A Reason for A War
 

What in your opinion was a true reason for a war and why,the majority of wars ever fought were were about increasings ones wealth and real estate size.was ther ever a honorable war?

If the one whose real estate is being coveted fights back and wins that could be considered necessary if not honorable.

Would Vietnam qualify under that,I have always been confused as to the reason for Vietnam was it a contiuation of the french campain ,to stop the sped of the dredded communist influence or what any one know more about it.

Vietnam was AFAIK a French colony and Ho Chi Min was mostly tryiing to kick the French out, communism was more of a sideline.

And the Galant America Involvement,came from...

I would say fighting to end slavery here in the States and fighting to end fascism
and genocide in World War II were legitimate uses of the war powers by our Presidents at the time.

Vietnam was an attempt by a Democratic administration to roll back communism within the paradigm of containment that was followed by both of our parties. The mistake we made was actually believing we could defeat a nationalist movement by a nation fighting on their own soil.

Read the Best and the Brightest by David Halberstam
Read Fire In The Lake by Frances Fitzgerald

and you will understand Vietnam

and read Graham Greene's eerily prophetic The Quiet American and you will see the faulty philosophy behind our involvement.

Ok Thanks for the info and the reading material,I know a lot of info is on the innerweb,but I want to get the personal side of it and to get some of your Knowledge and history takes.Like Robin Shared the info material with the book reads.

"I would say fighting to end slavery here in the States" wasn't their some economic reasons also that might have wanted the Southern states to Secede the union,I know slavery was big reason.but were there other reasons that had been stewing.

the Republican policy of being against the extension of slavery into new states created from territory won from Mexico WAS the reason the South seceded....

when Lincoln was elected they left the union for that reason...he was against the extension

as the war dragged on and the price in human bloodshed rose the aims of the North changed as far as the issue of slavery itself as an institution.

That's exactly right. Every other excuse some will try to offer can be traced back to this central issue. The South being much more dependent on agriculture, feared such a radical change in farm labor structure.

Dave

Fixed it for you Robbin:D

To answer to the OP......Maybe.

There is usually just cause in responding to hostilities, but rarely is there just cause for initiating hostilities. However, this statement is not absolute.

Does that clear it up for you, Cleon?

Dave

yup


This is how Kent State taught it to me

I had a great symposium class with this guy named Dr Frank Burns, from the University Of Wisconsin Madison

we read this book called The Mind Of The South

i really wish that I had not drank as much was much more sober my senior year I would have retained more of what I was listening to in class

ok makes sense,but that war did change a lot of Lives In America.I am sure some familys are still at odds over the war.and Out come.Was away from keybord for a bit this goes in before the last 3 post for revalency

Ok I got a pretty good picture I can fill in the rest with google.

Ok since no one else has bought this one out I will.and it should be a good one for all interested,,ok what about the whole Mid east thig and when I say thing I mean that in Broad terms.DId the whole Thing stem from A simple Birth right.that seperated the Arabs from the Jewish.ok I am Dense so Dont jump on me,that is the reason I am asking and it is for clarification.

Cleon after WW I the league of Nations gave Britain a mandate to create a homeland for the Jewish people. Lord Balfour, who was administering the mandate kind of screwed up, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelan..._Jewish_people

yea I know a bit about that,not much,I was thinking though the whole Arab and Jewish rift.I know at one time the Arab Ottoman empire concoured most of the modern world.

AFK got go for a while I will be back but on a historical point I would like to hear some different takes,I know this particular area is broad since most of the earliest wars and history were in this region.

I still view the world through a cold war liberal filter so I use terms like won lol


let me quess white guys in Canada did not take any native American land?

Nope but Richard King stole the ranch from one of my wife's ancestors. Jose Narciso Cavazos had been granted that land by the King of Spain.

And in truth Manifest Destiny was nowt but a land grab, the war was deliberate.

Quite recently the Canadian Government gave the Northwest Territories to the Innuit to run as they saw fit. Other than that they were no different than other European settlers with respect to the native peoples.

Strike this one down,ti is too wade a scope and there are too many tangibles.

This is a movie (with all the attendant twists and turns Hollywood likes to throw in:rolleyes:) that tells some of the story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_%281960_film%29

Yea JJ seen that movie probaly were I get some theory on the Jewis Cause.If I i may be allowed to put it as a cause.

