Sherman's March

[anon31651765]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Good post, Irish.

The first thing I thought about was even pre-Iraq: when Bush, after 9/11, had tough words and rhetoric for the enemy and those who would help them (“with us or against us”, and so forth), he was panned and ridiculed by the Left.

What if Bush (or anyone else for that matter) uttered the Shermanesque “war is cruelty” remarks post-9/11? The harshness of those words - however true - would have the bulk of Democratic leadership calling for impeachment and there would protests in the streets of NYC and San Francisco.

And it isn’t just Bush. After Pearl Harbor, someone asked if FDR if he wanted to bring Japan to justice - he is reported to have replied “no, I want to bring Japan to its knees”.

What would modern Democrats make of such rhetoric? They have no stomach for it, and even less spine.

My point was that the martial spirit - the inflexibility, the unwillingness to accept anything other than an unconditional defeat of the enemy (oh no! that sounds too much like moral absolutism!) - is in short supply these days, and our warfighting suffers as a result.
[/quote]

That is more a sign of the times then a sign of the political party though. We all disdain how soft Americans are, be it in regards to physical fitness, mental toughness, or a multitude of other things. Remember the McDonald’s coffee thing, with that cunt spilling it on herself and then suing them? How do you think that would have gone over back in 1864? In a time before the Molly Maguires where workers were working fifteen hour days in the mines, you think she would have been anything but laughed at? Same thing in 1941- after the Depression, how could you take little things like that seriously, when guys who were building NYC skyscrapers were falling off the iron and being replaced by the multitudes of unemployed men (who’s families were starving) before they hit the ground?

Different times man. I don’t think Americans will accept that tenacious or brutal attitude until they have too. Even for this war- we have not “sacrificed” in the way that they had to for the other great wars.

It is, in my opinion, the greatest curse and greatest blessing that MY generation has had it so easy. More kids in college, a smarter population, the internet… and on the other side, never knowing what it is to sacrifice, and never know what it is like to be truly hungry. My generation doesn’t know struggle like every previous one, and it does not know war, depression, oppression, famine, or any of the other things that most of the world has to deal with.

It is my opinion that America will be far weaker in 50 years because of this. As the WWII generation dies out, things go down hill.

Some have suggested that Sherman needed Grant to make sure Sherman didn’t turn the war into an excuse for brutality. I personally disagree. Sherman stated in his letters over and over that his intentions were to uphold the law to preserve the Union and nothing more. He even instructed the mayor that if Atlanta would surrender, he would use his army to give them protection.

Moreover, when Sherman began his march, he was cut off from communications with the rest of the Union forces - he “went dark”. He had essentially no restraint via higher ups. He could have brutalized the South in wanton fashion. But he actually didn’t.

Sherman was harsh, but not a lunatic hell-bent on violence.

Oh, I agree. He was cut off during the march, and he kept his men in line as much as was needed. I’m not saying that he was a psychopath, or that he was hell bent on destruction- as I recall, Kennesaw Mountain had a heavy effect on his psyche, and he never again sent his men head on against Joe Johnston’s army- hence all the manuevering on the way up to Atlanta. It was clear that if he could avoid death, he would.

I don’t think that he would have completely torched the South, and I personally like Sherman. He was no worse than Sheridan in the Valley, and those two men brought the war to an end much quicker than it would have been.

Of course… would I give him a nuclear weapon, especially at the start of the war? Still, not so much. He was smart, and aware of what was going on…but I would still rather have Grant commanding everything than Sherman. You know how the chain of command goes… not every division commander made a good corp commander (Hill or Ewell) and not every Army commander makes a good commander in chief.

[quote]
Back to the point, I suggest that even if we had a war more “just” than the Iraq war (and I still have no problem with the decision, although I am critical of the execution of it), we are hamstrung because that “martial spirit” is not seen as a good thing to have in a character these days - which sucks, of course, because we need it now more than ever.[/quote]

It will come back, but only when we are forced to. Don’t expect it to come back before there is a draft, a massive threat, and a need for all resources to be commandeered to the Army, ala WWII.

I hope.

