Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (9549)	7/25/2006 2:32:49 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 14758

Better without the Civil War. Change would have come anyway- just as it did in England. Where war can be avoided, often avoidance is better. Can't say it is always better, but I'm sure the Us would have been fine, and dealt with its problems, even without the Civil War. Do you think the Civil War was absolutely necessary? If so, we will disagree. Did you think I'd be a cheerleader of the Civil War? I don't happen to think the Revolutionary War was absolutely necessary either. Canada and Australia did fine without a war with England. I imagine the world would have kept on spinning, and the world would be fine, even if we had not had the Revolutionary War. I think WWII was a necessary war- because of the aggression of Hitler. And WWI was probably unavoidable because of the Austrian reaction- ironically very much like today, Austria blamed the state of Serbia for non-state actors. I do think WWI could have been avoided, had the states involved had more fear of war. No one foresaw the hell of WWI- and that is why I think wars are a crap shoot, only to be entered when the present is already a Hell (which could be said of WWII Europe, but not, imo, Saddam's Iraq.) With nuclear weapons in the mix I think we have to be less cavalier about war. Apparently you see things differently. That's fine, but I'm never going to agree with you.