[Slade]

If you'd like to participate, Renegade, go ahead. Though taking swipes at forum members is frowned upon. *pokes you in the arm with the mod stick*

But holding the union together was a more important task during the Civil War, JM, at least from the gov't's perspective. They were a bit busy fighting to stop and do a bunch of humanitarian legislation.

[J m HofMarN]

Hey, Churchill was busy fighting a war too, but that dosnt mean everyone in germany starved after the allied victory. The only two presidents I can remember who have gone into enemy territory and taken over without any plan at all about what to do with the "liberated" populace are Lincoln and Bush.

[Slade]

The liberated were just told "Get back into the union, you can't make your own country!" and then left to their business.

[J m HofMarN]

Which was great, because we all know the civil war wasn't remotely destructive unless you lived in the Shenandoa Valley or any of the places Sherman marched through, or around Richmond, or if you had family who were killed or wounded fighting in it.

[Patrick Bateman]

In fact the Confederate soldiers were treated very well at the conclusion of the Civil War. Clear instructions were given that they were to be well treated, in fact they were given the option of FREE train travel from where ever the were back to their home town.

[Patrick Bateman]

Oh and by the way, to claim that revolution creates 'elected' leaders due to the process of survival of the fittest - that if they suceed they obviously represent the will of the people - is so fucking stupid I don't know where to begin.

So .... Hussein was elected????
Alexander the Great was elected ruler of one third of the known world???
Atilla the Hun???
The English Monarchy????

Need I go on???

You're a rainbowy fool.

Edit: Lets keep the personal insults down to a dull roar, shall we?
-Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator

This post has been edited by Slade: 21 October 2005 - 11:37 AM

[J m HofMarN]

You're confusing war or coup for revolution. Much the same way people confuse homosexuality for beastiality or polygamy.

Anyone can have a coup, but a revolution is different. If you can't be arsed to keep your terms straight than I can't be arsed to argue with you.

[Patrick Bateman]

Castro led a coup which he CALLED a revolution. Semantics are dangerous buddy

[Slade]

A coup d'état is a takeover where one group at a level of authoroty usurps another with more, usually the ruling power.

A revolution is an overthrow of a gorvernment and replacement with another.

They go hand-in-hand, really.

[J m HofMarN]

A revolution is a movement by the people. How dare you call the revoltuion a coup! A coup is when members of the current government or military, or former members thereof, decide that they want power. This can be a revolution sometimes, but most often not.

A revolution is when the people choose a leader and, through either peaceful protest and action or guerilla warfare, overthrow the old government and install someone with completely different ideas more like their own. A revolution brings about a great change, which no matter how biggoted you are against him you have to admit His Excellency did. A coup only brings about a change of regime.

[ion eon]

wow you're really gettin worked up

[J m HofMarN]

I'm not worked up. When I get worked up rocks get thrown and shit gets tipped over, and there is a mighty yell of "NOW TESTIFY!"

[Renegade]

Hey, Churchill was busy fighting a war too, but that dosnt mean everyone in germany starved after the allied victory. The only two presidents I can remember who have gone into enemy territory and taken over without any plan at all about what to do with the "liberated" populace are Lincoln and Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lol.... to say Lincoln is somehow worse than Churchill morally or ethically speaking is pretty much a joke. While Churchill was "freeing" Europe he was putting the hammer down on Gandhi and India. Churchill didn't give a shit about freeing or helping anyone, he was fighting for what he believed in, which was a strong Britain and a maintanence of status quo.

[Renegade]

Which was great, because we all know the civil war wasn't remotely destructive unless you lived in the Shenandoa Valley or any of the places Sherman marched through, or around Richmond, or if you had family who were killed or wounded fighting in it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its war get over it. People die, cities are burned down, lives are ruined.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Video games and books are made...