| Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? | |
|
+7enigma7patriot coby The Opposition General Stuart Civility_C Iron Brigade General DCCCfC aka General Lee 11 posters |
|
Author | Message |
---|
Civility_C General-in-Chief
Number of posts : 1300 Age : 32 Registration date : 2006-10-05
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:25 am | |
| GS, here is a conversation Sherman had with a Confederate Veteran: When the man asked why Sherman was so "Hell bent on capturing Atlanta," Sherman held up his right hand and said: "The answer is simple. Atlanta, say, is on my wrist. At the end of each of my fingers is Norfolk, Savannah, Jacksonville, Pensacola, and New Orleans. Atlanta was the only place in the South from which every city on the Southern Atlantic and the Gulf Coast between Norfolk and New Orleans could be reached over night....I knew when I had Atlanta the War would be at an end." Jusr something I thought I'd interject. | |
|
| |
DCCCfC aka General Lee Cavalry Trooper
Number of posts : 356 Age : 97 Localisation : The Island of Christian Theocracy Registration date : 2006-10-10
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:29 pm | |
| Ok so he had a point to capture Atlanta.... That still doesnt make burning it down acceptable. Ok situation... South secedes again. North goes to war South drops atomic bombs on every major city in the north (or "just" burns them all down.) Is that acceptable? | |
|
| |
enigma7patriot Artillary
Number of posts : 44 Age : 34 Localisation : An asylum near you... Registration date : 2006-11-17
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:53 pm | |
| It's a war people... By burning it down, it crushed whatever moral the South had left and thus hastened its defeat. And how many people did he kill by burning it down? With a nuclear weapon (obviously depending upon its size) you can nearly wipe out life in a 1/2 mile radius. And even in the surrounding areas, there is a huge exposure to large amounts of radiation. Thus effectively killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. If this is acceptable or not is based upon your opinion or point of view. Take a look at WWII. We dropped the atomic bombs and bam the war is over. However, there is much controversy surrounding this fact. People say that we shouldn't have killed innocent civilians (I can't even spell) and have gone in there with our troops and thus ended the war that way. Others say it saved thousands of our troops lives by avoiding an unnecessary confrontation on Japan's front. Either way you look at it, there is huge amounts of needlessly killed lives. Why? It is war - it does things like that. | |
|
| |
enigma7patriot Artillary
Number of posts : 44 Age : 34 Localisation : An asylum near you... Registration date : 2006-11-17
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:23 pm | |
| And by the way, Geneva Convention is a joke. It only applies to those who are willing to follow it. Picture the following:*drums beating in the bckgrd and fade in...* a Canadian army is advancing upon an U.S. army. The U.S. army is out of ammunition, except for a very large store of lead/bullets that explode upon impact. This U.S. army is this countries last chance for survival. So, the general of the U.S. army goes out to the advancing Canadian army bearing the white flag and states - "We Surrender! We Surrender! We lack the means to fight you for all we are left with is ammunition that has been declared unlawful to use in times of War by the Geneva convention in their article....... Are you kidding me? This U.S. army would use the ammunition available to them and thus effectively wipe out the Canadian army marching on our land. PPLLLEEAASSEE. Rules for war! That is the most sorry thing I have ever heard of. Not that they aren't a good idea - it is just that nobody would be there to enforce them except for the governing nations themselves. And even then.What are you going to do about a nation that isn't willing to fight according to these rules - uh go to war with them. And then, this would be an unlawful war because the enemy is using illegal weapons....Do you get my point? Oh, and by the way. Might I mention that everyone does not fear God (I do, however the entire population on the earth does not fear God). What men can do, men will do. And I like other posts made on this subject - that both sides did things wrong. Because, they did. And when it comes down to it, war should be outlawed. However, so long as there are men, there will be war. (I think that is a quote, but I know that I am not quoting it right - too much COD2). And do you think they will follow rules about war? No. Man, we can't even follow the law in our own country in times of peace. How do you expect that they can follow them during war? | |
|
| |
The Opposition Army Commander
Number of posts : 1917 Age : 109 Localisation : ............. Registration date : 2006-10-26
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:35 pm | |
| Keep it up enigma:thumbsup: | |
|
| |
General Stuart Iron Brigade
Number of posts : 1465 Age : 34 Localisation : central California Registration date : 2006-10-23
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:20 pm | |
