Something to think about

P

Purple†Pain

I am reading from the memoirs of President Ulysses S. Grant and have come upon a statement of his which has applicability today. I have heard the same sentiment expressed at different times in the past by other men of history.

"Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviabale place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate 'war, pestilence, and famine,' than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is - oblivion." (Personal Memoirs, Ulsysses S. Grant, Chapter IV, p. 30, 1999 Modern Library Paperback Edition).

This is worth thinking about and sharing with others in this election year. The positions taken by candidates for the highest office in the land, indeed the world, should be considered carefully. None of us like war. The issue, however, is much deeper than a politically charged soundbite of "withdraw the troops".

Think about it.


Pain Out
 
yeah, the guy ****** americans so that the federal government could have total control over the country and subvert individual democracy and economic intrests. just like lincoln who suspended the right to a trial and put people in jail for speaking out against the government and the war, and of course, using black people as canon fodder to die for his aims under the false promise of freedom and social equality that was never achieved. what a fuckin hero.

but I Don't really need to say that. the fact that this guy advocated "war, pestilence, and famine" upon the populace instead of even considering the possibility of peace, a peace that could be insured to never come with that mindset.
 
Well put... also worth thinking about: A ducks quack does not echo, myth or not?
 
stainedblueyes said:
Well put... also worth thinking about: A ducks quack does not echo, myth or not?
Click to expand...

Of course a duck's quack echoes. It's a sound and therefore a compression wave just like any other sound. Purple Pain makes a valid and thoughtful post and you reply with this? Where is the relevance?:dunno:
 
So you’re saying my country right or wrong. Does that mean if you were a German soldier in WWII you would not question Hitler? At the Nuremberg Trials this defense was not allowed to the leaders who claimed they were only fighting for their country. Despite what U. S. Grant said, it’s the duty of all citizens to question and defy an unjust war. To do less would be a crime against humanity.
 
good point YMI.

blue eyes, who is burried in grants tomb?

the man (grant) is certainly entitled to his opinion, but what is there to think about? he merely said what he felt, and didn't offer any reason why we should do what he advised, or how it benefits the country or the leaders.
 
Well it made me think a little bit. Sure Grant is saying that the "stay at home traitor" is not remembered well, but IMO he is not exactly saying that the same person is doing the wrong thing by opposing their government. It is just that if the government soldiers on through traitorousness, of course the person will be remembered poorly if at all. But if the person (and other people) should overthrow the government or otherwise cause it to change it's plans, I believe Grant would agree their place in history could be much different.
 
Grant was an ok general, but he was a bad politician. He is rated as the worst president we have ever had by a lot of people. (Or at least until second Bush got there)

It seems like he's saying you shouldn't do the right think when others might not like you for it. On a personal level that seems awful. You should do things you think are right because you feel they are the right things to do and not so you can get praise from it. Doing the wrong thing for praise seems even worse. I don't base my actions on what others will think of me.
 
grant was a great general, but that quote is irrelevant to the way america has prosecuted wars since ww2.
in grant's day you waged war with everything you had and destroyed the enemy as quickly as possible.
from korea onward, america has dabbled. instead of fighting to win, we've fought to "not lose". that's a huge difference. we've seen fewer and fewer american casualties as a result, and zero victories (but huge profits in certain sectors).

It is well that war is so terrible — otherwise we should grow too fond of it.
-robert e lee
 
calpoon said:
yeah, the guy ****** americans so that the federal government could have total control over the country and subvert individual democracy and economic intrests. just like lincoln who suspended the right to a trial and put people in jail for speaking out against the government and the war, and of course, using black people as canon fodder to die for his aims under the false promise of freedom and social equality that was never achieved. what a fuckin hero.

but I Don't really need to say that. the fact that this guy advocated "war, pestilence, and famine" upon the populace instead of even considering the possibility of peace, a peace that could be insured to never come with that mindset.
Click to expand...

Holy ****, calpoon - have you been hanging out on neo-confederate blogs?
The above is so littered with mistruth, partial truth and exaggeration it's remarkable.
 
we have talked about this a lot before. the civil war came to a head as a result of these divisions in american political opinion that had been brewing since even before the revolution. yeah, my viewpoint is biased and maybe a little bit further reaching than some people might like to go, but the fact remains that these were issues that people were talking about at the time and they have been largely white-washed over in contemporary history.

it doesn't have anything to do with neo-confederates. as far as I am concerned most of them are just a bunch of racist rednecks. the same can be said for a lot of people in mainstream politics too. I side with their right to dissent and rebel, NOT their reasons for doing so.
 
negator said:
grant was a great general, but that quote is irrelevant to the way america has prosecuted wars since ww2.
in grant's day you waged war with everything you had and destroyed the enemy as quickly as possible.
from korea onward, america has dabbled. instead of fighting to win, we've fought to "not lose". that's a huge difference. we've seen fewer and fewer american casualties as a result, and zero victories (but huge profits in certain sectors).

