Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: #3Fan
It's clear that Ike was targeting the supply sector, just as Sherman was, so do you hate him too? Surely you have an opinion on Ike.

Supplies of what - civilians? If Ike waged war on innocent civilians - not as collateral casualties, but as primary targets, then he is guilty of the same crime.

Laden's purpose is to spread the tyranny of his cult and his attacks have no direct military value, and do not serve to save lives in the long run so of course I hate him.

Sherman's [*spit*] purpose was to spread the tyranny of his union cult and his attacks on civilians had no direct military value - were illegal per two Supreme Court decision prior to the war, and did not serve to save lives in the long run. He waged a war like bin Laden - against CIVILIANS, not military targets.

1,710 posted on 03/26/2004 5:19:09 AM PST by 4CJ (||) OUR sins put Him on that cross - HIS love for us kept Him there. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1687 | View Replies ]


To: 4ConservativeJustices
EXACTLY!

sherman has a front row seat, very near the fire, along with a host of other damnyankee filth (like spoons butler for example),for eternity.

free dixie,sw

1,721 posted on 03/26/2004 8:10:56 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1710 | View Replies ]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Supplies of what - civilians?

Factories, buidings, and food stores supply armies and have people in them. What was the target when Tokyo was firebombed?

If Ike waged war on innocent civilians - not as collateral casualties, but as primary targets, then he is guilty of the same crime.

Ike did the same as Sherman, attack the buildings that supplied armies, inflicting collateral damage against people. Hundreds of thousands died in Germany in those firebombings. Was Ike a war criminal?

Sherman's [*spit*] purpose was to spread the tyranny of his union cult...

America is a cult?

...and his attacks on civilians had no direct military value...

They kept confederate armies from resupplying.

- were illegal per two Supreme Court decision prior to the war,...

It was rebellion and the Constitution says nothing of the sort when there is rebellion.

...and did not serve to save lives in the long run.

It ended the war quicker thereby saving lives.

He waged a war like bin Laden - against CIVILIANS, not military targets.

The burned buildings kept the confederates from resupplying.

1,731 posted on 03/26/2004 2:02:15 PM PST by #3Fan (Kerry to POW-MIA activists: "You'll wish you'd never been born.". Link on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1710 | View Replies ]

To: 4ConservativeJustices; #3Fan
Sherman's [*spit*] purpose was to spread the tyranny of his union cult and his attacks on civilians had no direct military value - were illegal per two Supreme Court decision prior to the war, and did not serve to save lives in the long run. He waged a war like bin Laden - against CIVILIANS, not military targets.

I second that. I'm unaware of any situation in the Second World War in which Eisenhower ordered attacks on civilians. The air war was another story, but at least the American raids had legitimate targets, like the notorious ball-bearing factory at Schweinfurt and the refineries around Ploesti. The British night raids were more problematic, but even at night the British made attempts to target, using visual references and the "H2S" black boxes, and in any case they resorted to night raiding (as had the Germans) because of their casualty experience in attempting daylight raids.

Deliberate savaging of civilian targets was something more typical of the German side (Rotterdam, London, the V-weapon offensives, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau's gratuitous shelling of Deal during their Channel breakout, Ouradour, Lidice, half a hundred Polish and Russian towns).

However, any fairminded person would have to admit that Sherman's march to the sea did adumbrate this kind of warfare, which had no precedent since the Thirty Years' War, or even the Hundred Years' War.

1,771 posted on 03/27/2004 3:24:44 PM PST by lentulusgracchus (Et praeterea caeterum censeo, delenda est Carthago. -- M. Porcius Cato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1710 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson