Reconsidering Abraham Lincoln

[MediumTex]

I don't think it's pacifist to say that I'm not willing to sacrifice the blood of my loved ones because a semi-delusional politician wants to have a military adventure (see Iraq and Afghanistan for more recent examples of this sort of thing).

Clearly you are a terrorist who hates America, freedom, and apple pie.

And Mom.

I just hate the cycle (which I have seen quite a few times in the last decade) of a young person filled with patriotism going off to "fight for his country" and then either getting killed, maimed or having his mind severely damaged, only to find that what he thought he was fighting for was actually nothing but a cynical and/or poorly conceived military effort with no real objectives and very little connection to the welfare of his country.  For example, 11 years after 9/11 does anyone really have a clue what we are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan?  I don't, but we are sure spending a lot of money and blowing up a lot of very good young Americans in the process of figuring out that we really don't have any business there.

To me, it's because I am patriotic that it bothers me so much that dumb politicians keep taking the U.S. into these pointless meat grinders around the world.  If we were running an all-mercenary military it wouldn't be so bad, but a lot of these kids that go into the military do it because they really do love their country and think that what they are being asked to do actually has something to do with protecting their country.

[MediumTex]

Given your pacifistic train of thought, we might all be speaking German right now; that is to say, those of us who would be left and deemed worthy to live after the "selections".

Sometimes one just needs to get out there and do what needs to be done.

Without the U.S. getting involved in either world war, they would have remained regional conflicts.  Especially in WWII, Germany would have broken itself fighting the Soviet Union whether we got involved or not.   I would say that both Wilson and FDR were pretty incompetent wartime Presidents.

I don't think it's pacifist to say that I'm not willing to sacrifice the blood of my loved ones because a semi-delusional politician wants to have a military adventure (see Iraq and Afghanistan for more recent examples of this sort of thing).

Iraq and Afghanistan, I agree. World War 2, no. We entered the war in 1941 and as far as we knew at the time, Hitler had a voracious appetite and seemed to want to make the entire world his empire, including the USA one day. Imperial Japan was quite a threat to us too. From what I read, Hitler had plans to eventually invade the USA. Therefore, I consider World War 2 a just war, something we had to fight, given the circumstances at the time. The way Hitler was going, who knew he was going to be stopped by anyone? Also, there was the matter of that German rocket that was being developed.

You're probably right.  It's just bizarre to me that Hitler was Man of the Year and celebrated in the U.S. in 1938 for rejuvenating Germany, but then three years later he was a psychotic killer.  It sort of reminds me of how Saddam Hussein was our buddy in the 1980s when he was fighting Iran, but in 1991 he became an evil dictator when he acted against U.S. oil interests.

And whether the U.S.'s involvement in WWII was justified, I think that the idea of dropping two atomic bombs on civilian populations is just inexcusable, no matter how much you want to win the war.  To me, civilized people don't do things like that.  I understand that Japan had behaved poorly itself, but the poor behavior was by their military, which shouldn't justify the indiscriminate killing of civilian populations. 

Think about how upset we were when the terrorists bombed one U.S. civilian population in 2001, killing 3,000 people and destroying a few buildings, when the U.S. destroyed two entire cities to send a message to one of our enemies.  I'm surprised that so few people are willing to revisit our own past and consider that maybe we have been capable of every bit as much brutality as these terrorists we are fighting today.

[hpowders]

Without the U.S. getting involved in either world war, they would have remained regional conflicts.  Especially in WWII, Germany would have broken itself fighting the Soviet Union whether we got involved or not.   I would say that both Wilson and FDR were pretty incompetent wartime Presidents.

I don't think it's pacifist to say that I'm not willing to sacrifice the blood of my loved ones because a semi-delusional politician wants to have a military adventure (see Iraq and Afghanistan for more recent examples of this sort of thing).

Iraq and Afghanistan, I agree. World War 2, no. We entered the war in 1941 and as far as we knew at the time, Hitler had a voracious appetite and seemed to want to make the entire world his empire, including the USA one day. Imperial Japan was quite a threat to us too. From what I read, Hitler had plans to eventually invade the USA. Therefore, I consider World War 2 a just war, something we had to fight, given the circumstances at the time. The way Hitler was going, who knew he was going to be stopped by anyone? Also, there was the matter of that German rocket that was being developed.

You're probably right.  It's just bizarre to me that Hitler was Man of the Year and celebrated in the U.S. in 1938 for rejuvenating Germany, but then three years later he was a psychotic killer.  It sort of reminds me of how Saddam Hussein was our buddy in the 1980s when he was fighting Iran, but in 1991 he became an evil dictator when he acted against U.S. oil interests.