It is well that war is so terrible — otherwise we should grow too fond of it.
-robert e lee
Click to expand...

I disagree. We have not fought wars to not lose, we have fought wars with negative goals though. A huge goal in Korea and Vietnam was to not have Russia and China enter the fray. That drove a war that was not all out balls to the wall to win. Do just enough to not upset the other super power. In the end that does probably keep you from winning though.

You have to wonder why the huge change. There is some merit to not want to mix it up with the other big nuclear power. But I don't think that is all of it. Is it because the media is so doom and gloom about the cost of a war? Is it because a balls out effort will bring a hue and cry on CNN and the New York Times? I think there is some merit to that. I wrote a paper long ago about how the telegraph changed British generals during the Crimean War. As soon as the telegraph got there every thing that went wrong was zipped off to London and into the papers. It made them pussies.
 
I think a big concern isn't so much why but HOW wars are fought.

we won the revolution because of unconventional warfare. but that same mode wasn't advanced, at least not by America. up until WWII we went on and fought the exact same classic style with two opposing armies marching against each other. after that, it was all about the arms race, where everyone just wanted to show they had the better toys. that's where we have consistently fucked up since then. there's no use in having an advanced fleet of super bombers if there is nothing for them to bomb. meanwhile any schmuck with a *** can still **** another guy just as good.

guerrilla warfare is not consistant with the goals of classical warfare: go in fast and hit em hard, take it and hold it. it slowly picks away at an enemies ******, until they don't have any choice but to stop fighting . the goal is not classic victory, but just to end fighting. it's a game of patience and it is in the favor of the locals against the invaders. It's why we won the revolution and why we didn't get anywhere in Vietnam.
 
negator said:
grant was a great general, but that quote is irrelevant to the way america has prosecuted wars since ww2.
in grant's day you waged war with everything you had and destroyed the enemy as quickly as possible.
from korea onward, america has dabbled. instead of fighting to win, we've fought to "not lose". that's a huge difference. we've seen fewer and fewer american casualties as a result, and zero victories (but huge profits in certain sectors).
Click to expand...

Actually negator...ever since Korea, we've fought wars to make presidents and their buddies rich...sad to say.
 
negator said:
grant was a great general, but that quote is irrelevant to the way america has prosecuted wars since ww2.
in grant's day you waged war with everything you had and destroyed the enemy as quickly as possible.
from korea onward, america has dabbled. instead of fighting to win, we've fought to "not lose". that's a huge difference. we've seen fewer and fewer american casualties as a result, and zero victories (but huge profits in certain sectors).

It is well that war is so terrible — otherwise we should grow too fond of it.
-robert e lee
Click to expand...

bombardier52 said:
I disagree. We have not fought wars to not lose, we have fought wars with negative goals though. A huge goal in Korea and Vietnam was to not have Russia and China enter the fray. That drove a war that was not all out balls to the wall to win. Do just enough to not upset the other super power. In the end that does probably keep you from winning though.

You have to wonder why the huge change. There is some merit to not want to mix it up with the other big nuclear power. But I don't think that is all of it. Is it because the media is so doom and gloom about the cost of a war? Is it because a balls out effort will bring a hue and cry on CNN and the New York Times? I think there is some merit to that. I wrote a paper long ago about how the telegraph changed British generals during the Crimean War. As soon as the telegraph got there every thing that went wrong was zipped off to London and into the papers. It made them pussies.
Click to expand...

from the telegraph, to american sons dying on dinnertime tv, to embedded journalists. a kinder, gentler war.

something we've grown fond of.

a painless and sterile permanent war economy. if we could bring american casualties close to zero, we could fight any given war forever.

if you want to fight a war forever, then obviously you can't win. you can't catch bin laden.

It is well that war is so terrible — otherwise we should grow too fond of it.
-robert e lee

something to think about.
 
if you want to fight a war forever, than Haliburton's stockholders are the real winners.
 
To a certain degree I don't think it matters who we elect as long as it's someone one who could atleast do a decent job but it seems like people expect canidates to be perfect (and they seem to think that their canidate IS pefect). We're all human and we all make mistakes (but I suppose it's a scary thought of the president to make a mistake.)

but as far as the war
"The issue, however, is much deeper than a politically charged soundbite of "withdraw the troops".

A bigger issue would be to leave the troops there.
1st The Lives over there.
2nd The money spent. (We might have as well have given them the trillion of dollars and said "Here, fix your country"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top