Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You can't compare how wars are fought or how prisoners were threated. Norms and morals evolve.

Again what is the excuse for the nothern treatment of southern prisoners. Again the South had an excuse. Their own troops were malnurished. This is hardly the case for the North.

(Oh and the problem with Gitmo is they are denied a fair trial, not as much the way they are treated, I'm sure that chain gang prison isn't a whole lot nicer.)

First off these people arent pows. Secondly chain gang prisoners and in fact most prisoners in the US prison system are not as well taken care of as these guys. If any of you think these guys are mistreated try getting arrested sometime and then give the cops a load of shite when you get to the precinct. I garuntee you would rather be a prisoner at Gitmo.

[Red Harvest]

What quackery. POW camps were not concentration camps.

The exchange system broke down because the CSA refused to treat negro soldiers as soldiers. They also killed many on the field after battle (and yes, I've read the battle accounts.)

By the way, the 50,000 number appears to be wrong...


Federal Prisoners

211,411 prisoners of war 16,668 paroled on the field
30,218 died in prison
Mortality rate: 15.5%

Confederate Prisoners

462,634 prisoners of war 247,769 paroled on the field
(including surrenders)
25,976 died in prison
Mortality rate: 12%


These numbers conflict with some others such as:

Federal Army

Killed in Action or mortally wounded 110,100 67,088 KIA
43,012 MW
Died of disease 224,580
Died as prisoners of war 30,192

Confederate Army

Killed in action or mortally wounded 94,000
Died of disease 164,000
Died as prisoners of war 31,000

[PanzerJaeger]

The only differences between Hitler and Lincoln IMHO is Hitler killed more people, had a funky mustache, was overly rascist,

Lincoln was extremely racist. He was just one of those benevolent racists of the time..

The irony of your historically laughable claim of "dictatorship" is that by forcing Lincoln to war, the South gave him war powers. Any true wartime president has substantial dictatorial power. If he became a dictator, it was not his own doing, but the South's...yet he still had to face a true re-election--something that real dictators do not face.

Hehe. For such an outspoken critic of President Bush, you seem to have a strangely accurate interpretation of history. Why doesnt it apply today?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Lincoln was extremely racist. He was just one of those benevolent racists of the time..



Hehe. For such an outspoken critic of President Bush, you seem to have a strangely accurate interpretation of history. Why doesnt it apply today?

hrm I must have meant Overtly rascist.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What quackery. POW camps were not concentration camps.

So they werent called concentration camps but the condintions in Germanies camps werer better than in these prisons. I dont see any difference other in the name and the fact that they didnt just execute people.

By the way looking at your statisitcs the South really kicked the Norths butt.

[doc_bean]

First off these people arent pows.

That's part of the problem, you created a vacuum with the 'enemy combattants', taking away any rights they might have had as criminals or as POWs.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That's part of the problem, you created a vacuum with the 'enemy combattants', taking away any rights they might have had as criminals or as POWs.

Wrong again. We didnt invent ths classification the Genva Conventions did. Since they are neither criminals here in the US nor are they POWs they fit into this classificattion.

[Red Harvest]

Actually, the standards were considerably higher back then. The US Civil War re-defined warfare, as until then, warfare was a fairly civilized, limited matter. You didn't attack civilians, you treated captured prisoners with respect, and you didn't fight for 'unconditional surrender'. All three of those were American contributions that propagated to other cultures with the advent of the civil war, and even then, it took some doing. The Franco-Prussian war was more civilized than WWI, which was more civilized than WWII.

Oh come on. Warfare from earliest history up through medieval times had involved the annihilation or enslavement of the conquered enemy. There is nothing new about total war. The difference that arose in pre-ACW european warfare was largely that it was a battle of the aristocracy. It all works nicely when you only have to defeat the enemy army and take his capitol. Of course, if you besiege it, then everyone starves, but no matter...

Sherman had it right when he said that war was killing, there is no reforming it. While certain rules of war make sense up to a point, you also have to consider what is sustaining your enemy in the field. Sherman and Sheridan understood that destroying the crops and other property would bring the enemy to his knees. It wasn't butchery of civilians, it was a war against property.

When you get to WWII, you start getting the dispersal of manufacturing to protect factories from bombs. The targeting shifts to the workers sustaining the war machine. And Japan...a country that had pursued most brutal racial policies, had fought to the last man on several island assaults. We could either sacrifice many of our own lives by invading, starve the islands, or drop a couple of nukes to try to force capitulation. The nuke option most likely resulted in less suffering than any other course...and it had one heckuva deterrent effect from anyone ever considering a nuclear war in the future.