[anon31651765]

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Sherman wouldn’t get along with a modern democrat.

Something tells me he’d be equally disgusted with modern Republicans…

Way too much lying, spinning and covering of asses going on in modern politics. On all sides.
[/quote]

As I remember, Sherman wasn’t too fond of politicians in his own age as it was. He certainly didn’t want any part of the presidency.

[anon31651765]

[quote]orion wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Never did I say that it wasn’t a cause worth dying for.

There was a famous incident of someone asking a Southerner why he was fighting, and his only answer was, “Cause’ you’re down here.”

Makes sense to me.

But how can that be?

I thought “they” started the war?

Does the wish to be no longer ruled by you equal “starting a war”?

They weren`t fighting to control you. They never started anything. They just left.

And yes, that damn Fort. 150 years should be enough to get rid of the most blatant propaganda.[/quote]

We’ve had this discussion. You can’t just fucking leave.

[Headhunter]

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Sherman wouldn’t get along with a modern democrat.

Something tells me he’d be equally disgusted with modern Republicans…

Way too much lying, spinning and covering of asses going on in modern politics. On all sides.
[/quote]

Truth.

I am so disgusted right now with our leadership (if we want to call it that) that I really fear for the future of this country. None of our leaders, not one, has anything resembling a backbone.

Bush’s approval rating is about 30% and the Dems is about 37%. Most of us are just plain disgusted.

I see a ‘Man on Horseback’, a Fuhrer, in our future. Anyone with a semblance of determination and grit would be welcomed with open arms, especially if we have a major terrorist attack or an economic meltdown. We are truly in desperate straits.

[tGunslinger]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Remember the McDonald’s coffee thing, with that cunt spilling it on herself and then suing them? How do you think that would have gone over back in 1864? In a time before the Molly Maguires where workers were working fifteen hour days in the mines, you think she would have been anything but laughed at? Same thing in 1941- after the Depression, how could you take little things like that seriously, when guys who were building NYC skyscrapers were falling off the iron and being replaced by the multitudes of unemployed men (who’s families were starving) before they hit the ground?[/quote]

[hijack]

The McDonald’s case has been horribly misrepresented in the court of public opinion.

Their coffee was damn near boiling, they received multiple complaints after customers received serious burns, and they did nothing.

It wasn’t until the lady spilled the coffee on her own lap and suffered third degree burns that McDonald’s luck finally out.

Yes, the lady was a moron. But McDonald’s absolutely deserved to get blasted for irresponsibly serving coffee at dangerous temperatures.

Don’t use this case as an example of modern fixation on the petty, or as an example of our court system run amuck.
[/hijack]

[Cortes]

Better sue the gun dealers,too, eh, them things is dangerous. And knives, too, better to start selling dull knives, somebody might cut their finger!

C’mon. It’s freakin coffee. It can only get so hot, and, I believe, it’s supposed to be served that way…

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Remember the McDonald’s coffee thing, with that cunt spilling it on herself and then suing them? How do you think that would have gone over back in 1864? In a time before the Molly Maguires where workers were working fifteen hour days in the mines, you think she would have been anything but laughed at? Same thing in 1941- after the Depression, how could you take little things like that seriously, when guys who were building NYC skyscrapers were falling off the iron and being replaced by the multitudes of unemployed men (who’s families were starving) before they hit the ground?

[hijack]

The McDonald’s case has been horribly misrepresented in the court of public opinion.

Their coffee was damn near boiling, they received multiple complaints after customers received serious burns, and they did nothing.

It wasn’t until the lady spilled the coffee on her own lap and suffered third degree burns that McDonald’s luck finally out.

Yes, the lady was a moron. But McDonald’s absolutely deserved to get blasted for irresponsibly serving coffee at dangerous temperatures.

Don’t use this case as an example of modern fixation on the petty, or as an example of our court system run amuck.
[/hijack][/quote]

[tGunslinger]

[quote]shawninjapan wrote:
Better sue the gun dealers,too, eh, them things is dangerous. And knives, too, better to start selling dull knives, somebody might cut their finger!

