| Author |
Topic:
First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic "W"
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
5/15 8:06am
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
- Date Edited:
5/15 8:12am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Gonk
|
Look up your facts. Lincoln provoked the war at Sumter. He could have backed out of the south and tried to resolve things peacefully, but instead he resupplied the fortress against the warnings of the Confederate leadership.
So... he provoked the conflict by failing to give into confederate demands that he not resupply his OWN fortress in his OWN country?
*gasp* The WARMONGER!!!
If Lincoln truly wanted peace he would have given into some initial demands and attempted to negotiate with them.
Who are you to say what he should have done? If the SOUTH really wanted peaace they wouldn't have made those demands in the first place, so don't put it on Lincoln.
Anyway, this situation is clearly different from what happened in 2003, and in a fundamental way. No precedent. If Bush is looked any better or worse by the "twisting" of the passage of time, people can't point to this as proof that what Bush has done has been essentially done before.
No. I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that the north despite having every advantage was getting it's ass handed to it by Lee until Gettysburg. This is an army that started the war without a single cannon. That hints some belief in their cause and talent that the north was lacking.
Lack of talent, maybe. But proof that belief in thier cause was lacking? What is this, the middle ages? We both fight and if you lose, it's clearly because God thinks you're in the wrong?
I guess that means that the French privately wanted the Germans to win in 1940. Or the Native Indians kinda thought the White man deserved thier land.
It doesn't matter how much you believe in your cause. You can lose no matter how hard you work. The end result is not dependant on belief or on justice.
Besides, what about the battle of Shiloh?
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Blithe
Registered:
Jun '03
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:53am
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
- Date Edited:
5/15 10:55am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Blithe
|
Gonk posted:
Lack of talent, maybe. But proof that belief in thier cause was lacking? What is this, the middle ages? We both fight and if you lose, it's clearly because God thinks you're in the wrong?
Of course not. However, history tells us that the U.S Army's morale was extremely low throughout the first half of the war and caused Northern officers no end of frustration and trouble until -- and get this -- Lee invaded Pennsylvania (in order to prevent the Northern generals from constantly pillaging and rapin Northern Virginia, might I add) and historians, reporters, and Northern officers said that it raised their morale as they chased after Lee into Pennsylvania because IT GAVE THEM SOMETHING SOLID TO FIGHT FOR.
Also, keep in mind that the majority of the North opposed the draft, too, not wanting to fight for what they considered to be "Lincoln's War." It is this lack of morale and "patriotism" that pushed the President to free the slaves in order to turn the focus on the war, retroactively, toward the purpose of freeing those in bondage.
And not surprisingly, he only freed them in the states that were in rebellion, making it "necessary" to invade and enforce the new Federal government's law; furthermore, this was timely done in order to throw the possibilty of peace out of the equation. Literally, Lincoln was, at the same time, promising the South that they could keep their slaves, if they would just rejoing the Union and stop the bloodshed. But of course the South ignored his offers, because, obviously, as soon as they joined, they would immediately have to free their slaves. Afterward, recruitment levels spiked, and desertion went down. The war was now about helping those enslaved, from an obviously warmongering country that now refused the President's "generous" proposal for peace and restitution.
It was absolutely brilliant, in a very morbid sense. And it only cost the lives of several hundred-thousand more men.
And Shiloh was a stalemate.
-----signature-----
Golden Ewok recipient x 2
Special Golden Ewok recipient x 2
Improbable Nogrhi recipient
"Great. We have a AAA credit rating and 9 trillion in debt. That's about as worthwhile to us as a 12 inch penis that can't get hard." - rogue_wookiee
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
5/15 11:08am
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
Of course not. However, history tells us that the U.S Army's morale was extremely low throughout the first half of the war and caused Northern officers no end of frustration and trouble until -- and get this -- Lee invaded Pennsylvania (in order to prevent the Northern generals from constantly pillaging and rapin Northern Virginia, might I add) and historians, reporters, and Northern officers said that it raised their morale as they chased after Lee into Pennsylvania because IT GAVE THEM SOMETHING SOLID TO FIGHT FOR.
So the fact that morale was low is taken as evidence that... what, the war was unjust? And if they had high morale that would mean the war was just? A cursory glance at modern warfare would show these are totally independant concepts.
Also, keep in mind that the majority of the North opposed the draft, too, not wanting to fight for what they considered to be "Lincoln's War." It is this lack of morale and "patriotism" that pushed the President to free the slaves in order to turn the focus on the war, retroactively, toward the purpose of freeing those in bondage.
Well if the majority opposed it, what did it continue anyway? And again, how is this proof that it was just or unjust? Quebecois resisted being drafted in WWI despite the fact Germans were on French soil. Do you think the fact if the war was just or unjust really factored into this, or was it just the fact that they resented being forced into the army no matter WHAT the reason was?
