[typoon]

"Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we've fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.

Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonials' really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.

I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against America and in trying to enforce their will on people who were quite different from them at the time."

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/20/124125.shtml

[villalobos]

Originally posted by typoon:
"I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against America and in trying to enforce their will on people who were quite different from them at the time."

I would agree with him. Funny how the website you got that from completely misunderstands (or deliberatly spins?) what Carter is trying to say.

villa

[itai195]

I didn't see the interview this is excerpted from, so I haven't seen the context. But it seems to me Carter is saying the war was unnecessary from the British perspective, and drawing a parallel between the British of then and the Americans of now.

[djohnson]

Who is to say we would have been given our indepenence? The British were making a killing off of the colonies...

[:dragonflypro:]

...and who is to say the cost of the war to the Crown was not a leading reason the other nations received their independence in a more, though not entirely, peaceful manner?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by typoon:
"Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we've fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war."

WTF? What about the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, and the World Wars? After World War II, in fact, the number of casualties started going down quite dramatically. People think of Vietnam as bloody, but the truth is that it's become a unit of measure by which we measure casualties, such as the fact that during the Battle of Gettysburg in the Civil War -a battle that lasted three days- roughly one Vietnam's worth of soldiers died, counting both sides. Although the current occupation of Iraq is certainly bloodier than Desert Storm, this is not saying a great deal.

Carter, you disappoint me. Normally you're much better on your facts than this.

[Mithras]

Typhoon, this is the second quote (after the Kerry "U.N." one) you've (willfully?) misread. As villalobos and itai point out, he is saying that the British mishandled things.

i.e. if the Brits did everything the same, then the Revolution would still have been necessary
but if the Brits did things differently, and recognized the needs and wants of the Americans, the war could have been avoided.

Wars really are very unjolly things, or so I've heard. It's a very reasonable thesis.


Millenium: You are right. Interesting. I'd like to line that chart up with U.S. population figures at each timepoint, though.

[Mithras]

Here's a rough estimate, with figures from the article I linked and one other. I don't really know that the numbers are right, of course. And I don't have enrollment figures for the Iraq war, so I just used the Gulf War number again.



So this shows the Revolution being in 4th place in terms of kill rate among the enrolled, and 3rd (behind the Civil War for the South, and Civil War for the North) in kill rate for the population. So it's fair to say that the Revolution was pretty devestating for America.

Also interesting to note (not that we didn't know that) that the current Iraq war scarcely registers. We certainly have gotten better at not killing our troops.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Typhoon, this is the second quote (after the Kerry "U.N." one) you've (willfully?) misread. As villalobos and itai point out, he is saying that the British mishandled things.

i.e. if the Brits did everything the same, then the Revolution would still have been necessary
but if the Brits did things differently, and recognized the needs and wants of the Americans, the war could have been avoided.

Wars really are very unjolly things, or so I've heard. It's a very reasonable thesis.


Millenium: You are right. Interesting. I'd like to line that chart up with U.S. population figures at each timepoint, though.

Not willfully misread, more like interpreted differently.

[OldManMac]

That site should be called Spinmax.

[Spliffdaddy]

What the North did to the South during the Civil War in order to spread their influence can best be described as genocide.

Is it any wonder the South's hatred for yankees still runs deep even today?

[Saad]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
What the North did to the South during the Civil War in order to spread their influence can best be described as genocide.

Is it any wonder the South's hatred for yankees still runs deep even today?

Ask a southener about Atlanta, and stand back...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

“It was an unnecessary war.”

That is some of the dippiest reasoning I’ve ever heard. Carter is definitely getting soft in the head in his old age. It’s completely pinheaded to look at the necessity of the US Revolution, and dismiss the myriad of changes it brought about- based merely on the number of casualties. Not to mention the fact he isn’t even correct about that. This is a classic example of the ‘Can’t do’ mindset that says if something is the least bit hard, it’s not worth trying. An amazingly defeatist attitude- made all the more breathtaking by the fact that it’s unnecessarily defeatist in retrospect.

So the United States should have just continued to be a subject to a ‘crown’, forsaken its ideals of independence, and relied on a brain-dead assumption that England would have eventually just magically granted the US its independence anyway. What exactly is he dreaming would have been gained by his wish for inaction?