C’mon. It’s freakin coffee. It can only get so hot, and, I believe, it’s supposed to be served that way…
[/quote]

I PM’d you so as not to hijack this thread any further.

If anyone else wishes to discuss the McD’s coffee case, feel free to PM me or start another thread.

[Cortes]

All cool. I’m sorry to have continued the hijack. And now I won’t make any more posts about continuing to continue the hijack.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
shawninjapan wrote:
Better sue the gun dealers,too, eh, them things is dangerous. And knives, too, better to start selling dull knives, somebody might cut their finger!

C’mon. It’s freakin coffee. It can only get so hot, and, I believe, it’s supposed to be served that way…

I PM’d you so as not to hijack this thread any further.

If anyone else wishes to discuss the McD’s coffee case, feel free to PM me or start another thread.[/quote]

[TQB]

I think this thread would benefit from another quote from Uncle Cump:

“it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated … that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation.”

[pookie]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
You have a point. He wouldn’t like the modern Republicans who waffle.[/quote]

Waffle? That’s like flip-flopping right?

That’s more ridiculous crap. As if people aren’t allowed to change their minds anymore. If you believe A, but later on new facts and evidence become available that make A a bad position and B a better one, it is not only OK, but intelligent and reasonable to change your mind.

We need people who hold opinions honestly; not the stupid partisan drones who blindly follow party lines, and especially not those idiots, like McCain for instance, who follow the party line long after that line has gone over the cliff.

[quote]Take a peek at this (note we are several months into a new offensive that most think is bearing some fruit).

Breitbart News Network

[/quote]

See? That’s why I call you a clown. Everyone can see that Iraq isn’t working. Violence is as high as ever and apparently increasing. Hell, the parliament is getting bombed. McCain “strolls” down the street with body armor, his own battalion and 300 million worth of air support… yeah, that’s safe.

A surge could probably work; unfortunately, you don’t have close to the number of troops it would really require. You can’t surge in just one or two areas, the insurgents will simply move elsewhere and come back when you move again. If you could close/control the borders and impose martial law for a period sufficiently long for the various political and societal structures to be put in place, it could work.

What you’re doing now? Extending the tours of already exhausted troops; sending back injured and sick troops to meet the numbers, etc. Not a chance. Bearing fruits? Yeah, the only problem is that it’s a giant lemon.

Anyone who’s even a little lucid can see that the administration is simply manoeuvering so that they can blame the opposition when they finally admit what everyone has known for a couple of years now. They’ll say “we tried, but the Dems wouldn’t give us the means to succeed.” It’s all bullshit political maneuvering to be able to blame someone else for their failures. Even when they had the presidency and both Houses, they still couldn’t make any progress.

[pookie]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I see a ‘Man on Horseback’, a Fuhrer, in our future. Anyone with a semblance of determination and grit would be welcomed with open arms, especially if we have a major terrorist attack or an economic meltdown. We are truly in desperate straits.[/quote]

Determination and grit? There’s plenty of that already. Only it’s unwavering determination even when everything tells you you’re wrong and failing. Only idiots stick to a plan passed when the plan has already failed.

We need honesty. People able to admit when they’ve been wrong. Not find someone to blame for having been wrong; taking responsibility for it. We need people who can take decisions that really matter for the people they represent, not for the lobbies and campaign contributors. There is a lot wrong with the current system; a lot of it encourages exactly the kind of rotten government you’re having. Unfortunately for you, for all the idiots involved at the top, it’s in their interest to maintain the status quo, or worse, to grab even more power with even less accountability. Sad times.

[Headhunter]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Even when they had the presidency and both Houses, they still couldn’t make any progress.
[/quote]

We Republicans waited for YEARS to get to that. We thought we’d finally get the Contract and an end to this horseshit. We were betrayed.

Does that reflect upon us? Maybe. We trusted the leadership to actually do what we elected them for. They didn’t.

More the fool us…

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

That is more a sign of the times then a sign of the political party though. We all disdain how soft Americans are, be it in regards to physical fitness, mental toughness, or a multitude of other things.[/quote]

I don’t disagree at all. But I wonder - in this day and age of politics-is-culture, who keep perpetuating this “softness”, especially as it reflects our public policies?