The big difference is in what you do once you have conquered an enemy...not how you conquer them. Handling prisoners is part of that. The parole system ended in the ACW because of the CSA refusal to acknowledge negroes as soldiers. Every ACW battle involving negros that I've read about had outright bragging of Southerners killing negro wounded and prisoners.

The U.S. handling of what it has taken through "unconditional surrender" has been admirable.

The idea of a truly civilized war is a bit of a farce. The only truly civilized war is one settled over a gameboard, like chess.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The idea of a truly civilized war is a bit of a farce. The only truly civilized war is one settled over a gameboard, like chess.

I suggest you try MTW is much more like war and very civilised.

[Don Corleone]

I don't remember anybody specifically targeting civilians in wars prior to the US Civil war (at least not from the Age of Reason on, you have a point that if you go back further, it gets even worse).

But there's plenty of examples of this in the US Civil War. In the first major battle, union artillery shelled a house down to it's foundations, with a bed ridden widow inside, because they suspected her of being a Copperhead (a Southern sympathizer).

And there were outcries about this stuff all the time at the time, so it wasn't 'different times, different standards'. There was a hell of a backlash against the army after Wounded Knee, when word of what actually happened got out.

You can't tell me that 19th century soldiers/politicians didn't know any better or that somehow we're morally superior.

[Red Harvest]

By the way looking at your statisitcs the South really kicked the Norths butt.

??? You might want to recheck your math. The numbers are rather close for the number killed. Difference of 16,000. And you might want to take a look at the few hundred thousand extra paroled on the field... That would be all those surrendered armies: Ft. Donelson, Vicksburg, Appomattox, and garrisons from Roanoke Island, Fort Fisher, etc.

When attacking in the ACW, the attacker almost always suffered higher casualties. R.E. Lee took heavier casualties in the Seven Days and Gettysburg since he was on the offensive. At Antietam he was on defense and took lower casualties. I could point to similar examples throughout. Casualties tended to be higher for the defender if they actually broke... Anyway, to win a war you tend to have to attack the enemy more frequently than not. Unless it is an extreme mismatch, you can expect the attacker to take more casualties.

Even the Germans made distinctions between their POW camps, and concentration camps. It is sad that you are so blinded as to not see the difference. The concentration camps were death camps for those they wanted to exterminate. They were pretty careful to keep western POW's away from those camps.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

??? You might want to recheck your math. The numbers are rather close for the number killed. Difference of 16,000.

Thats about a 20% difference is it not? Also the North was much better equipped and had a vast numerical superiority. It was the North whostopped the prisoner exchanges that led to all those deaths on both sides in the prison camps. They realized that the southern soldier was far more valuable than the northern one.

[Red Harvest]

I don't remember anybody specifically targeting civilians in wars prior to the US Civil war (at least not from the Age of Reason on, you have a point that if you go back further, it gets even worse).

But there's plenty of examples of this in the US Civil War. In the first major battle, union artillery shelled a house down to it's foundations, with a bed ridden widow inside, because they suspected her of being a Copperhead (a Southern sympathizer).

And there were outcries about this stuff all the time at the time, so it wasn't 'different times, different standards'. There was a hell of a backlash against the army after Wounded Knee, when word of what actually happened got out.

You can't tell me that 19th century soldiers/politicians didn't know any better or that somehow we're morally superior.

Oh you've got to be kidding. Badajoz ring any bells? 20,000 killed at Praga? ~400 prisoners killed at Goliad by the Mexican army (isn't Europe of course.) I could point the English during the American Revolution--Waxham's Massacre of prisoners by Tarleton's dragoons. And wasn't it the French that paid the Indians for scalps? If you think civilians were spared the horrors of war by perfectly behaved European armies, you are dreaming.

I won't defend any of the U.S. wars against the Indians. Are you going to defend all of the British wars of conquest for empire? It was an inherited European view of Indians as savages that fueled it. Shall we discuss what the Spanish did to the Indian civilizations?

Let's talk about Tasmanians:
Massacres began 3 May 1804 at Risdon when the 102 Regiment of the British Army shot dead 50 Oyster Bay people, including women and children. The Tasmanians had approached without spears and with green boughs in their hands, as a sign of peace. The commanding officer said afterwards he didn't think the Aborigines would be any use to the British.
'The Black War' lasted seven years - 1824 to 1831. Atrocities were committed by both sides, but although black men were castrated and black women raped, there wasn't any record of rape committed by Aboriginals against any white woman.

