The term "anti-war"

[Son of Detroit]

I've never really understood this term "anti-war", especially when it is tossed around on here. Is it supposed to mean "anti-Iraq war", "anti-war in middle east" or just plain old "anti-every and all wars"?

This was the downfall of Ron Paul in the primaries, and what made us look like nuts among the eyes of the Republican Party. When we used "anti-war", it sounds like we are opposed to any and all wars which obviously doesn't sit right with the American public. When that term was said it sounded like even if we were bombed by another country, Ron Paul wouldn't take action because he's "anti-war" (I know Congress declares war, but that's besides the point). Why not instead of saying "anti-war" say "against the war in the middle east" or "anti-unconstitutional war"?

Unless I'm wrong and most people here are completely anti-war in every way... Which wouldn't make sense to me because war is what bought this country freedom.

[brandon]

I think it is a fitting description. If you are not Anti-War then you must be Pro-War or War-agnostic.

I am Anti-War.

[Kludge]

I'm anti-war, and doubt that I would have (in my current state) supported the Patriots of the day.

As for Ron Paul, IIRC, he voted in favor of infiltrating Afghanistan.

[muzzled dogg]

i'm anti- state sponsored war

[constituent]

Which wouldn't make sense to me because war is what bought this country freedom.

...too easy

[ClayTrainor]

I'm anti-war, and doubt that I would have (in my current state) supported the Patriots of the day.

Hey man, I'm not challenging you but I'm curious.

If someone bombed your house, killed your family and said you must now live under their laws and pay taxes to them.

You hear of a resistance forming, to fight this blatant oppression... Do you join?

[Kludge]

Hey man, I'm not challenging you but I'm curious.

If someone bombed your house, killed your family and said you must now live under their laws and pay taxes to them.

You hear of a resistance forming, to fight this blata t oppression... Do you join?

Won't bring 'em back. I'd probably go into a deep depression and kill myself if I don't recover quickly, if you really want to know.

[constituent]

You hear of a resistance forming, to fight this blatant oppression... Do you join?

I'd say it's probably a con and that the leader's a power-thirsty snitch.

Just my opinion though.

[ClayTrainor]

Won't bring 'em back. I'd probably go into a deep depression and kill myself if I don't recover quickly, if you really want to know.

Fair enough, i suppose... i disagree with your suggested actions, but respect your logic.

[ClayTrainor]

I'd say it's probably a con and that the leader's a power-thirsty snitch.

Just my opinion though.

Was the 1776 revolution a Con, in your opinion?

[constituent]

Was the 1776 revolution a Con, in your opinion?

Unquestionably.

You? and if not, why not?

[ClayTrainor]

Unquestionably.

You?

hmmm... interesting.

No, i personally believe it was a noble and justified effort, for the most part. I disagree with the Boston Tea Party "tar and feather" thing, and other actions of this sort.

Perhaps some crimes were committed, by both sides and there was corrupt actions all around, however i believe the fundamental goals of the 1776 revolution, to rid themselves of British oppression, were justified.

[constituent]

hmmm... interesting.

No, i personally believe it was a noble and justified effort, for the most part. I disagree with the Boston Tea Party "tar and feather" thing, and other actions of this sort.

Perhaps some crimes were committed, by both sides and there was corrupt actions all around, however i believe the fundamental goals of the 1776 revolution, to rid themselves of British oppression, were justified.

But you have yet to answer my question. Why (or better, how) was it not a con?

This isn't really an "ends and means" thing.

[Kludge]

Look out -- Constituent is about to reveal something about himself which will blow our socks off!

[ClayTrainor]

But you have yet to answer my question. Why (or better, how) was it not a con?


Okay... well i believe it wasn't a con because I personally believe the effort to rid the land of british oppression was justified. I believe George Washington and his army had good reason to form up, to defend the individual liberties of Americans from the British.

Can you please explain to me, how it was a con? I am trying to learn not challenge you :)



This isn't really an "ends and means" thing.

I agree... i really don't want to sound like a commie :p

[constituent]

Look out -- Constituent is about to reveal something about himself which will blow our socks off!

don't hold your breath.

[ClayTrainor]

don't hold your breath.

.... (holding breath, please save me)

[constituent]

Can you please explain to me, how it was a con? I am trying to learn not challenge you :)


Sure, but briefly for now. More later, but we'll address the points you've brought up.



Okay... well i believe it wasn't a con because I personally believe the effort to rid the land of british oppression was justified.

Is that what happened?

Assuming your answer to be yes, what good came of replacing one form of oppression with another?