He’s also in effect saying that the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the vision of the founders, and the waves of ideals and freedoms that were born out of the US Revolution, should just have been tossed aside for whatever chicken-little status quo he’s pretending would have avoided a fight, either then, or at a later date. At the very least, he’s demonstrating he has a warped understanding of the whole subject.

Why if our King would have just been a little bit more ‘sensitive’... What a load of horse$hit. Just goes to show Carter has a fuzzy, out of touch view about this nation, its role in history, and its role in the world.

I knew Carter could be truly dippy at times, but I honestly never before realized he was THAT far out in mush-brain la-la-land.

[icruise]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Snip random dribblings

Wouldn't it make sense to actually read the quote in question before going off on a tirad against it? As several other people have already pointed out, Carter wasn't saying that we shouldn't have fought the Revolutionary war, he was saying that there was no point for the BRITISH to have fought it. For the love of god...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Wouldn't it make sense to actually read the quote in question before going off on a tirad against it? As several other people have already pointed out, Carter wasn't saying that we shouldn't have fought the Revolutionary war, he was saying that there was no point for the BRITISH to have fought it. For the love of god...

OF COURSE there was a freakin' reason the British fought the war- they considered it THEIR COLONY and they weren't about to just give it up! Freakin' DUH.

Can you people be any more naive? Is it purposeful?

Take off the freakin' rose colored classes and get to reality. People like you and Carter just operate in this utterly ridiculous fantasy land, where you can just ignore real world motivations, cause and effect, situations as they actually EXIST, for some naive 'peace and love' fantasy world where everyone just slaps their forehead and magically sees eye-to-eye out of convenience for your fantasies.

Sure, sure, by Carter's logic, WWII could have been avoided if the Nazis and the Japanese would have just slapped their foreheads, thrown down their arms, and said "Hey, we’ve got no reason to fight you! Our way is WRONG and your way is right!"

PROBLEM SOLVED!! Gee, that was sure easy! No need for a fight! Yeah sure, that sort of end to every conflict WOULD indeed be nice. Then there's that thing called REALITY...

[icruise]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Then there's that thing called REALITY...

I didn't know you and reality were acquainted.

Anyway, feel free to continue being outraged for no reason.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I didn't know you and reality were acquainted.

Anyway, feel free to continue being outraged for no reason.

Feel free to keep justifying an utterly stupid statement, by an embarrassment of an ex-president who should know better.

The Revolution was ‘unnecessary’, because gosh golly gee, all the British would have had to do was magically drop hundreds of years of entrenched colonial ideology COMPLETELY AT ODDS with the ideals of the Founders, popped a few magic mushrooms, and said “Hey, you go on with that Bill of Rights, Constitution, Independence, Democracy, thing! Have fun you crazy kids!” What exactly is the point of such a bizarre fantasy? Ah wait, I know, he was trying to tie his fantasy of an ‘unnecessary’ US Revolution to his current fantasy of the Iraq War.

“…and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.”

Yeah, sure. Things are always easier said, than actually done.

In other words: “…and they all lived happily ever after, without any conflict, without initiative, without facing reality head-on, without any violence or bloodshed, or any of that baaaad, baaad stuff that good little boys and girls don’t believe should ever have to happen.”

Carter ‘think’. At least it’s a perfect illustration of exactly the mindset of inaction no-matter-what that the Carter types operate by.

[itai195]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The Revolution was ‘unnecessary’, because gosh golly gee, all the British would have had to do was magically drop hundreds of years of entrenched colonial ideology COMPLETELY AT ODDS with the ideals of the Founders

*mumbles* I think Carter wanted to point out the folly of selling out to an 'entrenched ideology'... But go on, a good tirade here and there is great fun.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
In other words: “…and they all lived happily ever after, without any conflict, without initiative, without facing reality head-on, without any violence or bloodshed, or any of that baaaad, baaad stuff that good little boys and girls don’t believe should ever have to happen.”

Carter ‘think’. At least it’s a perfect illustration of exactly the mindset of inaction no-matter-what that the Carter types operate by.