| Ok, enigma, you obviously like studying this subject, but it is also obvious that you don't really know much about it. Case in point: your post is a joke. Please don't take offense, but your "scenario" with the Canadian army (lol) and the US army was hilariously pathetic. First of all, if exploding bullets are decreed illegal, why would our government produce them, and then ship them to the field, even though the army can't use them? Honestly...... enigma, you either haven't read my posts on this, or don't know enough about the Geneva conventions; probably the latter judging by your last post. Did you notice that the four Geneva conventions of 1949, the ones that are still in effect today, were passed by the United Nations? Tell me, what is the whole point of the U.N.? (Hint: It was created to form a world alliance that would hopefully stop individual nations from going to war with eachother) And it was also created to form some kind of international confederation, whose overwhelming world unity would deter other nations who chose to oppose it, from resisting it. This idea had first arrisen immediatly after WWI, and even though it had the full support of President W. Wilson, the people, and thus Congress turned it down. However, without the support of the US, the newest of the world powers, such a union could not function with the necessary power. But once the United Nations came to be, there came semi-valid proof that all nations, for the sake of combatants and non-combatants alike, would ratify and obey a simple group of 'rules' pertaining to war. The nations who went against these rules would have the U.N. to answer to. These rules that were included in the four conventions of 1949 were originally passed in some form or another in the conventions of Geneva and Hague. In all truth, contrary to what enogma would believe, the "rules" of war have been closely followed and basically observed without fault in all of these years (however, war crimes do appear, and these are unfortunately unprevantable). The only catch is, that the styles of warfare have undeniably changed since 1949. So while it might look to enigma like the "rules" of war are a joke, he merely needs to look at facts to see that the reality of it is, that what is needed most is either addition or revision of the standing rules to fit the kind of warfare the world has adapted to. And one suggestion, enigma. Next time, try resorting to facts, instead of hypothetical scenarios featuring the canadian army. | |
|
| |
DCCCfC aka General Lee Cavalry Trooper
Number of posts : 356 Age : 97 Localisation : The Island of Christian Theocracy Registration date : 2006-10-10
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:43 pm | |
| That is a funny story enigma. lol. Btw by calling Sherman a Terrorist Im not getting upset about what he did to soldiers. (banning ex-ploding bullets is a joke!) I am calling him a terrorist for not having restrained his men from committing war crimes! No one but VERY depraved person can call what Sherman allowed his men to do all right. As the General he had to power not only to command them not to rape, pillage, and steal... but he also had the RESPONSIBILITY to punish them if they did so. Unless you believe that the army should be an uncontrolable mass of rabble. Btw just to quote you "Rules for war are a joke...." Ill remember that the next time South secedes and invades the North. (that is the joke!) If Lee would have let his men run wild in Pensylvania.... I wouldnt feel sorry for Pennsylvania because it wounldnt have been left to feel sorry for. But... PRAISE BE TO GOD THAT HE RAISED UP MEN LIKE ROBERT EDWARD LEE FOR THE SOUTH. MEN WHO HELD GODS LAW AND PURITY HIGHLY THAN VENGENANCE! Your thankful friend General Lee | |
|
| |
General Stuart Iron Brigade
Number of posts : 1465 Age : 34 Localisation : central California Registration date : 2006-10-23
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:17 pm | |
| Well said, Lee. And yes, thank God for men like R.E. Lee..... | |
|
| |
vindicator Artillary
Number of posts : 35 Age : 34 Registration date : 2006-11-10
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:45 pm | |
| The geneva convention is a joke, enigma? What are you thinking? Haven't you ever heard of its affects on wars in Europe after its creation? The founding of the red cross was a huge part of "civilizing" wars, so much as that is possible, i.e., attempting to lessen the suffering of civilians and wounded soldiers. War is undoubtably a savage thing, but that cannot be helped, we can only try to act as we see best. You better do some more studying enigma... Back to Sherman, its like Stuart and Lee said, Sherman wanted to leave the scars of war on the south, and he didn't stop burning and pillaging after Atlanta, either. He kept going, all across Georgia, and the Carolinas. | |
|
| |
Iron Brigade General President
Number of posts : 1811 Age : 35 Localisation : Playing robber with the nerdy cops Registration date : 2006-10-03
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:09 am | |
| Let me say that Sherman only tried to burn down the war facilities. Rebel sympathizers and lotters actually spanned the flames. Atlanta burned because some people made sure it burned down the rest. | |
|
| |
Civility_C General-in-Chief
Number of posts : 1300 Age : 32 Registration date : 2006-10-05
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:26 am | |
| Enigma is funny lol
Yes he had a point for burning Atlanta down, but what about the raping of 500 women and terrorizing CIVLIANS? Thats not right even if you don't have morals.