And don’t think I am being overly narrow in my ideological concerns - there are many “conservatives” who fit this type all too well. But I’d be lying to you if I didn’t think the bulk of the softness continues to be perpetuated by what we could generally call the Left in politics. No question.

Remember the McDonald’s coffee thing, with that cunt spilling it on herself and then suing them? How do you think that would have gone over back in 1864? In a time before the Molly Maguires where workers were working fifteen hour days in the mines, you think she would have been anything but laughed at? Same thing in 1941- after the Depression, how could you take little things like that seriously, when guys who were building NYC skyscrapers were falling off the iron and being replaced by the multitudes of unemployed men (who’s families were starving) before they hit the ground?

Agreed.

Different times man. I don’t think Americans will accept that tenacious or brutal attitude until they have too. Even for this war- we have not “sacrificed” in the way that they had to for the other great wars.

Very much different times - I couldn’t agree more. My problem is how to get away from these “different times”, which I don’t like.

It is, in my opinion, the greatest curse and greatest blessing that MY generation has had it so easy. More kids in college, a smarter population, the internet… and on the other side, never knowing what it is to sacrifice, and never know what it is like to be truly hungry. My generation doesn’t know struggle like every previous one, and it does not know war, depression, oppression, famine, or any of the other things that most of the world has to deal with.

I agree with most of this - with a small caveat to being “smarter” via the Internet. Way too many people use the Internet to get half-informed of an issue and then go running around acting like an authority on a topic.

In one sense, the Internet has made us intellectually lazier. Look no further than some of our self-appointed “intellectuals” around here.

That said, I continue to agree with you.

It is my opinion that America will be far weaker in 50 years because of this. As the WWII generation dies out, things go down hill.

Very much so.

Of course… would I give him a nuclear weapon, especially at the start of the war? Still, not so much. He was smart, and aware of what was going on…but I would still rather have Grant commanding everything than Sherman. You know how the chain of command goes… not every division commander made a good corp commander (Hill or Ewell) and not every Army commander makes a good commander in chief.

See, here is where I would differ with you - if we had a modern day Sherman with a nuke, our enemies - well, assuming we have enemies…this soft class of weenies we are talking about doesn’t care for such divisive terms - would know he would use it. That pays dividends in securing peace.

Much like TR’s floating of the Great White Fleet across the world, a modern Sherman would not be mistaken in his unapologetic use of force were the US pushed - and in a world with Irans, Russias, Chinas, North Koreas, Syrias - I’d be happy for them to worry about a modern Sherman.

[quote]It will come back, but only when we are forced to. Don’t expect it to come back before there is a draft, a massive threat, and a need for all resources to be commandeered to the Army, ala WWII.

I hope.[/quote]

Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

[orion]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
orion wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Never did I say that it wasn’t a cause worth dying for.

There was a famous incident of someone asking a Southerner why he was fighting, and his only answer was, “Cause’ you’re down here.”

Makes sense to me.

But how can that be?

I thought “they” started the war?

Does the wish to be no longer ruled by you equal “starting a war”?

They weren`t fighting to control you. They never started anything. They just left.

And yes, that damn Fort. 150 years should be enough to get rid of the most blatant propaganda.

We’ve had this discussion. You can’t just fucking leave.[/quote]

Neither can you.

Obviously one of us is wrong and you do not really believe your arguments were strong enough to have me hiding under a rock.

Try harder.

If this is all you have to offer, your case is weak.

[JeffR]

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
You have a point. He wouldn’t like the modern Republicans who waffle.

Waffle? That’s like flip-flopping right?

That’s more ridiculous crap. As if people aren’t allowed to change their minds anymore. If you believe A, but later on new facts and evidence become available that make A a bad position and B a better one, it is not only OK, but intelligent and reasonable to change your mind.

We need people who hold opinions honestly; not the stupid partisan drones who blindly follow party lines, and especially not those idiots, like McCain for instance, who follow the party line long after that line has gone over the cliff.

Take a peek at this (note we are several months into a new offensive that most think is bearing some fruit).

