New Words For The Base Of The Statue Of Liberty...

[liberty]

Well what did you do in the cold war? I was a war criminal by your standards because I dared to oppose the communist. No info wars there.

No, by my standards what you did during the Cold War to "oppose the communist" is your own business. The country called and you responded ... or so you claim ... although from the sounds of it you were more of the "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" or the "Kill 'em all; let God sort 'em out" ]

I was a volunteer, but I wasn’t a “kill them all and let God sort them out” type until after the war. During the war, I was a“LBJ all the way” man or kid, but I learned an important lesson after the war. My hero LBJ was wrong and Goldwater was right. War is not about winning hearts and minds it is about killing them all and letting God sort them out.

There is only one way to fight war; Sherman taught us how to do it but we forgot the lesson. We should have destroyed everything in Vietnam that we could including food and food production. Massive starvation should have been the goal, that is the lesson Sherman taught us.

[Big RR]

Sure, and reconstruction worked so well in uniting the country.

Your plan works if your only aim is to kill everyone and then use the land yourself.

But I do agree with one thing; we should clearly know what we want (and why) and sell that to the country before we commit troops to any battle; we never had that in Vietnam because we had no interest or people we were protecting.

[MajGenl.Meade]

There is only one way to fight war; Sherman taught us how to do it but we forgot the lesson. We should have destroyed everything in Vietnam that we could including food and food production. Massive starvation should have been the goal, that is the lesson Sherman taught us.

One doesn't often come across two linked statements and a conclusion that reveal such an utter lack of understanding of two wars, a general and an entire country.

[Bicycle Bill]

Exactly what is that I have posted that qualifies me as an asshole?

I suppose I could start with your repeated insistence that America's military cannot compare to the Red Horde that is just itching for the chance to cross the Arctic Circle and pour down on us from Canada.

Add to that your unwillingness to acknowledge that while it is true that we *DO* not have as large a standing army as do the Rooskies or the Chinese that should the shit hit the fan all that would change in a literal heartbeat, insisting instead that Americans today would lack the moral fiber, courage, patriotism, or whatever to rally to the country's need, or even to accept conscription should it again become necessary.  For the record, we couldn't hold a candle to the number of men in uniform or quality of the weapons of war in the German or Japanese armies at the start of WWII, either, but history shows how that ended up.  Not to mention that if we were ever to fight an all-out war, it wouldn't be decided by 'grunts on the ground'; they would be basically the mop-up squad, clearing up the odd pockets of resistance after the air strikes, long-range Tomahawks, and other smart weapons had already devastated the largest part of the enemy war machine.  Remember the "Shock and Awe" campaign of the Iraqi War, or the way the Israelis and their tanks showed the Arabs who was boss during the Seven-Day War?

And then, just to kind of round it off, how about all those posts belaboring the point about your "people of the steppes" superiority nonsense?

-"BB"-

[Lord Jim]

There is only one way to fight war; Sherman taught us how to do it but we forgot the lesson. We should have destroyed everything in Vietnam that we could including food and food production. Massive starvation should have been the goal, that is the lesson Sherman taught us.

One doesn't often come across two linked statements and a conclusion that reveal such an utter lack of understanding of two wars, a general and an entire country.

So General, it sounds like what you're saying is that lib's assertion is pure

[ex-khobar Andy]

There is only one way to fight war; Sherman taught us how to do it but we forgot the lesson. We should have destroyed everything in Vietnam that we could including food and food production. Massive starvation should have been the goal, that is the lesson Sherman taught us.

One doesn't often come across two linked statements and a conclusion that reveal such an utter lack of understanding of two wars, a general and an entire country.

One doesn't often come across an assertion which is so obviously and so totally true. And succinct. Hats off to you, MajGenl.

[liberty]

There is only one way to fight war; Sherman taught us how to do it but we forgot the lesson. We should have destroyed everything in Vietnam that we could including food and food production. Massive starvation should have been the goal, that is the lesson Sherman taught us.

One doesn't often come across two linked statements and a conclusion that reveal such an utter lack of understanding of two wars, a general and an entire country.

Let us get this straight: You are saying that Sherman did not kill livestock, destroy crops and other food supply in an effort to cause starvation. If that is not the cause you explain why he did it. Also Sherman executed Southern prisoner in revenge for the attacks by Southern guerrillas. Do you approve of that too? He also killed children unless you don’t consider cadets children. He also turned a blind eye to the actions of his raiding parties. We will never know how many Southern women were rapes because Sherman didn’t care.

[liberty]

Exactly what is that I have posted that qualifies me as an asshole?

And then, just to kind of round it off, how about all those posts belaboring the point about your "people of the steppes" superiority nonsense?

-"BB"-

My people live here now, but at one time they did come from the Eurasian Steppes because they are predominately Caucasian and Ind-European speakers. And before you say something stupid about language at one time language was very closely related to race. Just one of those things about history and prehistory liberal can’t understand. All Caucasians are closely genetically related, that is a fact, so they must have a common ancestor and a common location or origin. All Caucasians come from the Steppes; it has to be no other hypothesis makes any sense.