Yes it is WAR. But there is a way to go about war and be a gentlman. Sherman was not of those men.
Last edited by on Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:31 am; edited 1 time in total | |
|
| |
General Stuart Iron Brigade
Number of posts : 1465 Age : 34 Localisation : central California Registration date : 2006-10-23
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:31 am | |
| | |
|
| |
Civility_C General-in-Chief
Number of posts : 1300 Age : 32 Registration date : 2006-10-05
| |
| |
Iron Brigade General President
Number of posts : 1811 Age : 35 Localisation : Playing robber with the nerdy cops Registration date : 2006-10-03
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:55 am | |
| War is not to be gentlemanly. Now, you can limit it, but, that is why we haven't won in Iragi. It's because of the fact that if a Civilian gets caught in the crossfire, courtmartial. | |
|
| |
General Stuart Iron Brigade
Number of posts : 1465 Age : 34 Localisation : central California Registration date : 2006-10-23
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:15 pm | |
| You're right about Iraq, IBG, but otherwise, you act as if this was 1860; it's not. That was a totally different time, with wholy different moral codes and standards, when honor was of utmost importance. Yes, at that time, generals who thought themselves worthy of the position strove to fight like gentlemen. But the 'scoundrels' got away with their actions as long as they were on the winning side. (i.e., Sherman) | |
|
| |
coby Iron Brigade
Number of posts : 1542 Age : 34 Localisation : Nebraska Registration date : 2006-10-18
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:21 pm | |
| - Iron Brigade General wrote:
- War is not to be gentlemanly. Now, you can limit it, but, that is why we haven't won in Iragi. It's because of the fact that if a Civilian gets caught in the crossfire, courtmartial.
that is soo true, I think we need to be more forcefull. | |
|
| |
Iron Brigade General President
Number of posts : 1811 Age : 35 Localisation : Playing robber with the nerdy cops Registration date : 2006-10-03
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:21 pm | |
| STill, who sai war was a gentleman's sport? | |
|
| |
coby Iron Brigade
Number of posts : 1542 Age : 34 Localisation : Nebraska Registration date : 2006-10-18
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:22 pm | |
| No one, but there are rulls to war. | |
|
| |
Iron Brigade General President
Number of posts : 1811 Age : 35 Localisation : Playing robber with the nerdy cops Registration date : 2006-10-03
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:26 pm | |
| The rules can't be followed exactly. Did you know that there was a rule that if you didn't take a fort in 40 days you were to give up? And, a fort could keep fighting until there was a hole big enough for a wagon to pass through. Stupid rules huh? | |
|
| |
coby Iron Brigade
Number of posts : 1542 Age : 34 Localisation : Nebraska Registration date : 2006-10-18
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:28 pm | |
| yes. but there are some good rules as whell, like not firing on medicks, even though alot of people wouldn't follow the rule it is a good one. | |
|
| |
Iron Brigade General President
Number of posts : 1811 Age : 35 Localisation : Playing robber with the nerdy cops Registration date : 2006-10-03
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:29 pm | |
| Rebels used prisoners to shield themselves once from artillary fire. Can't remember which camp though. | |
|
| |
coby Iron Brigade
Number of posts : 1542 Age : 34 Localisation : Nebraska Registration date : 2006-10-18
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:31 pm | |
| intersting. se people don't follow rules very well. | |
|
| |
Civility_C General-in-Chief
Number of posts : 1300 Age : 32 Registration date : 2006-10-05
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:50 pm | |
| Now IBG, you might want to think twice before starting the blame game. I can come up with more about the union being wrong than you can about it being right. I never said that war was gentlmenly, but that does not mean that you can act compleatly uncivilized. If that was true, don't you think most of the men from the south would have pillaged, plundered and killed EVERYONE? As I recall, the people who did that were mainly rebel deserters. | |
|
| |
General Stuart Iron Brigade
Number of posts : 1465 Age : 34 Localisation : central California Registration date : 2006-10-23
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:57 pm | |
| ha! nice post, Civ. And that's true, IBG, if you want to start pointing fingers, you're not in the greatest position. And the rules you mentioned sound more like medievil siege rules...am I right? And actually, I do remember a time in the early days of the war, when a union officer -I think- suggested either calling off a siege or making a last-hope assault because of "the forty days" rule. | |
|
| |
Civility_C General-in-Chief
Number of posts : 1300 Age : 32 Registration date : 2006-10-05
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:58 pm | |
| Why thank you GS. And yes I believe you're right about the medievil part. | |
|
| |
Sponsored content
| Subject: Re: Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? | |
| |
|
| |
| Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general? | |
|