Breitbart News Network

See? That’s why I call you a clown. Everyone can see that Iraq isn’t working. Violence is as high as ever and apparently increasing. Hell, the parliament is getting bombed. McCain “strolls” down the street with body armor, his own battalion and 300 million worth of air support… yeah, that’s safe.

A surge could probably work; unfortunately, you don’t have close to the number of troops it would really require. You can’t surge in just one or two areas, the insurgents will simply move elsewhere and come back when you move again. If you could close/control the borders and impose martial law for a period sufficiently long for the various political and societal structures to be put in place, it could work.

What you’re doing now? Extending the tours of already exhausted troops; sending back injured and sick troops to meet the numbers, etc. Not a chance. Bearing fruits? Yeah, the only problem is that it’s a giant lemon.

Anyone who’s even a little lucid can see that the administration is simply manoeuvering so that they can blame the opposition when they finally admit what everyone has known for a couple of years now. They’ll say “we tried, but the Dems wouldn’t give us the means to succeed.” It’s all bullshit political maneuvering to be able to blame someone else for their failures. Even when they had the presidency and both Houses, they still couldn’t make any progress.
[/quote]

Hey pookie,

Thanks. I know you are trying. However, what you don’t realize, is that the leader of the Senate stood up yesterday and waved surrender.

This was after threatening to cut off funding to our troops. This was after refusing and then accepting an invitation by W. to talk.

Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me that we Republicans don’t have a right to be angry? Are you really going to sit here and tell me that the enemy isn’t fully aware and supportive of this effort to undermine the effort?

Guys like bradley will come on here and say, “Oh, we poor democrats were manipulated by George Bush (the brillant or ignorant? ((I can’t keep up with liberal dogma)).” Those days are past.

The democrats are directly responsible for both the initial vote and NOW the ongoing effort.

They can’t cower behind W. any longer. When the President of the Senate gives aid to the enemy. When the leader of the House of Representatives LIES and then BREAKS THE LAW by meeting and negotiating with the syrian, asssad, you are DAMN RIGHT the democrats are part of the problem.

Now, you can come on here and armchair quarterback. You can rail against W’s miscalculations.

What you cannot seem to do is realize that George Bush has not only admitted personal errors, he has taken steps to try to rectify them.

Further, you cannot bring yourself to compliment W on his ability TO DO EXACTLY AS YOU JUST SUGGESTED.

Without that ability. Without the ability to be even handed, I’d be very careful who you call “clown.”

JeffR

[pookie]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Thanks. I know you are trying. However, what you don’t realize, is that the leader of the Senate stood up yesterday and waved surrender.[/quote]

After 4 years of Iraqi quagmire? Don’t you think it’s time someone woke up and smelled the coffee?

Robert Gates himself said a few months back that he didn’t think you were winning in Iraq. I’m sure he’s been properly retrained since, like all the other little Bush lapdogs, but quit pretending that everything is honky-dory in Iraq and that the evil Dems are dragging you down.

Quite a few republicans have also spoken out against staying any longer in Iraq.

Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me that we Republicans don’t have a right to be angry? Are you really going to sit here and tell me that the enemy isn’t fully aware and supportive of this effort to undermine the effort?

How about the right of the people to be angry about the war itself? Started on false pretenses and spinned every which way since to flatly deny the reality that anyone who watches the news can see for himself?

The democrats are directly responsible for both the initial vote and NOW the ongoing effort.

Right. The Dems got you stuck in Iraq. Keep forgetting.

They can’t cower behind W. any longer. When the President of the Senate gives aid to the enemy. When the leader of the House of Representatives LIES and then BREAKS THE LAW by meeting and negotiating with the syrian, asssad, you are DAMN RIGHT the democrats are part of the problem.

That’s bullshit partisan hackery.

Here’s Tom Lantos comments on it: “The administration’s criticism [of Pelosi] is particularly pathetic, because two days before we went to Damascus, three Republican colleagues were there, meeting with Assad. We had a distinguished Republican in our delegation. And two days after our delegation, another Republican member of Congress visited with Assad. So if this is not hypocrisy, I don’t know what is.”

