On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:01:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:19:51 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 11:56:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:38:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 10:11:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 17:32:54 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:15:57 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 08/10/2019 11:06 AM, wrote:
Remember if it wasn't for that new england sea faring culture and the
desire for cheap cotton to feed their mills, we would not have had
slaves here in the first place. Maybe we should march through new
england tearing down all of those sailor memorials.

The first slaves predated the cotton industry. Many were used in tobacco
production. Because of the labor intensiveness of separating cotton seed
from the bolls it wasn't until Whitney, another Yankee, invented the
cotton gin that cotton farming became profitable and slave owning given
a boost.

The industrial revolution created many slaves; most of them were wage
slaves. Why go to the expense of owning a slave where you can hire them
by the day and discard them when you don't need them anymore?

This is why I say they could have ended slavery in a couple years in
the south without the war. They just needed the coal company guys to
explain to plantation owners how you can keep your cheap labor without
****ing off the abolitionists. Free the slaves, then hire them back
at a wage that barely covers their living expenses at the "plantation"
(AKA company) store. Most of them would stay, as they did. It would be
100 years until the government got around to looking at how we treated
coal miners or the "freed" slaves.

Too bad we don't have a time machine so we could transport you, Capt Monday
Morning Quaterback, back in time and let you fix everything.

The question is whether it was the right thing to do to have a war
that destroyed half the country and killed 3% of the population when
there may have been a peaceful solution.
It is clear the war didn't really solve anything. The freed slaves
became lower paid than the coal miners I referenced as an example.
Most ended back at the same basic jobs, certainly making a wage but
not a wage they could live on. !00 years of Jim Crow was not really
freedom anyway.
As for the war itself...
I understand that, to neocons like you, there was never a war you
didn't like but it is not always the answer.
You are still defending Afghanistan and it really looks like, after
decades of war there, we are going to give it back to the Taliban. It
will happen faster if the democrats take over than Trump would do it.

It's the graveyard of empires. Ultimately everybody who gets involved
there withdraws.

Cindy Hamilton

The whole debacle from GHWB's war on was stupid and we should have
never been involved in any of it.

Yes, we should have just accepted 3000 dead, taken it, turned our
tails, run away and renounced our status as a superpower, or even
a world power.

Sacrificing another 3000 in a no win war really showed them didn't it?

Yes, it did. The Taliban is no longer the govt of Afghanistan, the
terrorist training camps are gone, Al Qaeda is pretty much gone,
Bin Laden is dead, his son is dead, top leadership is in Gitmo.
You would have sent a cake and sued for peace. That's not what great
countries do. And had we looked the other way, why then there could
be many thousands more Americans dead and of course you'd be bitching
about that.




War is not always the answer.

No, but when you have 3000 dead, buildings in rubble and some ****ants
refuse to turn over Bin Laden, close his camps and instead are giving
the US the finger, it sure is the answer.


If you were just talking about the place where most of the 9-11
training took place, maybe we should have bombed Germany and 8-10
flight schools in the US that gave them the critical skills they
needed.

Nonsense. Many of them were trained in Afghanistan, the plan was
conceived of and ordered from Afghanistan, as were so many other
attacks against the US.









Without the 10 year war in Iraq from
1991 to 2001 there would not have been a 9-11.

So says you, but of course no one has any way of knowing. It could
have happened anyway. And it wasn't a ten year war, the first Gulf War
lasted just hours.



At a certain point maybe we should listen to the people who are
attacking us and believe them. 9-11 was promoted to the mostly Saudi
hijackers as a response to our bombing muslims in Iraq from Saudi
bases

That's another lie. We were not bombing muslims, we were enforcing
a no-fly zone, to prevent Saddam's genocide against the Kurds.
Our ops there were targeted at anti-aircraft installations that
targeted coalition aircraft and were limited. And Bin Laden gave
all kinds of reasons for attacking the USA. The main, obvious
reason staring you in the face is that they hate us because to them
we are infidels and deserve to die. And if you're concerned about
killing muslims, then look no further than Al Qaeda. They killed
more muslims than anyone else, we did muslims a favor by putting
them and ISIS out of business.




(although I doubt we were actually using Saudi bases for it).
It is absolutely true that we did have highly visible US military
personnel in Saudil Arabia at the time for no particularly good
reason..


It might have been worth it to kick Saddam out of Kuwait as long as
the whole world supported us but after that we should have put our
victory in our pocket and came home.

And watch as Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds? As he
gave the US and the coalition the finger? And of course had we done
that and then something else went wrong, why then of course as the
resident Monday morning quarterback, you'd be telling us how letting
Saddam kill the Kurds and flip us off was all wrong.


**** the Kurds.

Yes, spoken like a trumpet and the new spirit of Trump's GOP.




We don't seem to give a **** about genocide all over
the world, why single out Iraq?

We have had operations over the years to stop some genocide, where
we thought we could and the risk/reward ratio was right. The
Balkans, for example. We're trying to stop it in Syria right now.
With Iraq we had the additional very good reason that Saddams killing
Kurds was directly a result of the Gulf War, which we were involved in.
We reached a truce, Saddam then decided to stick his finger in our
eye, in the eyes of the world, and proceed to killing Kurds.
I know, send him a cake and sue for peace.





Are you ready to commit troops to
Darfur? Somalia? Congo? Yemen?Tibet?
No?
Me either.

Just because we can't or won't solve them all, does not mean that
some others are not worthy.








I did say at the time, (pre Gulf
war) once we get in we will never get out and damn near 30 years
later, we are still there. Same with Afghanistan.

Just like Vietnam, pretty soon we are going to have to decide enough
is enough and get out. The sooner the better.

And then when it turns to crap, you'll be back complaining that was
a mistake too.

No I won't.
If we would stop meddling in middle eastern affairs and stay the hell
out of South Asia, they will quickly forget about us and find someone
else to hate.

Yes, that worked splendidly in the 1930s.