I recommend you spend some time researching the "revolution" in Haiti, it'll be an eye opener.

(that's just a brief allusion to the whole slavery issue)



I believe George Washington and his army had good reason to form up,

I would disagree with this statement. Furthermore, I would ask who elected George Washington leader, and what made it their call (for everyone else) in the first place?

Again, what good comes of exchanging one form of tyranny for another?



to defend the individual liberties of Americans from the British.

Is that what really happened? Is that what everyone was fighting for?

I'm reminded of a quote you see around here pretty often, "Power is the reason, liberty is just the excuse." Clearly, the American "revolution" is an example of that very thing.

What is worse, and far more destructive to "society," is perpetuating the many lies surrounding such events and the creation of whole self-supporting, state worshiping mythologies, so-called "hero worship." These people were "fighting for the rights of individuals" as they simultaneously maintained ownership over humans who had no say in the matter? give me a break.

No amount of monuments built to themselves will ever change that, no matter how many pilgrims arrive yearly to worship.

So yea, it was a con then as it is now.

[ClayTrainor]

Is that what happened?

Assuming your answer to be yes, what good came of replacing one form of oppression with another?


To be fair, i'd be more in support of a military / militia defending its people and their private property. Perhaps I shouldn't support "acts of aggression" by the US military, according to your logic, but i personally feel as though America would be under british rule to this day, just like Canada, if it wasn't for this resistance.

I'm a Canadian, so i'm still learning A LOT about 1776.



I recommend you spend some time researching the "revolution" in Haiti, it'll be an eye opener.

(that's just a brief allusion to the whole slavery issue)


i'll be sure to do that...



I would disagree with this statement. Furthermore, I would ask who elected George Washington leader,


To be honest, i don't know the answer to this. Did GW assume control, himself, like a dictator?

How exactly did he become "general"?



and what made it their decision to make (for everyone else) in the first place?


The general American publci clearly supported the actions of the 1776 revolution. I agree with you, that Washington should not force anybody to fight against their will.




Again, what good comes of replacing one form of tyranny for another?



I do not believe the US Constitution to be a Tyrannical document, i believe it to be a tool to prevent tyranny from every showing it's ugly face in America again. Unfortunately that document has been largely ignored...



I'm reminded of a quote you see around here pretty often, "Power is the reason, liberty is just the excuse." Clearly, the American "revolution" is an example of that very thing.

I hear you... but we must find a way to preserve liberty from these powers. A central authority with the sole purpose of defending the individual rights of all of it's constituents.



What is worse, and far more destructive to "society," is perpetuating the many lies surrounding such events and the creation of whole self-supporting, state worshiping mythologies, hero worship. These people were "fighting for the rights of individuals" as they simultaneously maintained ownership over humans who had no say in the matter, give me a break.

I hear what you're saying and obviously agree to an extent however... What is a realistic, and ideal way for 1776 to play out, in your mind?



So yea, it was a con then as it is now.


I don't really buy this... yet... i look forward to your response :cool:


I have great respect for individual rights, and believe the US Constitution is the greatest document ever created to help preserve these rights, and the constitution was a result of the revolution.

[Imperial]

To be fair, i'd be more in support of a military / militia defending its people and their private property. Perhaps I shouldn't support "acts of aggression" by the US military, according to your logic, but i personally feel as though America would be under british rule to this day, just like Canada, if it wasn't for this resistance.

I'm a Canadian, so i'm still learning A LOT about 1776.

The patriots did massively attack tories and loyalists, seize their property and terrorize them to whip up support for their cause. Generally any revolution brings violent acts.

The British were actually never that radical. It was more that they finally began to implement policies they had always implemented towards other territories were finally implemented on the US...and the Seven Years War strained the British adding more pressures, even though William Pitt pretty masterfully executed it in the end.


To be honest, i don't know the answer to this. Did GW assume control, himself, like a dictator?

How exactly did he become "general"?

George Washington was named Commander in Chief by one of the Continental Congresses...it was close between him and some other lower level general, but they gave it to Washington.


The general American publci clearly supported the actions of the 1776 revolution

This I might argue. Ron Paul claims the American Revolution was popularly supported and that John Adams was misquoted with the only 25% or so of the population sided with the Patriots. However, I love studying history, and I think it is difficult to generalize any statistic. Still, if forced to I would guess 10% or so of the population was Loyalist, 35% Patriot, and the rest undecided or apathetic. The Patriots it is documented won the ability to whip up the populace though by the end, as their greater numbers allowed them to pressure communities better. Loyalists were generally wealthier and conservative(why the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation were so classically liberal, in the absence of conservative opposition).