And whether the U.S.'s involvement in WWII was justified, I think that the idea of dropping two atomic bombs on civilian populations is just inexcusable, no matter how much you want to win the war.  To me, civilized people don't do things like that.  I understand that Japan had behaved poorly itself, but the poor behavior was by their military, which shouldn't justify the indiscriminate killing of civilian populations.  

Think about how upset we were when the terrorists bombed one U.S. civilian population in 2001, killing 3,000 people and destroying a few buildings, when the U.S. destroyed two entire cities to send a message to one of our enemies.  I'm surprised that so few people are willing to revisit our own past and consider that maybe we have been capable of every bit as much brutality as these terrorists we are fighting today.

Hitler had it all laid out in Mein Kampf. I find it incredible that a majority of Germans would vote for him.

Th atomic bomb dropping debate is like the pro-choice, pro-life debate-endless with no satisfactory resolution. I'm pretty sure it felt really good to many Americans after that bomb was dropped on Hiroshima after what they did to Pearl Harbor. Being far removed, we can see things more soberly. Same with the civil war-we can see the insanity of it all-citizens killing fellow citizens. But at the time, you got swept up in it-emotions were running at a fever pitch on both sides. For the few who didn't heed the call to report for duty, they were found and shot.

[Pointedstick]

Hitler had it all laid out in Mein Kampf. I find it incredible that a majority of Germans would vote for him.

Actually, they didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Rise_to_power

[MediumTex]

Hitler had it all laid out in Mein Kampf. I find it incredible that a majority of Germans would vote for him.

Yep.  Those were civilized, educated, middle class people who placed him in power and helped him implement his master plan.

Th atomic bomb dropping debate is like the pro-choice, pro-life debate-endless with no satisfactory resolution. I'm pretty sure it felt really good to many Americans after that bomb was dropped on Hiroshima after what they did to Pearl Harbor. Being far removed, we can see things more soberly. Same with the civil war-we can see the insanity of it all-citizens killing fellow citizens. But at the time, you got swept up in it-emotions were running at a fever pitch on both sides. For the few who didn't heed the call to report for duty, they were found and shot.

I am reading McCullough's book about Truman right now and it's chilling how Truman approved the dropping of the bombs the way a leader might approve a departmental budget.  I think that everyone was feeling pretty bloodthirsty by the end of WWII and the Japanese had been pretty well dehumanized by then (including Americans of Japanese descent), so perhaps it shouldn't surprise me.

It's really sad the things that humans have done to one another through history.

[hpowders]

Hitler had it all laid out in Mein Kampf. I find it incredible that a majority of Germans would vote for him.

Actually, they didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Rise_to_power

In the "World At War", I remember them saying that more people voted "Nazi" than other choices.

[MediumTex]

Hitler had it all laid out in Mein Kampf. I find it incredible that a majority of Germans would vote for him.

Actually, they didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Rise_to_power

In the "World At War", I remember them saying that more people voted "Nazi" than other choices.

In Europe isn't a plurality normally all you need to get elected?

I assume they don't have runoffs most of the time, but maybe they do.  Living in a two party world long enough can kind of bend up your mind about what democratic elections are supposed to look like.

[MediumTex]

While we're on the topic, does anyone want to pick which evil psychopathic dictator was worse, Hitler or Stalin?

I would probably pick Hitler, but Stalin had a much longer career as a killer, and by most measures was a more successful killer than Hitler.

Here is a nice graphic (looks like Mao was THE MAN when it came to killing his followers):

[AgAuMoney]

Th atomic bomb dropping debate is like the pro-choice, pro-life debate-endless with no satisfactory resolution. I'm pretty sure it felt really good to many Americans after that bomb was dropped on Hiroshima after what they did to Pearl Harbor. Being far removed, we can see things more soberly.

Hmm.

WWII is about the only war of the 20th century where U.S. involvement seems justified to me.  But only against Japan.  While even Pearl Harbor can be cynically deconstructed, in all the other precipitating events that come to mind the initial action taken by the supposed foe could easily be understood/excused as defending against US as the aggressor.  I just cannot take that position when it comes to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Personally I wish we could have dropped the bomb on Japan on December 8, 1941.  I would have chosen to drop at least two, one on Tokyo (the home of the emperor) and at least one on a major military and industrial base.

Then everyone comes back home with increased alertness to see if that was enough to keep the aggressors at bay or if they needed some additional lessons.

But on the other hand, would I let a woman be raped and killed on the road outside my front door?  If not, why would I let a country be raped and killed across the ocean?  Perhaps an all volunteer army would be better to my mind than conscription.