Are liberals such bigots they can’t stand the word steppes because it is a Russian word? It’s good a word it means plains and refers to a specific grassland.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Let us get this straight: You are saying that Sherman did not kill livestock, destroy crops and other food supply in an effort to cause starvation. If that is not the cause you explain why he did it. Also Sherman executed Southern prisoner in revenge for the attacks by Southern guerrillas. Do you approve of that too? He also killed children unless you don’t consider cadets children. He also turned a blind eye to the actions of his raiding parties. We will never know how many Southern women were rape[d] because Sherman didn’t care.

Happy to straighten you out. Aside from the quibble that Sherman didn't kill anything (he preferred to stay well out of any danger). . . After burning Atlanta, Sherman's army of about 62,000 men, divided into two wings, spent some 36 days ranging from Atlanta to Savannah against slight opposition from Wheeler's cavalry and odd bits and pieces of rebel militia etc. numbering less than 13,000. Georgia is quite large and Sherman's men, on a 60-mile (at maximum moments) front, cut a large swathe through agriculture and property which nevertheless did not destroy agricultural capacity in the bulk of the state. The object was not "starvation" but demoralization; the sapping of the will of Georgia's civilians and soldiers (who, it was hoped, would fight less and desert more to help the old folks back home). The second object of Sherman's march was to prevent reinforcements being sent to Lee, improving Grant's chances of victory at Peterburg. That some civilians went very hungry is of course true; Sherman knew it would happen simply because his army was living off the land.

Now as to the Carolinas, no such scorched earth march was undertaken. (Pragmatically, there was not an abundance of crops there). Yes, there were burnings, notably Columbia SC which was bound to suffer as the very seat of traitorous rebellion - but remarkably few civilian casualties (less than the Irish murders of black men, women and children in the NY Draft Riots of 1863). Doubtless a small minority of the army committed crimes - don't they always?

Point 1. Sherman was in a total "enemy" territory. In Vietnam, the U.S. forces operated in "friendly" territory; that is, the civilian population was what the USA intended to protect. You are of course correct that the USA could have traveled through the country it was "protecting" and killed almost everyone, friend or foe; this is called ethnic cleansing and is not nice. Or legal. Or U.S. policy. Or orders that the U.S. army should obey.

Did Sherman execute prisoners? No, he was a long way away from that too. Kilpatrick and Wheeler (later Hampton joined in) got into a spat about Union bummers being killed and their bodies mutilated (their killing was not at issue; they were armed and dangerous). Many threats went back and forth, including between Hampton and Sherman. Eventually, a Union soldier was bludgeoned to death in South Carolina and the local commander had Confederate prisoners draw lots to see which one would be shot in retaliation - which he was. Meanwhile, Kilpatrick and Wheeler had exchanged some prisoners and the problem seemed to go away. Such affairs had no benefit or bearing upon Sherman's success. AFAIK.

Point 2 Are you suggesting that U.S. forces in Vietnam should have executed prisoners, thus achieving victory?

Sherman killed children? You refer to "cadets"; presumably young men attending military training colleges such as VMI in Lexington VA or West Point in NY. The latter showed up very well in the battle of New Market in 1864, defeating Sigel's Army of the Shenandoah. Prior to the March to the Sea, cadets formed a small part of the defenses of Atlanta, ordered into action by General Hood and more than willing to do so.

Point 3. Are you suggesting that in Vietnam, a special effort should have been made to kill teenagers and thus achieve the elusive victory?

We will never know how many women, if any, were raped by Union soldiers between November 1864 and March 1865.

Point 4. Are you suggesting the U.S. military policy in Vietnam (a friendly, client country) should have been to rape as many women as possible to achieve victory?

Your error is not one of condemnation of Sherman's campaign from Atlanta to Durham Station, NC but of suggesting that those methods were applicable to Vietnam, one hundred and more years later.

[wesw]

yes, let us dwell on the misery.....

by all means, good fellows, dwell on the misery of the past.

(insert eyeroll here)

[liberty]

Let us get this straight: You are saying that Sherman did not kill livestock, destroy crops and other food supply in an effort to cause starvation. If that is not the cause you explain why he did it. Also Sherman executed Southern prisoner in revenge for the attacks by Southern guerrillas. Do you approve of that too? He also killed children unless you don’t consider cadets children. He also turned a blind eye to the actions of his raiding parties. We will never know how many Southern women were rape[d] because Sherman didn’t care.

I forgot about this: He sent four hundred women to be prostitutes in the North. That made him a major sex trafficker. Now that is something I don’t approve of as a war fighting tactic. It would have been better to have killed them than to make whores out of them.

