Posted on 11/11/2002 1:23:27 PM PST by l8pilot
Sorry, but you are ascribing a position to me that I never expressed. There's a huge difference between wanting people to die, and deferring enlistment because the existing war was over. Had I been a few years younger I would have enlisted and gone to Vietnam.
Had you said that you would have enlisted had the country needed you, you'd be home free, but what you said makes you a laughing stock.
If the US was at war (hint hint) wouldn't that imply that I would have enlisted when the country needed me?
I'd avoid newsgroups.
Rosenberg was tried, convicted and found guilty in a court of law.
He had as little success denying his responsibility to the United States as the sesesh did. He just had a more extreme outcome than the rebels did.
Walt
Care to point anyone to an existing case where any Confederate was tried and convicted of treason?
Care to point anyone to an existing case where any Confederate was tried and convicted of treason?
More disinformation.
As you know, President Lincoln was strongly opposed to any treason trials. Nonetheless, after his death, Davis, Lee and Stephens among others -were- indicted for treason. If the government had wanted treason convictions against any former confederate, they probably could have gotten them. One U.S. attorney opined that a jury willing to convict might be difficult to empanel in Virginia. The indictments were ultimately dropped, but all this shows is the concern for the rule of law that the government had -- as well as the influence of Lincoln's words of conciliation from the grave.
Walt
No he didn't.
"It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an "insurrection" by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors. It is not necessary that the independence of the revolted province or State be acknowledged in order to constitute it a party belligerent in a war according to the law of nations."
And:
"The true test of its existence, as found in the writings of the sages of the common law, may be thus summarily stated: When the regular course of justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or insurrection, so that the Courts of Justice cannot be kept open, civil war exists, and hostilities may be prosecuted on the same footing as if those opposing the Government were foreign enemies invading the land."
You'll say anything. But most of it is wrong, and you know it.
Walt
Thanks. 1992 was -not- a good year for the voters. It seems to me though, that whatever else you say about Clinton, he was shot full of luck. Neither Bush can say that. The economy expanded almost the whole time Clinton was in office. He dodged any major military efforts, and -- he got to face weak Republican candidates. Reagan was simialry shot full of luck. Just as -he- came into office, the Iranians (who could have been a worse irritant than they were) were attacked by Iraq (actually in September, 1980) and their revolutionary fervor dissipated in a World War One style bloodbath. Oddly, that war lasted almost the entire time of Reagan's presidency.
Both the Bushes are decidedly unlucky. We'll see how the upcoming war goes with Iraq, but if a strong Democratic candidate can be found (a big if) then Bush II will be back in Texas as a one term president also.
Walt
I guess you could say that, but the truth of the matter was the liberal news media was corrupting the truth about him. Check out Don Hewett(sp)braging about it. If you don't have a copy of that tape, I can send it to you.
He dodged any major military efforts,
If we can agree on anything, Clinton dodged the draft. He also almost depleted us of cruise missiles over Serbia to keep Monica and the blue stained dress and his impeachment 'trial' out of the headlines.
Reagan was simialry shot full of luck. Just as -he- came into office, the Iranians (who could have been a worse irritant than they were) were attacked by Iraq (actually in September, 1980) and their revolutionary fervor dissipated in a World War One style bloodbath. Oddly, that war lasted almost the entire time of Reagan's presidency.
Don't forget, Reagan got the our hostages out on inauguration day. Do you think if Carter was re-elected, that that would of happened?
Both the Bushes are decidedly unlucky. We'll see how the upcoming war goes with Iraq, but if a strong Democratic candidate can be found (a big if) then Bush II will be back in Texas as a one term president also.
Well, Bush 1 was stupid for going along with the tax increase that the democrats pushed on him in the name of 'national debt', and the liberal news media railed about it every night. Then as soon as Bush signed the Democrat legislation, they promptly turned and blamed Bush for the tax increase, along with their comrades in the liberal press. That is where you have this phrase stuck in your mind, "Read my lips". Effective yes, honest no.
You can say that again! Even though he had an iron clad reason!
Carter didn't have the balls to issue an ultimatum to Iran: turn over the hostages by a certain date or get you ass kicked.
Well, he has his peace prize to set on the mantle and stare at. He can look at it but I don't see how any real American male could enjoy it under those circumstances.
Carter was another president with mucho bad luck.
I can't stand the guy either.
Walt
Don't you think Clinton deserves the same fate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.