You still don't understand his point. Its ok to admit it, we'll still like you.

Carter is engaging in the luxory of all students of history: comtemplating what might have been if historical agents had acted differently.

Yes. If Britain had acted differently, the war could have been avoided. Whether or not it is realistic to consider that Britian might have acted differently isn't simply whimsy, it is the fundamental exercise of analyzing history. A credible intellectual pursuit, even if it highly subjective.

And yes. WWII could have been avoided too if Germany had acted differently.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
[B]You still don't understand his point. Its ok to admit it, we'll still like you.

Carter is engaging in the luxory of all students of history: comtemplating what might have been if historical agents had acted differently.

The problem is, Carter is drawing fairy tale conclusions, based on his 'what-ifs' that hold no basis in historic fact. It's one thing to speculate 'what if' based on reality, the good with the bad. He's merely making up a situation, sugar-coating it, and beyond that, making assertions based on that, that aren't true. It's an exercise in pointlessness. His statement: "It was an unnecessary war," is absolute fiction. It WAS a war that had to be fought –based on the clear principals behind it that Carter is waxing past- either at the time it actually was, or at a later date.

He's just demonstrating his belief that it's okay to settle for 'Tyranny lite' and so long as a tyrant is just 'sensitive enough' -perhaps like his good friend Castro- then that'll be just as good as ACTUALLY lifting a finger in resistance, to create a truly free and independent nation. But hey, ‘tyranny lite' is good enough for Carter. As long as the dictator is 'sensitive' enough. Maybe some “free” healthcare is all it takes to stand in for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc. for the Carter types.

Yes. If Britain had acted differently, the war could have been avoided.

Yeah and if Martians had come down in their little spaceships and zapped everyone with their magic 'peace wands' the Revolution could have been avoided also. Exactly what is the point of making absurd 'what if' arguments based on things that would not have happened, in order to support false statements such as “the war was unnecessary”?

Whether or not it is realistic to consider that Britian might have acted differently isn't simply whimsy, it is the fundamental exercise of analyzing history. A credible intellectual pursuit, even if it highly subjective.

He makes several claims that go beyond mere whimsy, such as his flat out assertion that the war was unnecessary (untrue), his -stated as fact- premise about it being the 'bloodiest war' (untrue) and his –stated as fact- assertion that we'd have been granted freedom anyway (no evidence, nor logical argument given for that), nor does he explain how whatever 'freedom' would magically have materialized in the same form, without all the founding ideals, principals, and documents that were the core of the entire (VERY NECESSARY) Revolution to begin with.

And yes. WWII could have been avoided too if Germany had acted differently.

It certainly can't be stated that WWII was unnecessary, and to do so is to do what Carter is doing- oversimplify something, and not understand the deeper issues involved than just troops on a battlefield and counting up the dead afterwards. The Axis powers merely played on nasty realities that were already festering and ready to explode. Had WWII not have been fought when it was, the world would have STILL had to deal with: extreme anti-Semitism, extreme Nationalism, extreme Imperialism, etc. Perhaps at a later (more technically advanced and far more destructive) time, there would have been bloodshed on an even greater horrific scale.

Now see, THAT is whimsy based at least on possibilities that at least take into consideration actual situations, not sugarcoating reality and sweeping it under the rug.

A Carter-eque take would be to assert emphatically that: WWII was unnecessary. The Germans should have just been more sensitive. Then no one would have had to fight, everyone would get along, and we'd all live today in a peaceful free world without conflict. Sure.

[idjeff]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
What the North did to the South during the Civil War in order to spread their influence can best be described as genocide.

Is it any wonder the South's hatred for yankees still runs deep even today?

HEY! Nobody said they could leave....Northern Smackdown....

I'm kidding of course...it was a horrible war

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
blah blah blah

What did Britain gain from the war? From their perspective, it was an unmitigated disaster.

Had Britian taking a more lenient stand towards the colonies, there is a strong chance the revolution would have never happened.

I think you've forgotten just how radical the concept of declaring independence was at the time. The idea of taking up arms against Britian was NOT a popular position. It was mostly the agenda of small group of radicals.