[hpowders]

It's so easy for us who are so far removed from the tenor of that time to pass judgment. Who among us can feel the intense hatred many Americans had for the Japanese people at that time-the stories of death marches and unspeakable torture and the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor and the mocking, provocative  Tokyo Rose baiting American soldiers. All we can and should do is note the events that have occurred during that horrible time and hope to God such things never ever happen again.

[swank]

if he actually WROTE the Gettysburg address, he was everything history has made him out to be, and more besides.

[MachineGhost]

His depiction of Bill the Butcher was amazing, and In The Name Of The Father was phenomenal. 

Last of the Mohicans!

[MachineGhost]

As a transplanted northerner, I just tune it out. But it has created plenty of controversy. I guess folks object to it being of huge size, hoisted on a skyscraper-like pole in a very visible location. That's what I call "making a statement." I don't think folks mind seeing it on a pickup window, or on Brad Pitt's cap in "Kalifornia", but this one is as "in your face" as something can be about 100 feet high.

I saw a USA flag exactly like that as I was coming into Texas and I just rolled my eyes.  Something about male emasculinity and penis size that is the hallmark typical of Southern conservatives and their anti-women bigotry.

[MachineGhost]

Wait, you liked the show because of the flag on the top of the car?

The flag was a safer bet.  To wit:

[align=center][/align]

[align=center][/align]

[MachineGhost]

We entered the war in 1941 due to a direct attack by Japan, who was an axis partner of Germany. Japan attacks us, that means we are at war with Germany too.

Just remember, we directly provoked the Japanese to attack us by cutting off their energy supplies in retaliation for their invasion of Manchuria.

Nothing happens in a vacuum when it comes to politicians and their wars.  There is cause and there is effect but they would have you believe there is no connection.

[AgAuMoney]

We entered the war in 1941 due to a direct attack by Japan, who was an axis partner of Germany. Japan attacks us, that means we are at war with Germany too.

Just remember, we directly provoked the Japanese to attack us by cutting off their energy supplies in retaliation for their invasion of Manchuria.

Yes, and I don't see any justification for our action other than the "help a woman" analogy I gave earlier.  (and I'm not sure that justifies this case)  That wasn't the first such provocation trying to give us an excuse to get into WW-II.  It's just the first one that stirred such an escalated response.

How does cutting off energy justify an attack on U.S. civilians and property removed from that event?  They should have eliminated the blockade or purchased supplies from outside the U.S. sphere of influence.  But no, there are no energy supplies on Hawaii so obviously they decided to take revenge for a military only action by attacking civilian and military indiscriminately.  Once they did that, they deserved a slap down against similar targets, fast and hard enough to either disable their ability or their will to continue.

We instigated similar affronts for wars/conflicts and also responded to other "help a woman" cases (eg Sadaam's invasion of Kuwait).  And then there are all the smaller conflicts rounding out the 20th century...

So far I'm really not liking the 21st century approach.    This year Gary Johnson and Ron Paul seem like the only sane candidates out there with any kind of national presence.

[hpowders]

We entered the war in 1941 due to a direct attack by Japan, who was an axis partner of Germany. Japan attacks us, that means we are at war with Germany too.

Just remember, we directly provoked the Japanese to attack us by cutting off their energy supplies in retaliation for their invasion of Manchuria.

Yes, and I don't see any justification for our action other than the "help a woman" analogy I gave earlier.  (and I'm not sure that justifies this case)  That wasn't the first such provocation trying to give us an excuse to get into WW-II.  It's just the first one that stirred such an escalated response.

How does cutting off energy justify an attack on U.S. civilians and property removed from that event?  They should have eliminated the blockade or purchased supplies from outside the U.S. sphere of influence.  But no, there are no energy supplies on Hawaii so obviously they decided to take revenge for a military only action by attacking civilian and military indiscriminately.  Once they did that, they deserved a slap down against similar targets, fast and hard enough to either disable their ability or their will to continue.

We instigated similar affronts for wars/conflicts and also responded to other "help a woman" cases (eg Sadaam's invasion of Kuwait).  And then there are all the smaller conflicts rounding out the 20th century...

So far I'm really not liking the 21st century approach.  :(  This year Gary Johnson and Ron Paul seem like the only sane candidates out there with any kind of national presence.

After the odd and even gas lines I remember all too well, we've had plenty of time to become energy independent. Instead, the USA has done nothing meaningful to wean ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil. We have plenty of oil. We don't need to be held hostage by OPEC anymore. That's the only reason we are still involved in the Middle East. It's all about the oil. We wouldn't give a crap about Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia, otherwise.

Like George Bush or Dick Cheney cared about taking out Sadaam Hussein to help the Iraquis rid themselves of a ruthless dictator and instill democracy in Iraq. They never stop lying to us! Plenty of other ruthless dictators on the African continent. How come we don't get involved? Because there's nothing in it for the US!