What is a realistic, and ideal way for 1776 to play out, in your mind?

I think if the colonies had bided their time a bit longer their revolution would have been more justified. Really, the colonies would be like the status quo in my book(though the technological advancements of today make a difficult comparison) and then they could have had more popular support. The Articles of Confederation, rightly so or not, would have probably appeared more like the Constitution. Slavery was not going to be cut out that early no matter what I think, although more safeguards against its excesses could have been sought.

[BlackTerrel]

I think most rational people would describe themselves as anti-war. In fact I've never heard anyone describe themselves as pro-war.

[constituent]

I'm helping w/ dinner right now, but i wanted to touch on this one thing briefly:


i personally feel as though America would be under british rule to this day, just like Canada, if it wasn't for this resistance.

Your idea depends on the notion that France would have either sold or surrendered the entirety of their claims to the British gov't. Same goes for Spain, neither was going to happen.

Rather than what you've suggested, I would say that each of the empires with their hands on the continental U.S. would have, in time, been beaten back by small emerging republics.

the "old order" would have ultimately been toppled rather than merely reconfigured, as was the case with the American "revolution."

...more later, enjoying the dialogue.

[ClayTrainor]

The patriots did massively attack tories and loyalists, seize their property and terrorize them to whip up support for their cause. Generally any revolution brings violent acts.

The British were actually never that radical. It was more that they finally began to implement policies they had always implemented towards other territories were finally implemented on the US...and the Seven Years War strained the British adding more pressures, even though William Pitt pretty masterfully executed it in the end.



George Washington was named Commander in Chief by one of the Continental Congresses...it was close between him and some other lower level general, but they gave it to Washington.



This I might argue. Ron Paul claims the American Revolution was popularly supported and that John Adams was misquoted with the only 25% or so of the population sided with the Patriots. However, I love studying history, and I think it is difficult to generalize any statistic. Still, if forced to I would guess 10% or so of the population was Loyalist, 35% Patriot, and the rest undecided or apathetic. The Patriots it is documented won the ability to whip up the populace though by the end, as their greater numbers allowed them to pressure communities better. Loyalists were generally wealthier and conservative(why the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation were so classically liberal, in the absence of conservative opposition).



I think if the colonies had bided their time a bit longer their revolution would have been more justified. Really, the colonies would be like the status quo in my book(though the technological advancements of today make a difficult comparison) and then they could have had more popular support. The Articles of Confederation, rightly so or not, would have probably appeared more like the Constitution. Slavery was not going to be cut out that early no matter what I think, although more safeguards against its excesses could have been sought.


Very enlightening post, thank you very much for sharing your knowledge :cool:

[ClayTrainor]

I'm helping w/ dinner right now, but i wanted to touch on this one thing briefly:



Your idea depends on the notion that France would have either sold or surrendered the entirety of their claims to the British gov't. Same goes for Spain, neither was going to happen.

Rather than what you've suggested, I would say that each of the empires with their hands on the continental U.S. would have, in time, been beaten back by small emerging republics.

the "old order" would have ultimately been toppled rather than merely reconfigured, as was the case with the American "revolution."

...more later, enjoying the dialogue.

I'm enjoying this as well... i'm a bit busy right now too.

Perhaps we should create a new thread for this? We're kind of hijacking a bit :p

[Anti Federalist]

War should not be the default position.

Anti war should be the default position of government, war as a last resort and only after every other method has been exhausted and only after it is properly laid out to the people and declared in Congress.

Regulation and prohibition has become the default position of government as well, instead of liberty.


I've never really understood this term "anti-war", especially when it is tossed around on here. Is it supposed to mean "anti-Iraq war", "anti-war in middle east" or just plain old "anti-every and all wars"?

This was the downfall of Ron Paul in the primaries, and what made us look like nuts among the eyes of the Republican Party. When we used "anti-war", it sounds like we are opposed to any and all wars which obviously doesn't sit right with the American public. When that term was said it sounded like even if we were bombed by another country, Ron Paul wouldn't take action because he's "anti-war" (I know Congress declares war, but that's besides the point). Why not instead of saying "anti-war" say "against the war in the middle east" or "anti-unconstitutional war"?

Unless I'm wrong and most people here are completely anti-war in every way... Which wouldn't make sense to me because war is what bought this country freedom.

[South Park Fan]

I'm anti-war, since war is the health of the state. However, revolution and secession are both justifed.