Remember Thomas Paine? I think you forget just how heated the debate on the issue was. There was massive resistance to the idea of independence.

But because Britain took a hardline stance, they eventually succeeding in alienating the Loyalists and elevating the Revolutionaries to popular status. Some historians might even argue that had for a huge section of the Colonial population, the decision to support Independence wasn't even made until the first shots were fired at Lexington and Concord.

Had Britain softened taxation, listened to reason concerning Parlimentary representation, allowed the Colonies more freedom to trade independenty, the Founding Fathers probably would never have gained the necessary popular support to even get the Independence movement off the ground.

You can disagree with that assessment (hell, that's the whole point of historical analysis) but I don't think its nearly as unfounded as you would like to make it sound.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
So the United States should have just continued to be a subject to a ‘crown’, forsaken its ideals of independence, and relied on a brain-dead assumption that England would have eventually just magically granted the US its independence anyway. What exactly is he dreaming would have been gained by his wish for inaction?

What he's saying is not completely unreasonable. Many colonies under British rule were able to gain independance peacefully, some of them occupying areas that were just as profitable for England and the area now occupied by the US. That's not to say that the American Revolution was unnecessary, just that it may have been unnecessary. Many people say that if the Palestinians are patient and stop fighting Israel, they will get their independance peacefully ... it's possible the same would have held true for the US.

[djohnson]

If the Revolution never happened, the US would still have a Queen, just like Canada.

In Canada, Her Majesty's official title is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Such capacity is Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada. In common practice Queen Elizabeth II is referred to simply as "The Queen" or "The Queen of Canada" when in Canada, or when abroad and acting on the advice of her Canadian ministers (such as when she was present at the Canadian 60th anniversary of D-Day ceremony in France, in 2004).

Source: Wikipedia

Lots of good information from Wikipedia about: the Commonwealth Realm and the Commonwealth of Nations. Looks like the only way to true independence is through war.

[OldManMac]

No kidding?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by djohnson:
If the Revolution never happened, the US would still have a Queen, just like Canada.

Except the Queen of England has about as much power in Canada as she does in England ... which is to say none. There are debates going on in both Australia and Canada to remove the position from our constitutions. Such a thing is easily within the power of our governments and does not require any special permission from the British monarchy.

Wikipedia
As in the UK, the Queen's role is nearly entirely symbolic and cultural, and the powers that are theoretically hers are exercised wholly upon the advice of the elected government. In exceptional circumstances, however, the Queen may act against such advice based upon her reserve powers. In practice, the monarchy functions much like a rubber stamp and a symbol of executive authority. It is often explained that the Queen reigns but does not rule. For more explanation of the Queen's role, see Governor General of Canada.

If war is the only way to independence, why should the Palestinians wait for Israel to grant independence to them?

[Isaac]

yep... and look at all the countrys that got an british flag sitting in it's upper left corner... and the Irish are still required to pay alligence to the queen.. this is part of the reason the IRA is still active, obviosly N. Ireland aslo but that's not the only element... then there's something about how navy ships of different countrys are supposed to greet each other so as not to cause hostility, for most country's it's to lower the flag and let it just barely touch the deck, but the Royal Navy requires that other Navy's submiss to the queen... I read that they sunk an Indian ship for not... but once again, there would be no need for war if people stopped trying to impose themselfs on each other......

[typoon]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
If war is the only way to independence, why should the Palestinians wait for Israel to grant independence to them?

They aren't waiting. They've been fighting for it for many years through terrorist attacks. They WERE given a chance a peace WITHOUT war and Arafat DIDN'T take it. The Palistinians feel the only way for them to get peace is to completely destroy Israel.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Isaac:
...but once again, there would be no need for war if people stopped trying to impose themselfs on each other......

Yeah lets all just get along. Good one. If it were that easy, you think this world would be such a fun place to live?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by typoon:
They aren't waiting. They've been fighting for it for many years through terrorist attacks. They WERE given a chance a peace WITHOUT war and Arafat DIDN'T take it. The Palistinians feel the only way for them to get peace is to completely destroy Israel.

Why did this have to turn to Israel vs. Palestine. Take your problems elsewhere.