Your concept of Europe at war is...uh...a bit rose tinted...

[Don Corleone]

Alright, you have a point there. What Europeans engaged in during colonialism was pretty apalling. But you could make the argument that they (wrongly) didn't view those people as fellow human beings. They did seem to have a limited view of warfare with each other. Can you really imagine a battle like the Plains of Abraham, being fought within cannon range of an enemy city, being fought today without civilian casualties? Or any of the continental battles between the French and the Dutch for that matter? Or am I way off on this too (could be, my knowledge of European warfare isn't what it probably should be, beyond the who/what/when).

[Red Harvest]

Thats about a 20% difference is it not? Also the North was much better equipped and had a vast numerical superiority. It was the North whostopped the prisoner exchanges that led to all those deaths on both sides in the prison camps. They realized that the southern soldier was far more valuable than the northern one.

Creating your own reality? 17% difference...that's actually pretty small for being on offense. In the East the southern armies fared better. In the West they got their arses kicked. Funny thing is, in the Western battles they often had localized advantages in numbers, and still lost, much like the Union in the East. It's night and day different when you start looking at other theaters.

The South had it in its power to resume the exchanges...but they wouldn't recognize the black soldier. Regardless, denying them manpower was a sound strategy and there is no reason that I can think of that prisoners must be exchanged until cessation of hostilities. Cry me a river. With over 4 million men, women and children enslaved, I don't see how the South had any room for moral indignation.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The South had it in its power to resume the exchanges...but they wouldn't recognize the black soldier.

Bull.

Cry me a river. With over 4 million men, women and children enslaved, I don't see how the South had any room for moral indignation.

Again the north was no better. You still havent answered my question as to why the north couldnt have taken better care of its prisoners. You are an opponent of the war in Iraq are you not? Where is your moral indignation towards that regime? Cry me a river indeed.

[Red Harvest]

Bull.
Again the north was no better. You still havent answered my question as to why the north couldnt have taken better care of its prisoners. You are an opponent of the war in Iraq are you not? Where is your moral indignation towards that regime? Cry me a river indeed.

??? Why should I have to defend the North's treatment of prisoners (or the South). I'm pretty sure I wasn't responsible for them...

No, I'm not an opponent of the Iraq War. I am disgusted with how it has been conducted by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. I am appalled at the use of fabricated WMD scares to gain approval of the attack. It's not like it worked either, we still had to do it without much international support. As McCain as well as various military folks said from the beginning: we should have put more boots on the ground. But that wouldn't fit Bush's budget or force misrepresentations to the country. Too darned much swaggering and not enough real action. How any times did one of our strikes "get Saddam." Noisy, braggart administration leaks didn't help us at all. We didn't get him soon enough, and we didn't have enough forces to secure a peace when it was needed. Lots of big talk, but there was a lot that needed to happen quickly, and it wasn't done. I don't blame our troops, it was a leadership issue from the top.

Where is Osama by the way? He was in Tora-Bora...but Dubya decided not to go in after him...let the locals handle it. That was friggin' brilliant. Of course we have a new Bush appointee who says he knows where Osama is...I'll believe it when I see it.

[Steppe Merc]

The treatment of prisoners and civilians by both sides was appalling. The differnce is, many of the human rights violators in the South paid for their crimes, while the Northern butchers got offered political office, and often won (Grant).
About the different morals, that is hard for me to explain my position. Because I often use that argument when people go on about the (exagerated) atrocities of many ancient and Medieval peoples, especially the Mongols. However, I don't think that different morals can excuse America's treatment of Indians. And while in some cases different morals obviously applied, since almost everyone thought it natrual to be a racist (though it wasn't called that). However, when it come to the treatment of prisoners and civilians, I don't think that the different morals can apply. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the North had war crimes trials against the Confederate commander of that one Southern prison, Andersonville I believe, as well as others. If they can have war crime trials against human right violators, then the rules apply to them as well.

[PanzerJaeger]

No, I'm not an opponent of the Iraq War. I am disgusted with how it has been conducted by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. I am appalled at the use of fabricated WMD scares to gain approval of the attack. It's not like it worked either, we still had to do it without much international support. As McCain as well as various military folks said from the beginning: we should have put more boots on the ground. But that wouldn't fit Bush's budget or force misrepresentations to the country. Too darned much swaggering and not enough real action. How any times did one of our strikes "get Saddam." Noisy, braggart administration leaks didn't help us at all. We didn't get him soon enough, and we didn't have enough forces to secure a peace when it was needed. Lots of big talk, but there was a lot that needed to happen quickly, and it wasn't done. I don't blame our troops, it was a leadership issue from the top.