It is difficult to get a clear view on the Middle East conflict re Israel because
of the dominance of Jews in the media.

From my reading between the lines.

Jews and Arabs in modern times use to live peacefully in the holy land.

Long long ago several times great many Jews were kicked out/fled the area.

Many of them went to Europe. They were often restricted to certain professions. One of them was banking at which they were very successful.
So over time Jews were associated rightly or wrongly with every economic
disaster or misfortune.

Politicians of all stripe played on that. The arrival of Adolph Hitler gave greater
impetus to the idea to the Jews that they need to go back to land of their own.

They were able to get other powerful people in governments to agree with
them out sympathy and through the connections of the influential Jewish family - Rothschild. One Walter Rothschild bought out the British Government..hence The Balfour Declaration.

Of course the mass of European Jews landing in Holy Land cause serious conflict to this day. They were able to defeat the Arabs
early in the conflict largely because a lot them of were expose to modern warfare of WW11.

In some ways yes, in some no.

http://mises.org/daily/952/Lincolns-Tariff-War

Chas

Tariff might be burdensome. But the South would never give up
free labor without violence. The South saw the threat coming and
decided to act under whatever cover.

Charles I have long since quit giving revisionists my time of day. Well I guess that is not entirely true....

I do not watch Duck Dynasty either

Every non-slavery issue which people try to insinuate as a cause of the war can be traced back to the issue of slavery.

Let's face it, in the 1700s the United States had allowed an institution already under attack by most of Western Civilization to become ingrained in our Southern economic system. By the middle of the next century Republicans came to the conclusion that owning other human beings would not be good for an expanding industrial society.
Their very first President, Lincoln, was too much for the South to handle. Like Obama is too much for the Tea Party to handle, but the situation was much more poloarized in the 1860s of course.

Brought to you by the TIP network. (Truth In Posting)...I guess I can take a leaf from the enemy's playbook lol.



back to my Russian horror fantasy novel

"The first recorded war occurred in c. 2700 B.C. It was between Sumer (in modern Iraq) and Elam (a region that is now part of Iran), and was fought in the area around Basra (just like the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s). Of course, tribes, cities, etc., had been fighting each other for thousands of years before that, but there are no records of these earlier conflicts as writing wasn't invented until a little before 3000 B.C. "

I just came across this Kinda reafirms my belief that more wars have ocurred in this region than anywere else on earth.
oops found another

Which was the first war fought in the history of mankind?
If we define war as a large-scale violent conflict between two states employing the military, the earliest recorded wars might have taken place between various city states in the Mesopotamian region during the period 3,000-2,300 BC in the Bronze Age. The first recorded evidence of such a war was the one between the two city states Lagash and Umma, estimated to have taken place in 2525 BC. From the stone slabs bearing inscriptions related to the war, it could be inferred that the war employed professional soldiers wearing helmets who moved on chariots. The weapons employed were maces and swords.

Salient!

BTW do you read Russian?

no I wish I could

I am on a middle age Russian lit kick...
2014 is reserved for War and Peace

I tend to think that you only lend credence to the revisionists of your liking.

And by all means, enjoy your fantasy novel!!!

Chas

Another classic example of the liberal open mind...open only to their existing viewpoints.

Chas

The Civil War ~ The Union Sealed in Blood
The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. . . . 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. taken from this page good read
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...reedom_10.html

I doubt that that is on any reading list in South Carolina.;)

Don't know about South Carolina, but in Missouri we're open to hearing BOTH sides of the story.

Chas

In South Carolina, they most certainly aren't (the white folks, anyway).

I guess that's one of the best things about the Civil War in Missouri. We pretty much stayed home and murdered one another...other than an occasional side trip to Kansas.

Chas

It must not be forgotten that the North invaded and conquered the South, including committing plenty of the crimes that invading armies commit, and causing horrible and unnecessary suffering. THIS is why great numbers of the Southerners came to hate the Yankees, an attitude that still persists in certain degrees in some cases. It certainly is the reason why the South as a people rejected bitterly the North's self-righteous claim to the moral high ground, based on the narrative of the crusade against slavery, and it is why they still reject it. History has been revised as necessary in an attempt to deny the cruel invader any shred of the moral superiority they claimed.

There is always a basis for divisions especialy when the wrong has been done to your own country men.I came across this, I imagine this one war alone divided a lot of familys to this day http://listverse.com/2013/03/17/10-w...-us-civil-war/