Posted on 03/31/2006 6:24:26 PM PST by quidnunc
I've always looked at the Civil War as a war of secession (spelling????) The South wanted to go its own way ...
Thanks for your input ....
jane
"We cannot change the hearts of those people, but we can make war so terrible...[and] make them so sick of war that generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it."
Coming back to this thread after some time has passed ...
The trouble with your analogy is that it is generally the aggressor that sets the rules. The North was the aggressor, and the Muslims were the aggressor. Sherman's march against non-combatants and the Islamic Swine's attack against non-combatants are of a piece.
ML/NJ
Yes, Dresden was immoral. Mass, intentional murder of babies always is.
Those Federal troops sitting in Fort Sumter would have been surprised to hear they were the aggressors
And I'd be curious to see how you see our bombing of non-combatants during WWII. Do you think our Army was "of a piece" with "the Islamic Swine"? If not, how do you reconcile that with your previous statements?
Get over the Civil War. Hell, I'm in Atlanta, and I'm over it.
Then Shock and Awe was, too.
And Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
My point was that intentional murder of babies is wrong no matter who does it. What say you?
did you expect to find an argument over that claim?
My point is that war is hell.
Do you believe we INTENTIONALLY murdered babies in Dresden?
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.