"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in
ink.net:


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in
ink.net:

And that's a good thing? Tearing down the Commander in Chief in
time of war?

This CiC STARTED the war. FDR's socialism caused more damage to the
US than any other single individual in history, but he was a REAL
"war president".

What kind of message does it send to our enemy?

That some Americans know the war is wrong.

Here's a fact that I bet most Americans didn't know:
When the opposition leaders started criticizing Lincoln in time of
war, and tried getting men to *not* enlist in the army, Lincoln had
them exiled.

Lincoln started that war, too, so it's not surprising to see
parallels in behavior.

So any President who "starts" a war is wrong?

If the war is based on falsehood or illegality.

So which wars were based on falsehood and illegality? And *specifically*
what were the falsehoods and illegalities?



Assuming that Lincoln "started" the Civil War (a poin, by the way,
that I strongly disagree with)...was Lincoln wrong to "start" it?

Under the Constitution the States have the power to secede, since such
power is not prohibited.

The Civil War started as much over tariff laws, and the North's defiance of
laws regarding fugitive slaves, as it did about secession. But Lincoln
didn't "start" that war.

Lincoln sent troops to a US Army outpost (Fort Sumter) in S. Carolina to
assure that it remained under a US flag. Keep in mind that the fort was the
property of the US Federal Government. But it was attacked by Confederate
General Beauregard, which escalated the secession "dispute" into a
full-blown war.

It's no different than if Castro were to attack Guantanamo today. Would
Bush then be responsible for the resulting US/Cuban war?