EDIT:

[Millennium]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Had Britian taking a more lenient stand towards the colonies, there is a strong chance the revolution would have never happened.

Perhaps. At the same time, that's an awfully big if. So big, in fact, that it didn't happen. It wasn't exactly under the control of the colonists, either; they had no way of "making the Crown be more lenient".

You can disagree with that assessment (hell, that's the whole point of historical analysis) but I don't think its nearly as unfounded as you would like to make it sound.

Nope; it's every bit as unfounded as people -myself included- are claiming. Perhaps it didn't have to be necessary, but the reality is that it was necessary.

You can bend over backwards all you want to try make war unnecessary, but what do you do when the other guy refuses to do the same?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Millennium:
...You can bend over backwards all you want to try make war unnecessary, but what do you do when the other guy refuses to do the same?

That is a good post! What do you do if one side fights you but you just say ahh dont fight? You get taken over. End of story. Oh and you probably end up dead. Most people kill the opposing leader when they win.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Perhaps. At the same time, that's an awfully big if. So big, in fact, that it didn't happen. It wasn't exactly under the control of the colonists, either; they had no way of "making the Crown be more lenient".

Nope; it's every bit as unfounded as people -myself included- are claiming. Perhaps it didn't have to be necessary, but the reality is that it was necessary.

You can bend over backwards all you want to try make war unnecessary, but what do you do when the other guy refuses to do the same?

I still think you're missing the argument he is making.

He's not arguing that faced with the exact same choices that the Colonists should have chosen differently. Just the opposite, he's talking about under what different circumstances the war would have been unecessary.

He is criticizing Britian's position, not that of the Colonists. Under the circumstances, the Colonists did what was in their best interests. In hindsight, we can safely say that Britain did NOT do what was in their best interests and are largely to blame for forcing the Colonists into an extreme measure--war.

War is sometimes necessary. What Carter is trying to do is demonstrate historical examples of where different choices by historical agents could have made it unnecesary. In fact, it would seem that Britain did learn that lesson.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by typoon:
They aren't waiting. They've been fighting for it for many years through terrorist attacks. They WERE given a chance a peace WITHOUT war and Arafat DIDN'T take it. The Palistinians feel the only way for them to get peace is to completely destroy Israel.

Yes, but some people seem to think that war is the only possible route to true independence and yet criticize other people for resorting to violence to secure their independence and suggest that these people wait to be granted independence by their oppressors.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Why did this have to turn to Israel vs. Palestine. Take your problems elsewhere.

EDIT:

It's about drawing parallels. You feel that the only true way to independence is through war. I'm just pointing out that your defence of independence through war does not apply to the US only.

[Isaac]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
...if the Palestinians are patient and stop fighting Israel, they will get their independance peacefully ...

even if it were true, it's extreamly risky, currently the Israelies want to control all of Palisteins borders and air space, and if they stop fighting that means being disarmed... large walls keeping unarmed people in... who's best weapons will be stones and maybe a few molitov cocktails if it doesn't work.... sure, it might work, but it's risking full scale genocide if it fails... look at the global climate, fascism is rising, and Israel may very well be the tip of the spear....

Originally posted by djohnson:
Yeah lets all just get along. Good one. If it were that easy, you think this world would be such a fun place to live?

if everyone agreed to only fight when they had to defend themselfs or others... there would be noone left to start the fights... I don't know if it would be as fun for those currently in a postion of domination, cause making others feel like crap is very uplifting to many... but it would probably be alot funner for people who currently are treaded upon...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
What did Britain gain from the war? From their perspective, it was an unmitigated disaster.

Of course it was. What you're missing, (and Carter) is that Britain had NO REASON to think it would lose. None. Zero. Squat. Likewise, the colonists had virtually no reason to think they could actually win militarily either. I’ll give you two guesses who holds all the cards in such a situation. Hell, I’ll even spot you the ‘B’.

Both you and Carter are making a giant leap of logic, basing Britain's loss squarely on 21st century HINDSIGHT, not 1700s REALITY. It was only the 'unmitigated disaster' AFTER THE FACT.