So, whats your problem? Can only republicans meet with Assad?

Now, you can come on here and armchair quarterback. You can rail against W’s miscalculations.

What you cannot seem to do is realize that George Bush has not only admitted personal errors, he has taken steps to try to rectify them.

You mean he’s found people around to blame for his mistakes. That’s how he “takes responsibility.”

Further, you cannot bring yourself to compliment W on his ability TO DO EXACTLY AS YOU JUST SUGGESTED.

Woah Nelly… backup a minute here. What is he doing that I suggested?

[quote]Without that ability. Without the ability to be even handed, I’d be very careful who you call “clown.”

JeffR[/quote]

Rest assured, I am very careful. I’ve yet to call someone a clown by mistake.

You’re still my Jeffro.

[Malevolence]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
What you cannot seem to do is realize that George Bush has not only admitted personal errors, he has taken steps to try to rectify them.[/quote]

He has?

From what I have seen, George W. Bush has demonstrated an astounding lack of personal responsibility for just about everything.

I have seen, from Neo-cons and this administration, blaming other people, passing responsibility to other people, figuring out ways to make it not their fault, back-peddling, and ass-covering of the highest order! When things go wrong, they blame the democrats, or liberals, or iraqis, or moderates, or extremists, or wardrobe malfunctions, or anything but themselves.

And in the rare, rare occasion they even come CLOSE to admitting a failure, they are never upfront about it. They hide behind ambiguous wording, vague claims, and thinly veiled deniability, again trying to pass the brunt of the blame to someone else.

The only time W. ever ‘took responsibility’ for anything was with hurricane katrina. A NATURAL Disaster! not only is that an entirely meaningless thing to ‘take responsibility’ for, but his actions to help relief were pathetic at best. New Orleans is still hurt deeply from that, many lives will never recover, many areas will never be cleaned up, and countless relief money will never make a difference.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think that George W. Bush has ANY sense of personal responsibility. He was born rich, brought up rich, never had to work for anything he has, and you think he has a sense of personal responsibility? get real.

[Beowolf]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Should I even bother to weigh in on this?

I am curious as to the Left’s opinion of this section of history. Just as I maintain that if the Left was honest with themselves as they present themselves today, they should despise Lincoln - I wonder what the Left’s view of Uncle Billy’s “total war” in the March to the Sea is.[/quote]

To throw in a left-of-center opinion, the conditions for the suspension of Habeus Corpus includes a state of rebellion, so I can forgive Lincoln, even though I think it was morally wrong.

As for Sherman’s march: Done for the all the right reasons, but still inexplicably wrong. In retrospect, it’s hard to say it shouldn’t have been done. It’s like trying to argue for or against the bombing of Hiroshima, we don’t know what would have happened had it gone the other way.

And how in the hell does the way the left “presents” itself today conflict with Lincoln? Progressive thought = Left. Lincoln = Progressive.

A US Civil War is a bit different than a war started on FAR away foreign soil for little to no reason.

[Headhunter]

Best moment: When the History Channel used ‘The Devil Went Down to Georgia’ by the Charlie Daniels band, as part of a commercial.

Worst moment: explaining the Male Enhancement commercial to a highly gifted 11 year old boy. That was quite interesting…

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

And how in the hell does the way the left “presents” itself today conflict with Lincoln? Progressive thought = Left. Lincoln = Progressive.[/quote]

I won’t get started on your banal and limited “equation” of “progressive” and how the word has been hijacked, but your characterization of Lincoln does not square with his own assessment of himself. Read the address to the Cooper Union.

As for the Left’s conflict, some of the things you mentioned (suspension of habeas corpus, stifling the press) plus allowance of total war, sense of moral absolutism, and the fact he was an opponent of judicial activism (so not “progressive”). That, and the fact that was a self-educated hillbilly frontiersman, which no modern urban Leftist can have truck with.

A US Civil War is a bit different than a war started on FAR away foreign soil for little to no reason.

Please stop peddling this nonsense as if it were true. The Congressional authorization contained over 22 reasons to intervene in Iraq - signed off by Republicans and Democrats.