Re: [TSCM-L] {2822} Re: Definition of Honor

From: Eric Schmiedl <eric.s..._at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 02:02:28 -0400

Steven Hertzler wrote:
> Dan,
>
>
>
> You are an fool.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "d..._at_geer.org" <d..._at_geer.org>
> To: TSCM-..._at_googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:52:05 PM
> Subject: [TSCM-L] {2812} Re: Definition of Honor
>
>
>
> > Dude, with all due respect o the military personnel because they are
> just d=
> > oing their job, "serve and protect"? Serve who and protect who from
> whom? I=
> > m a little confused. Do you mind clarifying? Protect the American
> public fr=
> > om the Iraqi public? Incase you failed grade 10 Geography, Iraq is
> pretty f=
> > ar away from the US and lacks the resources to conduct any sort of
> war agai=
> > nst the US. And incase you're unintelligent, let me lay it out in
> simple te=
> > rms; You go to war when your country is threatened. No one is
> attacking you=
> > . So why is America at war? Your President has ruined your economy
> just so =
> > he could fill his pockets with oil in the name of 'Weapons of Mass
> Destruct=
> > ion' - which I hope you already know was a LIE. A blatant, baseless,
> white =
> > LIE. You really think a War based on a false pretense could have been
> in an=
> > y way in good faith? And is it really that hard to believe the
> Government w=
> > as behind 9/11? Wake up dude. Serve and protect who? No ones docking
> battle=
> > ships off the coast of Miami my unintelligent American friend.=20
>
>
>
> It is about here that I remind you all that the
> US Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, and
> thus ask you if you have lately demanded that history
> books be rewrit so as to tell the truth, or, if
> symbology is what matters to you, if the stars
> and bars ought not be restored to the flags of
> several of these united-by-force states?
>
> If you're not kidding about standing on principle,
> then you may be assured that neither am I.
>
> --dan
>
> ==========
>
> The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is,
> further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of
> slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty. Finally,
> even if justice is on the side of the North, does it not remain a
> vain endeavour to want to subjugate eight million Anglo-Saxons by
> force! Would not separation of the South release the North from
> all connection with Negro slavery and ensure for it, with its twenty
> million inhabitants and its vast territory, a higher, hitherto
> scarcely dreamt-of, development? Accordingly, must not the North
> welcome secession as a happy event, instead of wanting to overrule
> it by a bloody and futile civil war?
> -- Karl Marx, Die Presse No. 293, October 25, 1861
>
> The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous
> oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few
> poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached
> it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is
> poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it.
> Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply
> this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed
> their lives to the cause of self-determination -- that government
> of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish
> from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue.
> The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-
> determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right
> of their people to govern themselves.
> -- H.L. Mencken, Note on the Gettysburg Address
>
>
>
> >
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:16 CST