Making a statement that the Revolution was ‘an unnecessary war’, and trying to paint such a false statement as only from the viewpoint of ‘what was best for Britain’ is just a shoddy backpedal.

Had Britian taking a more lenient stand towards the colonies, there is a strong chance the revolution would have never happened.

As has been pointed out, that scenario ISN'T based on historic reality, therefore it’s a moot point.

You still haven't made any argument in support for why something that almost certainly wouldn't have happened based on England's far superior (at the time) position would have magically happened just because you wish it so.

I think you've forgotten just how radical the concept of declaring independence was at the time. The idea of taking up arms against Britian was NOT a popular position. It was mostly the agenda of small group of radicals.

This supports my argument. NO ONE thought the colonies could win, not even most of the colonists, therefore there's no historic reasoning behind the notion that Britian would have granted these 'radical' concepts WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO!

You pointing out how radical the idea is, yet floating it as likely to have been granted anyway makes no sense what-so-ever for your argument.

So the very idea of colonial independence was so radical that we can safely conclude that the British would have just slapped their foreheads and granted this ‘ridiculous idea’ to the colonies…WHY?!! Just for shits and giggles? For kicks maybe? There’s no logic in that what-so-ever.

Remember Thomas Paine? I think you forget just how heated the debate on the issue was. There was massive resistance to the idea of independence.

Right, so in light of this, the 'Carter' conclusion is: Britain would have magically granted independence.... just... well... just BECAUSE! Ooookay.

Had Britain softened taxation, listened to reason... done a bunch of other things they had no reason to do that the colonists had no way of demanding they do.. blah de blah blah...

Aside from the imaginary assessments of what the Brits 'should have’ done if only they had the magic of 200+ years future foresight- neither you nor Carter has given any explanation to how the resulting 'Tyranny lite' would have been preferable to real freedom as only the Revolution and TRUE independence could bring. Or are you really kidding yourself that the war was really only about people just wanting a few bones tossed their way from the king? “Just be mo sensitive massa!” You really think that would have been preferable to the ideas, concepts and actual EXISTANCE of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, a free nation etc. etc.?

That’s the true greater ‘necessity’ for the Revolution that both you and Carter are just waxing past, or even more bizarre- completely missing.

I guess it’s true then: 'Tyranny lite' is indeed good enough for some people. So long as their ruler tosses them a few bones now and then. I still find it an amazing admission, and utterly amazing that someone who was actually president of the US couldn't grasp the difference.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Yes, but some people seem to think that war is the only possible route to true independence and yet criticize other people for resorting to violence to secure their independence and suggest that these people wait to be granted independence by their oppressors.

Here's that exceedingly rare occasion where I'm inclined to agree with you. But then, I've had a few beers.

I'm of the opinion that independence/freedom cannot be given to a nation. It must be something that is desired to the point where it is worth dying for. Anything short of that seems to be not enough. A gift is never treasured quite as much as something that is earned through sacrifice. Lessons are mostly learned through hardship and failure. Success yields fewer lessons.

Give a man a fish. etc.

sidenote: Newcastle is some alright beer.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Many people say that if the Palestinians are patient and stop fighting Israel, they will get their independance peacefully ... it's possible the same would have held true for the US. [/B]

Two completely different motives, and completely different situations.

Contrary to popular myth, Israel doesn’t exist merely to fight against the Palestinians, nor keep them from having a state. The Palestinians WERE granted an independent state by the UN- they rejected it.

Israel itself has had to fight for its freedom from the very start- it was attacked on the very dawn of its formation.

Beyond that, even if there were an ‘independent’ state of Palestine right this very minute, it STILL won’t be a free and independent society, any more than any of the other Middle East dictatorships are. There will STILL have to be fighting for independence, or settling for a dictatorship with the likes of Arafat, the PLO and Hamas running the show.

Sorry, Carter can dream the contrary, but the old adage holds up: true freedom ISN’T free.


No one has YET to come up with any shred of a realistic motivation for why Britain would have peacefully given up its colonies in America, and granted us any sort of ‘independence’. Even if one suspends historic reality, one still only ends up with ‘Tyranny lite’- a master who’s just ‘sensitive’ enough to fool mush-brains the likes of an aging Jimmy Carter. And most certainly, no one’s made any credible case as why such a sub-par substitute would have ever been preferable to the ACTUAL independent nation we do have, thanks to what Carter falsely deems ‘unnecessary’.

