are plenty of covert 'cells' still in being).

But as I've said previously, troops of all nations are just cannon fodder for the elite. The Southern 'elite' did support [lived by] slavery. The 'soldiers', especially conscripted ones, just do what the 'elite' tell them to. I seem to recall this view apparently drew the implication that I was a Marxist.

Hang on, just pushin' me rock back up the hill.

The largest body of KKK is found in Ohio. The KKK was a guerilla warefare outfit after the war, then some members attacked negroes, and why? You got me? Nathan Bedford Forrest ordered them to burn their robes and disband after that. Then in the 1920's or around the Ohio folks got the Klan going again with some pinheads help and it became a sort of political lobby. I'm no fan of the Klan, or their counterpart the NAACP(Klan with a tan). The guys in Boston who fought Britian had children who went west and south, that some southern folks come from sure, but the Northern States are power hungry, we and they never really have ever gotten along unless forced too. Slave labor did take place sure, in the North and South, the Constitution as it stood though kept America from playing Empire. States could independently act, support or condemn what they chose. Now we can't. You can't teach and tell the world "We fought the war to usurp the Constitution and to become a financial powerhouse responsible for all the agression towards the western world "can we?
Freeing the black man and making him the perpetual victim and reciever of the dole just meshes in the mind gooder. Savvy?
Slavery in the South would have been gone once the war was over even had we won. Machines could do the work, and slavery was no longer needed. We couldn't orderly free and assimilate or repatriate slaves with a massive war going on at the same time. The Union Army was too big, and growing as our population was killed off, women and children included.
Why did blacks fight freely for the confederacy? The issue was freedom, not slavery. Slavery was over, everyone knew it. It just sounds better to say the war was fought for freeing blacks rather than to consolidate power.
Read up on Lincoln, a book called the Real Lincoln is a good start, and check the articals on League of the South if you need a better explanation. I'm a soldier, not a philosopher.

Whitey wrote:It just sounds better to say the war was fought for freeing blacks rather than to consolidate power.

Great, something we can agree on at last. If, that is, 'consolidate power' is another word for 'preventing the Confederate States from seceding from the Union'.

Which I've said at least twice [maybe 3?] times was the main reason for the War.

What Union? States could do as they pleased before. Heck them Yankee states after 1812 wanted to go there own way, we didn't invade them or threaten to.

They gonna fight again someday, they know it too. That is how come they got this Patriot Act, they ain't scared of Ragheads, they sense the Nascar Dads (White Trash is what they mean) is wising up. The Mexicans here are slowly taking the west and they are irridentinist's. See even in a place where you can buy all kinds of crap, if you can't speak freely, write your thoughts without reprisal, worship your God openly and purely, keep your God given right to bear arms, have lost due process of law or live in a region that has no rights (States Rights) then all the made in china trinkets in the world can't keep you distracted.

Union, Soviet Union, Union means collectivism, and that is what Marx was all about. I careless mostly though. See these Socialists don't know it, but the Constitution has a self destruct mechanism written in, if it is infringed on too much, the founding fathers made it so the whole frame would collapse. So all you got to do is sit back and vote for the idiot.
I just want the Constitution reestablished, the first 10 ammendments, the rest of that crap ammended to it can be found in the Bill of Rights. It is just legacy paragraphs. Lincoln destroyed America. There was a reason he was a failure at everything he did, his presidency is no different.

Robert E. Lee said"Why can't these people just leave us alone?"
My answer it is because"They just can't"

Mind if I ask you a few questions?

1- Whitey/nb what is your point? I can't actually figure out the point of the arguement, nor Sisy's for that matter. are you argueing over wether or not the south was right or the north, or are you argueing as to the definition of slavery and wether or not we're all slaves. What is your central point?

2-Whitey/nd why do you think the US would have been better if the south had won? You say that the "Yankees" were hiding behind slavery, how do you know that the southern leaders weren't hiding behind the constitution in order to gain more power.

3-Whitey, why do you condider us Brits to be slaves, from the tone and what you've said before it seems to be about the issue of "right to bare arms"

4-Whitey, why is it when someone questions your opinions you ask if they're a marxist, communist or socialist?

God given right to bear arms

Why is this a God given right? I don't remember anywere in the bible, koran or anywhere else that's says "and lo god said unto his people, go forth and shoot stuff"

Wasn't it just written into the constitution by politicians so they would be prepared incase another "tyrant" attacked them. Why not campaign for you God given right to kill your neighbour or crap in the street? Both are much more natural than carrying guns.

My point is since you need it spelled out is, Anglo's and Asians seem to be the only cultures that can take the cards their handed and carve out Empires, make unlivable areas livable and thrive there.

You have to remember that those nations have been colonized, enslaved and only recently come out of some very tough times. I mean after Romes colonization of Britain we fell into the dark ages before we managed to get an empire. I say give them a chance before you judge them. On a seperate note why do you not consider yourself racist seeing how you seem to think africans are inferior to your own race and asian races? I don't think your racist, I just think you generalize too much but if you really do believe what you say I can't see how you can claim to be anything but.

your 'them and us' attitudes

I have a problem with this attitude too, it can be very confusing somtimes.