In July 1864 during the Atlanta campaign General William T. Sherman ordered the approximately 400 Roswell mill workers, mostly women, arrested as traitors and shipped as prisoners to the North with their children.
There is little evidence that more than a few of the women ever returned home. V

[Bicycle Bill]

I forgot about this: He sent four hundred women to be prostitutes in the North.
....
In July 1864 during the Atlanta campaign General William T. Sherman ordered the approximately 400 Roswell mill workers, mostly women, arrested as traitors and shipped as prisoners to the North with their children.
There is little evidence that more than a few of the women ever returned home. V

#1 — Please cite your source.  For obvious reasons, I suspect your final paragraph (the one I italicized) was cut-and-pasted from somewhere else.
#2 — To claim that someone was sent "to be prostitutes" because they were transported north as prisoners, even if they did not return to their homes after the end of hostilities, is a stretch that even Helen Parr (Elasti-Girl) would have a hard time making.



-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

It is from the New Georgia Encyclopedia but lib, casual laborer that he is, didn't bother to continue quoting:

https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/art ... mill-women

The women, their children, and the few men, most either too young or too old to fight, were transported by wagon to Marietta and imprisoned in the Georgia Military Institute, by then abandoned. Then, with several days' rations, they were loaded into boxcars that proceeded through Chattanooga, Tennessee, and after a stopover in Nashville, Tennessee, headed to Louisville, Kentucky, the final destination for many of the mill workers. Others were sent across the Ohio River to Indiana.
First housed and fed in a Louisville refugee hospital, the women later took what menial jobs and living arrangements could be found. Those in Indiana struggled to survive, many settling near the river, where eventually mills provided employment. Unless husbands had been transported with the women or had been imprisoned nearby, there was little probability of a return to Roswell, so the remaining women began to marry and bear children.

Also see: Sherman's Expulsion of the Roswell Women in 1864 by Hartwell T. Bynum
The Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Summer, 1970), pp. 169-182

Given the conditions in the South, Indiana must have seemed like heaven - even Kentucky was apparently better than Georgia. But that marrying and bearing children - obviously lib, ever the liberal progressive, thinks that's prostitution.

FWIW, lib has undercounted by not adding the Sweetwater factory women and sundry others which at one point totaled 1300-1500 women. Sherman's argument that factory workers, by being exempted from compulsory military conscription were in effect "conscripted" to occupations is so much rubbish, even noting that it would not apply to women in either case.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Clever lib (two words not often encountered in the same sentence)! I regret being deflected into the Sherman events and allowing you to sidestep what you suggested; that Sherman's methods should have been used by the U.S. in Vietnam.

Point 1. Do you believe the U.S. military would have achieved victory in Vietnam by destroying all of the crops of the citizens we were "defending", thus "starving" the population?

Point 2 Are you suggesting that U.S. forces in Vietnam should have executed prisoners, thus achieving victory?

Point 3. Are you suggesting that in Vietnam, a special effort should have been made to kill teenagers and thus achieve the elusive victory?

Point 4. Are you suggesting the U.S. military policy in Vietnam (a friendly, client country) should have been to rape as many women as possible to achieve victory?

Because that is what you wrote. . .

War is not about winning hearts and minds it is about killing them all and letting God sort them out. There is only one way to fight war; Sherman taught us how to do it but we forgot the lesson. We should have destroyed everything in Vietnam that we could including food and food production. Massive starvation should have been the goal, that is the lesson Sherman taught us.

[Econoline]

Our country is full. Our area is full. The sector is full.
We can't take you anymore. Sorry, can't happen.

I'd prefer simplicity: "WE'RE FULL. SCRAM."

See, here's the thing: if Trump and his supporters REALLY believed this, they would support—or demand!—

• (1) Free, publicly supported, easily available contraceptives, vasectomies, and tubal ligations in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and
  (2) Free, publicly supported, easily available abortion, to end those unwanted pregnancies which, for whatever reasons, may occur anyway.

That they not only don't support either of these ideas but in fact vehemently oppose such proposals is, ipso facto, proof that they're lying.

[ex-khobar Andy]

And of course they would close down the green card program - I have not heard that they have. I think it would have been in the papers.

[Joe Guy]

New Words For The Base Of The Statue Of Liberty...

"Pick a number and wait at your border"

[Jarlaxle]

Our country is full. Our area is full. The sector is full.
We can't take you anymore. Sorry, can't happen.

I'd prefer simplicity: "WE'RE FULL. SCRAM."

See, here's the thing: if Trump and his supporters REALLY believed this, they would support—or demand!—

• (1) Free, publicly supported, easily available contraceptives, vasectomies, and tubal ligations in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and
  (2) Free, publicly supported, easily available abortion, to end those unwanted pregnancies which, for whatever reasons, may occur anyway.

That they not only don't support either of these ideas but in fact vehemently oppose such proposals is, ipso facto, proof that they're lying.

I am all for contraceptives in the water supply and cash payouts for sterilization.

[Econoline]

I appreciate your honesty and consistency, Jarl...though I doubt whether many other Trump supporters would agree with you.

---

ETA: I just want to make it clear that in my previous post I was *NOT* advocating anything compulsory or coercive. I was referring to completely voluntary use of products and procedures, which are currently completely legal and desired by—but unavailable/unaffordable for—many Americans.