Posted on 10/19/2004 7:04:03 PM PDT by notkerry
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you the question about—this is going to cause some trouble with people—but as an historian now and studying the Revolutionary War as it was fought out in the South in those last years of the War, insurgency against a powerful British force, do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today?
CARTER: 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 colonial‘s 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.
For Transcript See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6281085/
this was so bad, I fell out of my chair laughing.
Peanuts, nuts LOL
Hit rock bottom - and dig Jimmah. Just Damn
I think by your .2 percent that we'll find other wars to have seen more casualties.
However, the idea of "bloodiest" implies "more blood."
Wasn't the Battle of Gettyburgh all by itself in the 20,000 range?
The American Revolution surely is unique in the sense that its ringleaders -- Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, etc -- were men of property, wealth and prestige; in other words, men with something to lose. Compare this to any other revolution in history, where the ringleaders were outsiders; plotters staring in through the windows of prosperity, powerless. The Russian Revolution, French Revolution, etc -- these were joined by desperate people fighting mind-numbing poverty and severe political repression.
And yet the Founding Fathers were men who were as well-off as any men on earth at the time, and furthermore, any of them could have been (and were) political leaders under His Majesty's government. The average colonial farmer likewise led a life far more comfortable than those of his cousins in Europe, to say nothing of Asia or Africa.
For all practical intents and purposes, these people had absolutely nothing to gain, and everything in the world to lose, by taking on the greatest military force the world had ever known. Why would they do this? What possible motivation could well-off, comfortable people have? Militarily, they seemed certain to lose, and they knew before they started -- and Patrick Henry made that abundantly clear -- that they would be hanged as common criminals if they failed.
Of course, the answer is, they did it to be free. And they did it to make the rest of their nation -- the poor, the disenfranchised -- free as well. And it is clear as crystal from their collective writings that they took that risk to make Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore and the rest of us in their unseen posterity free, too. They could look down the dim, moonlit riverbanks of the future and see a society worthy of their sacrifice and determination. They knew that God, had put them together in a time and place where bold, courageous action, followed by much suffering, doubt, blood and fear could, perhaps, unleash in mankind an energy source the likes of which they could not imagine.
So for me, a child of that bet -- that guess, that commitment, that roll of the dice -- for me, I owe them the defense of that freedom, and I will do my poor mite to pass it on as best I can. These men pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor. They pledged that to me. I owe them.
The real genius of the Founding Fathers was that these great and good men had the foresight and the courage to look into their own darker motives, and construct a system that prevents the accumulation of power.
The Constitution they created could only be torn up by force of arms. And that is why the Founders left that power in the hands of the people, who together can never be cowed by relatively small numbers of thugs holding the only guns.
As PJ O'Rourke points out, the U.S. Constitution is less than a quarter the length of the owner's manual for a 1998 Toyota Camry, and yet it has managed to keep 300 million of the world's most unruly, passionate and energetic people safe, prosperous and free. Smarter people than me may disagree with that document -- I'm for not touching a comma.
Our failures and disgraces cruelly remind us that we, like every other government, are composed of fallible men and women with no divine ability to read the future or foresee all outcomes. But these failures are failures of action, action borne of confidence and a belief in our way of life, and come all the more painful for their contrast to the everyday standards to which we hold ourselves as a people and a nation. For it is an undeniable fact that no great nation in history has held a shadow of our measure of power, and yet exercised it with such restraint, nor does any time in the bloody history of warfare reflect a people so magnanimous in victory against enemies sworn to their murder and destruction. From our first hour, we have been, and remain, the beacon of hope and freedom for a world desperate and longing for such an example, and we can measure our success in building such a place by the numbers of those who are literally dying in an attempt to come and be part of it.
Our ancestors made their choice and here we are. I respect anyone’s right to chose differently. I only speak up to defend the choice we Americans made as a deeply spiritual one, borne of reflection and danger and a spectacular triumph against all odds.
..From the Revolution until today, the choice for full freedom with all its accompanying excesses and failures is a profoundly well-reasoned, moral and ethical choice, and the result has been national and personal success unparalleled in the history of this world. http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000013.html
I am ashamed to admit that I voted for this idiot in 1980.
(The good news is...it was the VERY LAST TIME THAT I HAVE VOTED FOR A DEMOCRAT...after attending a Ronald Reagan appearance in Michigan in the early 80's)
I was quoting CFC__VRWC on his post number 88 above.
He also referenced this link.
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm
Yeah, but at a cost we're still paying in the Middle East.
Evidently the esteemed Mr. Carter, son of the South, doesn't know the Civil War was the bloodiest war the US was ever involved in, speaking of the casualties suffered on both sides by THIS country. He was probably speaking globally, wait, that's not it, the commies killed millions, he was probably speaking....gosh I don't have a clue what he was talking about.
...what?
Is there no LIMIT to this man's asinine statements?
Headline should read, "JIMMY CARTER DOES DRUGS"
The old man is senile.
if the French had just listened to the blitzkrieg needs of the germans the occupation could have been avoided altogether!
If the Revolutionary War was unnecessary, we'd still be speaking the King's English.
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who elect a president who cannot understand history are doomed to a screwed-up world.
Much of the blame for the nightmarish mess the Mideast is in now lies at this man's feet.
Respectfully, I disagree.
James Earl Carter is as smart as a whip.
He does however (and in my nonprofessional opinion) have some loose screws (including an odd view of human nature that doesn't happen to recognize treachery even when it's biting him on the backside), and he is quite easily led by the far-left mind control agents.
In the world through Mister Carter's off-kilter eyes, bad people will become good people if you only treat then with kindness and respect. Hence, his legendary weakness in every facet of his presidency and post-presidency.
Carter's method of handling the cold war was to cut our military (certainly the Soviets would see the benign gesture and cut their military as well.) If that doesn't work, throw in the Panama Canal to show that we are serious about disarming.
Fast forward to his comment about the Revolutionary War. It's vintage Carter. By "negotiating" we can somehow get to a blissful consensus, especially if we roll over and display vulnerability and weakness. It's the Carter way (even though it's never really worked.) Everybody is reasonable, aren't they?
Also, listen to weakling Carter when he makes any sort of a statement. He nearly always refers to something he read in the "paper". So, it appears that al Reuters and al AP are leading a trusting Mister Carter down the "shining path".
.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.