[Spliffdaddy]

I agree that Jimmy Carter is an idiot. And I'm old enough to remember that he's been an idiot for a while.

He's a nice guy, thought. Kind and caring.

And he fits his present role quite well.

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by villalobos:
I would agree with him. Funny how the website you got that from completely misunderstands (or deliberatly spins?) what Carter is trying to say.

villa

As would I . There's no such thing as a "necessary war."

[itai195]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
No one has YET to come up with any shred of a realistic motivation for why Britain would have peacefully given up its colonies in America, and granted us any sort of ‘independence’. Even if one suspends historic reality, one still only ends up with ‘Tyranny lite’- a master who’s just ‘sensitive’ enough to fool mush-brains the likes of an aging Jimmy Carter. And most certainly, no one’s made any credible case as why such a sub-par substitute would have ever been preferable to the ACTUAL independent nation we do have, thanks to what Carter falsely deems ‘unnecessary’.

How many times do people need to spell it out for you? Carter is saying that if a different sequence of choices had been made by the British, war and independence could have been avoided and BRITAIN would have been in much better shape as a result. He's not saying that war was unnecessary or independence undesirable from an American standpoint, though I think it's accurate to say that if Britain had taken a different approach toward the colonies then war probably would have been avoided. He's also not saying that this different course of action was a historically likely alternative, he's just hypothesizing about what the consequences of a different sequence of decisions would have been. As thunderous said, this exercise is entirely subjective, but I don't see what you're getting your panties in a wad about.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
More blather

Both you and thunderous are putting words in the man's mouth that HE DIDN'T SAY, and trying to wax over what he actually DID SAY-and it's obvious you're making up excuses for him. READ WTF the man said, and stop acting stupid.

"Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we've fought."
We've fought. I'm sorry, was he the freakin' British Prime Minister? No. WE- that means THE UNITED STATES. As has been stated, he's wrong- this was not the 'bloodiest war' and he's NOT talking only about freakin' Britain. Stop pretending he is.

"...I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war."
No it couldn't have been, and no it wasn't.

"Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive blather blather... we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way."

Bullcrap! You just put words in his mouth saying that 'war and independence could have been avoided' when he's actually fantasising that independance would have been granted in a 'nonviolent way'- but OF COURSE he fails to say exactly how, nor when.

He's drawing a fantasy conclusion, and skipping over EXACTLY what I'm talking about- the fact that this nation formed as a RESULT of the Revolution, and it cannot be separated from that. This country would not have the same Constitution, Bill of Rights, Independence merely because the freakin' British decided to be 'a little more sensitive'. It speaks VOLUMES that mush-brains like Carter (and the types who would defend this tripe) think that ‘a little more sensitive’ tyranny was all the American Revolution was about.

He makes no attempt to explain how any 'nonviolent' independence would have come about- he's merely revealing his mush-brained fantasies of nothing ever being worth fighting for.

You people are on drugs to defend this nonsense. Stop putting words in the man's mouth- he made several completely false statements DIRECTLY ABOUT AMERICA, and DIRECTLY about America's independence.

[icruise]

I'll say it again, your indignation is misplaced. That's not to say that his comments aren't open to challenge, but if you want to get mad about what he said, then address the real reason for what he is saying; he is trying to draw a parallel between the Revolutionary war and Iraq. I think you could make the argument that such a comparison is misguided, but your ranting on about the Revolutionary war itself is missing the point. Carter never even intimated that we shouldn't have fought the Revolutionary War, that it wasn't pivotal in shaping our history, or any of the other conclusions you jumped to.

Let me try and spell it out for you. In Carter's scenario, we are the British. Iraq is not our colony, but there is a similar power relationship between our two countries, and a similar miscalculation on the part of the stronger country about how the war would turn out, and how the enemy would behave. It's not a perfect analogy, certainly, but it's not as completely idiotic as you seem to think.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Here's that exceedingly rare occasion where I'm inclined to agree with you. But then, I've had a few beers.

I'm of the opinion that independence/freedom cannot be given to a nation. It must be something that is desired to the point where it is worth dying for. Anything short of that seems to be not enough. A gift is never treasured quite as much as something that is earned through sacrifice. Lessons are mostly learned through hardship and failure. Success yields fewer lessons.

Give a man a fish. etc.

sidenote: Newcastle is some alright beer.

to peaceful independence and desiring it to the point where it is worth dying for
to Newcastle

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
"Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive blather blather... we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way."

It's interesting that you choose the key statement to insert "blather blather"; right over the part that proves you wrong.

Jimmy Carter
Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonials' really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.

Just in case you are incapable of reading that, he said that had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the legitimate complaints and requests of the colonials, the war could have been avoided. Basically, he's saying that the colonials had legitimate complaints and requests and had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to them, the war could have been avoid. Put another way, he's not saying that the colonials were being unreasonable ... rather, he's saying that the British Parliament was not being sensitive to their very reasonable demands and he's suggesting that had the British Parliament been sensitive to these very reasonable demands the British Parliament might have avoided the American Revolution.

He is not saying that the colonials could have avoided war. He is saying that the British Parliament could have avoided war.

[itai195]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
He's drawing a fantasy conclusion, and skipping over EXACTLY what I'm talking about- the fact that this nation formed as a RESULT of the Revolution, and it cannot be separated from that. This country would not have the same Constitution, Bill of Rights, Independence merely because the freakin' British decided to be 'a little more sensitive'. It speaks VOLUMES that mush-brains like Carter (and the types who would defend this tripe) think that ‘a little more sensitive’ tyranny was all the American Revolution was about.

That is basically what it was about, and over 20% of the American population were loyalists IIRC. More loyalists fought in the British military than Americans in Washington's army. Nobody said the country would have the same constitution, bill of rights, etc, now you're the one putting words in people's mouths.

[Isaac]

you seem to need a reactionary spirt to get people to question the status quo... that's a major obstacle to any real change, you need an antaganist to make your protagonist more attractive... the change in the US would of been much more minor and superficial if the US didn't fight to get national freedom and independce... it would be like Canada's or Ireland, both of which have to give alligence to the queen... though, yes, the British could of avoided the whole issue, I'm not sure if that would of been the best path for the US... really it's too bad that the issue was more state or national independce then individual independence, but that's long past... currently in Iraq, more nationalist and otherwise exclusionist elements are leading the battle the fight against the US... I know the CP had some part in the orginal governing council... but I'm not sure how there support might of waned by now... currently I am of the oppion that it doesn't matter who wins, atleast if we assume that one of the currently major contests will be the one to win...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
It's interesting that you choose the key statement to insert "blather blather"; right over the part that proves you wrong.

Actually it proves nothing, because as has been pointed out, the entire statement is false. I merely skipped over his nonsense what-ifs, to point out the 1+2=5 false conclusion of the entire statement.

Just in case you are incapable of reading that, he said that had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the legitimate complaints and requests of the colonials, the war could have been avoided.

Stop going in circles. The colonials weren't asking the British government just to be a ‘little more sensitive’- as the revolution itself proves- nor was a 'more sensitive tyranny' a realistic goal for either side. The war was unavoidable, because of a complete difference in IDEOLOGY, not a few bones tossed as poor substitutes. The fact that you (and more disturbing an ex-president) don't understand that is quite telling.

He is not saying that the colonials could have avoided war. He is saying that the British Parliament could have avoided war.

First of all, you're once again waxing over his actual words, which are: "...the war could have been avoided completely."

You just contradicted that statement, false though it is.

Secondly, you people are being ridiculous, acting like one side could 'avoid' the war, while the other couldn't. What, the colonials were going to FIGHT THEMSELVES? While the Brits sat it out and watched? What kind of sense does that make? None.

It's funny you can't defend what Carter ACTUALLY said, (the bloodiest war, the war was unnecessary, it was completely avoidable, etc.) because it's dead-wrong.

[puppetswhokill]

only 30 percent of colonials thought a war necessary. another 30 pc were indifferent. 30 pc were totally against it.