[Pointedstick]

Actually, it looks like there are only four middle-eastern countries in the list of top 15 countries that the US imports oil from: Saudi Arabia at #2, Iraq at #7, Kuwait at #12, and Oman at #15.

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleu ... mport.html

The biggest exporter is Canada! And in fact, a handful of  African countries appear on the list, as well as the perennial Central American ones, Mexico, Russia, and Brazil. The whole "dependence on middle east oil" narrative is one that I don't think is really borne out by the numbers.

[hpowders]

Speaking of Canada, too bad about that pipeline. Rejected for "insufficient time to review the plans." Yet Health Care Reform gets passed even though nobody who voted for it actually read the complete bill. Funniest line of the year, "We must pass it so we can know what's in it." Nancy Pelosi.
Ahhhh..... government work!!

[MediumTex]

After the odd and even gas lines I remember all too well, we've had plenty of time to become energy independent. Instead, the USA has done nothing meaningful to wean ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil. We have plenty of oil. We don't need to be held hostage by OPEC anymore. That's the only reason we are still involved in the Middle East. It's all about the oil. We wouldn't give a crap about Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia, otherwise.

Like George Bush or Dick Cheney cared about taking out Sadaam Hussein to help the Iraquis rid themselves of a ruthless dictator and instill democracy in Iraq. They never stop lying to us! Plenty of other ruthless dictators on the African continent. How come we don't get involved? Because there's nothing in it for the US!

From a long term perspective what is happening to U.S. oil production follows a predictable bell curve:



It's a geological issue, not a political issue.

What you find is that the shape of the oil discovery curve in any region foreshadows the shape of future oil production.  This discovery/production profile plays out in every region that you look at.  Again, it's geological, not political.  Hubbert's theory is that production tends to peak about 35 years after a peak in new discoveries:



It feels choppy year to year, but the long term trend is pretty reliable.  For whatever reason, the media says nothing about these long term trends, even though they provide a good explanation for why oil prices have remained stubbornly high in recent years.

If you are wondering what world oil production numbers look like, here is a pretty good projection:



This is a fascinating story.  I wish more people were talking about it.

[AdamA]

This is a fascinating story.  I wish more people were talking about it.

I like to hear about it too.  Why do you think it gets such little attention?

[AdamA]

Here is an interesting reenactment of what Lincoln's life may have been like, Louis CK style.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/ ... 2756/  4:26

(takes a moment to load.)

[WiseOne]

This is a fascinating story.  I wish more people were talking about it.

Same here.  I spent a good chunk of the weekend on odd/even rationed gas lines in northern NJ on behalf of elderly relatives who are, thanks to our suburban design principles, utterly car-dependent.  This post-Sandy nightmare isn't a true gas shortage, but it's a hint of what we may be in for in another 10-20 years.

[hpowders]

Here is an interesting reenactment of what Lincoln's life may have been like, Louis CK style.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/ ... 2756/  4:26

(takes a moment to load.)

Funny stuff. "Do you have the tickets"? Almost fell out of my chair laughing!

[RuralEngineer]

Lots of interesting discussion here.

I lost most of my respect for Lincoln the day I figured out that he is solely responsible for a great many of the issues that plague me (us?) today.  He is the father of federalism as we know it today, where the central government is so close to being all powerful as to not make a difference.  While State's Rights may or may not have been the driving reason behind the civil war, from a Southern perspective, State's Rights were certainly a casualty.  I view the ending of slavery as the silver lining in the travesty that was the Civil War.

I hate to make this analogy, because I don't want to be deliberately provocative, but these are the only modern social issues that are polarizing enough to be compared to slavery.

My view is that Lincoln's response to Southern secession would be similar to the Federal government using troops to close all abortion clinics by force, shooting anyone who resisted.  Now, I'm a pro-life guy, don't get me wrong.  And, unlike slavery, abortion has a 100% mortality rate.  Even so, using violence to kill or subdue any who disagree with your viewpoint would have be seen as much more than poor leadership today, which is why it's so unthinkable.

A bit in the past, but a good example of this same point of view that didn't involve secession, was what happened to Utah.  The Governor of Utah was given the choice between being invaded by Federal troops or banning polygamy.  At that time Utah was almost entirely Mormon.  While this didn't come to violence, as the Civil War did, it was only because the precedent had been set by Lincoln that the Federal Government has the absolute right to use force to override States Rights where it deems it fit.  This particular incident also had the bonus of infringing on religious freedoms as well.

I often hear people today mention that no State has the right to secede from the Union (usually in reference to Texas).  However, that is only because Abram Lincoln so firmly established that the Federal Government is perfectly willing to exterminate enormous portions of the population in order to keep that from happening.