And not surprisingly, he only freed them in the states that were in rebellion, making it "necessary" to invade and enforce the new Federal government's law; furthermore, this was timely done in order to throw the possibilty of peace out of the equation. Literally, Lincoln was, at the same time, promising the South that they could keep their slaves, if they would just rejoing the Union and stop the bloodshed. But of course the South ignored his offers, because, obviously, as soon as they joined, they would immediately have to free their slaves. Afterward, recruitment levels spiked, and desertion went down. The war was now about helping those enslaved, from an obviously warmongering country that now refused the President's "generous" proposal for peace and restitution.
This is irrelevant to the original points.
And Shiloh was a stalemate.
Also irrelevant, but the South started with a surprise attack and ended the battle in retreat. They'd reverse fortunes later but for that battlefield, not a stalemate.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
StarDude
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
5/15 11:39am
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
|
Take the historical/poltical debate to The Senate Floor.
-----signature-----
It's not who I am underneath, but what I do
that defines me.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Blithe
Registered:
Jun '03
|
Date Posted:
5/15 12:04pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
Gonk posted:
So the fact that morale was low is taken as evidence that... what, the war was unjust? And if they had high morale that would mean the war was just? A cursory glance at modern warfare would show these are totally independant concepts.
No, no, and that was not the point. My point, relatively based on r_w's, was about the their BELIEF, not the justifcation of their war.
Gonk posted:
Well if the majority opposed it, what did it continue anyway? And again, how is this proof that it was just or unjust?
Because Lincoln's instituted a draft to ensure a large army, and freed the slaves to shift the focus of the war.
Gonk posted:
This is irrelevant to the original points.
It was more on earlier points in the thread, but you are correct. Please excuse me.
Gonk posted:
Also irrelevant, but the South started with a surprise attack and ended the battle in retreat. They'd reverse fortunes later but for that battlefield, not a stalemate.
Considering the armies were back to where they all started from at the end, then yes, it was a stalemate. Most historians have a consensus on this. However, r_w's point is more accurately defined in terms of the eastern theatre: The North saw many clear victories in the West -- whereas they were being pummled in the East.
Stardude is right though, Gonk. If you would like to respond, feel free to PM away. 
-----signature-----
Golden Ewok recipient x 2
Special Golden Ewok recipient x 2
Improbable Nogrhi recipient
"Great. We have a AAA credit rating and 9 trillion in debt. That's about as worthwhile to us as a 12 inch penis that can't get hard." - rogue_wookiee
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager:
The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
5/16 9:31pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
|
I think it is a bit early for a Bush biopic, but Stone loves Presidents, for some reason.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager:
The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
5/19 12:36am
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
|
The casting: The casting
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Yodas-evil-twin
Registered:
Jun '05
|
Date Posted:
5/22 8:21am
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
|
Richard Dreyfuss is in final negotiations to play Dick Cheney.
-----signature-----
"Who watches the Watchmen?"
"The JCC is pretty much Lord of the Flies without the healthy outdoorsy atmosphere."
-soitscometothis
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager:
The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
6/1 2:40pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
|
Interesting choice, but perhaps too lightweight.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Penguinator-176
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
6/1 7:19pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
|
Literally or in terms of talent?
-----signature-----
"Sweet, soft and low, I will poison you all - canary in a gilded cage."
"Everything burns."
.
.
GDG
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Reynar_Tedros
Registered:
Jul '06
|
Date Posted:
6/1 10:44pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
|
Out of left field, but great choice. I was thinking Giamatti all the way.
-----signature-----
I shook Chuck Norris' hand.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager:
The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
6/2 12:47pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
|
Not in terms of talent, no.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_Maul_Sith_Lord
Registered:
Mar '04
|
Date Posted:
6/2 4:01pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
"Will history prove him the worst President of all time? Hardly. Lincoln committed crimes just as grave as Bush and he did them against his own people."
That statement alone proves you have no idea what you're talking about.
D_M_S_L
-----signature-----
"At Last We Will Have Revenge" - Darth Maul
"Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a ckicken." - Tyler Durden
R.I.P.... Heath Ledger.... R.I.P.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager:
The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
6/15 2:51pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
|
But it is hard to judge a President immediately after his term. Truman is a good example; so is Eisenhower.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
6/15 3:50pm
Subject:
RE: First Look: Oliver Stone's Bush biopic
|
|
I don't necessarily think he'll be thought of as the worst President of ALL time. But I DO think you have to go all the way back to Herbert Hoover to find an administration that could at least seriously compete for the title.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
