Hero?
Natty
president.
We bombed Quadafis'(Libya) house in the middle of the night.
We bombed Husseins'(Iraq) house in the midle of the night.
If a man were to single handedly go out and kill our enemies president,
he would surely be called a hero.
John Wilkes booth did that.
Any comments.
Natty
rdu...@pdq.net
Natty wrote:
> It is obviously American doctrine to try and kill the enemies
> president.
American military law allows action against a national leader if he
is also uniformed military and in the chain of command. Calling the
leaders of Iraq and Libiya "Presidents" seems odd since they were
dictators for life.
>
> We bombed Quadafis'(Libya) house in the middle of the night.
>
> We bombed Husseins'(Iraq) house in the midle of the night.
>
> If a man were to single handedly go out and kill our enemies president,
> he would surely be called a hero.
>
> John Wilkes booth did that.
>
> Any comments.
Shooting an unarmed man in the back is not an action that most
Americans would think of as "heroic".
John W. Booth did more to increase Lincolns historical prestige
than anybody else in the 19th century. The fate of the defeated south
was made considerably harsher because of the asassination.
But Booth got in the history books which is probably all he really
cared about.
Natty
Historical prestige...Lincoln allowed the North to commit what are now
called war crimes upon the South.
And his illegal and criminal actions against the State of Maryland to
keep them from seceding from the Union ultimately got him killed by a
Maryland boy....
And his
Nathan Estervig
Matter of fact, his plan for killing Lincoln was more cowardice than it was
heroic. You see, if you look as to how the armies of both sides retreaded
from the field, they fell back by walking backwards for the most part, while
engaged in battle. Not only in the Old West but, in the Civil War era as
well, shooting someone while their back was facing towards you was
concidered an act of cowardice.
Plus, due to Booth, the South feared, and suffered extreame retribution
from the elected Federal government. Good proof of that is the fact that
Federal troops were not pulled out of the Confederate States until after
1900. Of course, that wasn't the only thing that was done to the South to
pay for their actions against the Federal government during the Civil War.
Nate
"Natty" <mcampb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1155681338.7...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Natty
Since y'all think it was cowardly what Booth did, compare that to
flying thousands of miles and dropping a bomb on someones house in the
middle of the night.
Robert Kolker
> Historical prestige...Lincoln allowed the North to commit what are now
> called war crimes upon the South.
War-crime is a bogus concept. It is usually invoked within the context
of the "justice" of the winning side. The only war crime is loosing the
war.
Bob Kolker
ray o'hara
many southerners like george marshall george patton, clare chenault serving
in high commands brought the southern ethics to the united states military
service
Dave Smith
rdu...@pdq.net wrote:
snips
>
> Shooting an unarmed man in the back is not an action that most
> Americans would think of as "heroic".
> John W. Booth did more to increase Lincolns historical prestige
> than anybody else in the 19th century. The fate of the defeated south
> was made considerably harsher because of the asassination.
> But Booth got in the history books which is probably all he really
> cared about.
The broken ankle was probably something he didn't count on.
But I agree, Booth did more harm for the South, on a scale of
magnitude, than he did with his cowardly act.
Dave
Rich Rostrom
It depends on how one regards the cause.
Qaddafi is and Saddam was a brutal dictator,
mass murderer, and supporter of terrorism.
Lincoln was the democratically elected
President of the United States, who
maintained the authority of the United
States against an illegal rebellion.
Of course, from Booth's point of view,
Lincoln was a race-traitor who ended
the system that kept the niggers in
their proper place.
Heroism can exist in a bad cause, and
Booth's cause was one of the very worst
that ever was.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Natty
Maybe Booth new that Lincoln had waged a total war against Americans
that caused the death of 620,000 men.
And the destruction of the Souths economy.
And the murder of 50,000 Southern civilians including blacks.
And the illegal and criminal actions of arresting the Maryland
legislature to prevent the state from seceding.
Shucks these are called WAR CRIMES today.
Robert Kolker
>
>
> Maybe Booth new that Lincoln had waged a total war against Americans
> that caused the death of 620,000 men.
>
> And the destruction of the Souths economy.
>
> And the murder of 50,000 Southern civilians including blacks.
>
> And the illegal and criminal actions of arresting the Maryland
> legislature to prevent the state from seceding.
>
> Shucks these are called WAR CRIMES today.
Actually, they are not. And all these actions were legal under the law
prevelent in the Union at the time. The old war crimes dodge would make
the bombing of enemy cities illegal. How do you expect wars to be won?
By the exchange of foul language?
The secesh as a rebellion and an insurrection and the President had the
legal power to take military action.
Bob Kolker
Rich Rostrom
>> Heroism can exist in a bad cause, and
>> Booth's cause was one of the very worst
>> that ever was.
>
>Maybe Booth new that Lincoln had waged a total war against Americans
>that caused the death of 620,000 men.
What finally set Booth off was Lincoln's
discussion of Reconstruction policies a
few days before.
According to some of Booth's cronies
he was heard later ranting
This means votes for niggers!
There is no need to speculate about Booth's
motives.
Huddle...@comcast.net
It was not Abraham Lincoln who started the war. It was Jefferson Davis
and the Confederates.
If anyone was guilty of war crimes it was Davis, his cabinet and his
generals.
Take care,
Bob
Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
huddle...@comcast.net
..the greatest and the noblest man of the last century was Abraham
Lincoln...Though America was his motherland and he was an American, he
regarded the whole world as his native land.
Mahatma Gandhi, August 26, 1905
Natty wrote:
SNIP
Martin
Rich Rostrom wrote:
> "Natty" <mcampb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Heroism can exist in a bad cause, and
>>>Booth's cause was one of the very worst
>>>that ever was.
>>
>>Maybe Booth new that Lincoln had waged a total war against Americans
>>that caused the death of 620,000 men.
>
>
> What finally set Booth off was Lincoln's
> discussion of Reconstruction policies a
> few days before.
>
> According to some of Booth's cronies
> he was heard later ranting
>
> This means votes for niggers!
>
> There is no need to speculate about Booth's
> motives.
Tariffs?
Natty
No president in US history ever trashed the constitution, abused power
and commited acts against written law more than Lincoln.
S Witmer
Examples, Natty? From sources *other* than that bastion of lunacy Lew
Rockwell?
Robert Kolker
>
>
> No president in US history ever trashed the constitution, abused power
> and commited acts against written law more than Lincoln.
That may be true but he defeated the secession. In a war, nasty things
happen.
Bob Kolker
>