I dont know if youve ever heard of Tommy Franks, but he said that the president gave the military everything it asked for and continued to while he was in power.

Can you show where the Joint Chiefs, Army, Marines or any other branch asked for more troops and the administration denied them?

Where is Osama by the way? He was in Tora-Bora...but Dubya decided not to go in after him...let the locals handle it. That was friggin' brilliant. Of course we have a new Bush appointee who says he knows where Osama is...I'll believe it when I see it.

Were you there at Tora-Bora? Again, please show where the military asked the administration to allow them to go in and take out Osama, and were denied.


Figure out who you're really against - is it the administration or the military?

[doc_bean]

The US military does look like it can use some serious reforms.

Is the military responsible for rebuilding Iraque or is the State department ? Or some other service ?

[PanzerJaeger]

Contractors, i think, actually are rebuilding the infrastructure. I dont know who is planning that out though.

[Red Harvest]

PJ,

You haven't paid much attention to the admin have you? Not to what they are REALLY saying and doing. The officer that first said they needed more was scoffed at and effectively shown the door as I recall. The rest got the message. It's all about leadership, and you don't cross this commander in chief whether or not you are right.

It's not the military I have a problem with, it is the civilian leadership directing it at the moment. I support the troops, not the folks that sent them there.

[Red Harvest]

Is the military responsible for rebuilding Iraque or is the State department ? Or some other service ?

Haliburton, Cheney's former employer.

That was part of the problem in the early days, and got us off to a bad start once the invasion was complete. Poor postwar planning.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

doc:
quick note as regards hate crimes: white British citizens are far more likely to be attacked in a hate crime than any other group. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the same for the rest of Europe but I don't know.

You're right about the neo-nazis: they don't seem to be too big in the U.K. Other groups (I'm thinking the BNP here) who are generally called Nazis, fascists etc. but aren't Nazis per se (but definitely do have their origins in that sort of area) have reached record levels of support as far as those ideologies go in the U.K.(I think that, maybe, the British Union of Fascists had more support in the '30s but I doubt it, except maybe in absolute membership numbers rather than votes).

[GoreBag]

I'm sure the neo-nazi movement is as prevalent in Britain as it is anywhere. Even the Skinhead fashion conventions were established in Scotland, and Skrewdriver is English, after all.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

NeonGod:
you can't equate skinheads with neo-nazis so simply.

I don't mean to go on about it but the origins of skins definitely are not Nazi. Some young neo-Nazis adopted the skinhead style and became part of that scene whilst I'm sure some skinheads became neo-Nazis and became part of that scene.

generic overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead
complete with some generic misconceotions and half truths as most generalisms are.

I write as a man with a shaven head, flight jacket and big boots who is not a neo-Nazi.

Edit: even Skrewdriver did not start out as they are usually portrayed. Back in the late 70s Bob Geldof was knocked unconcious at a Skrewdriver show (or so the story goes). I couldn't imagine righteous Bob at a neo-Nazi show. The Line up largely changed and they got political.

[GoreBag]

NeonGod:
you can't equate skinheads with neo-nazis so simply.

I don't mean to go on about it but the origins of skins definitely are not Nazi. Some young neo-Nazis adopted the skinhead style and became part of that scene whilst I'm sure some skinheads became neo-Nazis and became part of that scene.

Yes, but the fashion trend was adopted by neo-nazis. How else could the trend have been adopted if it was not for a neo-nazi culture in Britain? The style never reached North America, as far as I know, without the neo-Nazi association.

generic overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead
complete with some generic misconceotions and half truths as most generalisms are.

I write as a man with a shaven head, flight jacket and big boots who is not a neo-Nazi.

Edit: even Skrewdriver did not start out as they are usually portrayed. Back in the late 70s Bob Geldof was knocked unconcious at a Skrewdriver show (or so the story goes). I couldn't imagine righteous Bob at a neo-Nazi show. The Line up largely changed and they got political.

Oh, I know, but that doesn't mean much. The early Skrewdriver and the Skrewdriver of today are for all purposes different bands. They're still the most popular neo-nazi rock band of all time.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

these guys claim to be amongst the original US skins basing themselves on traditional UK skins:
http://skintradzines.0catch.com/sf.html
So, according to them, the whole skinhead scene did not appear in the U.S. due to neo-nazis.

You're right about Skrewdriver being a completely different band, they seemed to lose their ability/inclination to write a fun tune about the same time.