Cost of wars at least 3.7 Trillion and counting

[MasterKiller]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion price tag for America's wars.

Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday.

The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (http://www.costsofwar.org)

In the 10 years since U.S. troops went into Afghanistan to root out the al Qaeda leaders behind the September 11, 2001, attacks, spending on the conflicts totaled $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion.

Those numbers will continue to soar when considering often overlooked costs such as long-term obligations to wounded veterans and projected war spending from 2012 through 2020. The estimates do not include at least $1 trillion more in interest payments coming due and many billions more in expenses that cannot be counted, according to the study.

[BJJ-Blue]

That's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the War on Poverty and yet we haven't figured out that one is a lost cause.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Don't forget the war on drugs.

[David Jamieson]

Meh, if they keep it up, I shall simply rescind my consent to be governed.

Dunno why people don't bump hip to these available ways for people to reclaim their country.

step off the grid and step away from the crazy.
Takes a lot of abilities that a lot of people simply don't have anymore.

Your average 20 something in an urban environment is pretty much useless out in the real world.

Your average 40 something has probably been on a few camping trips and likely knows a few basic survival tactics.

Odd how the younger generations are being robbed of their ability to survive simply by the fact that they are not required to do so in an urban environment which is where more than 85% of the people are.

[BJJ-Blue]

Don't forget the war on drugs.

That one too. And what makes this one even worse is that instead of wasting money fighting it, we could be making money by legalizing it.

I've been wondering the past few years if they may get legalized if only for economic reasons. We are in debt, and taxing drugs would be a way to massively increase State and Federal revenues.

[MasterKiller]

That one too. And what makes this one even worse is that instead of wasting money fighting it, we could be making money by legalizing it.

I've been wondering the past few years if they may get legalized if only for economic reasons. We are in debt, and taxing drugs would be a way to massively increase State and Federal revenues.

Nope. The religious right will fight it tooth and nail.

[BJJ-Blue]

Nope. The religious right will fight it tooth and nail.

What's your problem with religion?

And if you're right, how do explain the fact that many States have legalized gambling?

[Hebrew Hammer]

That one too. And what makes this one even worse is that instead of wasting money fighting it, we could be making money by legalizing it.

I've been wondering the past few years if they may get legalized if only for economic reasons. We are in debt, and taxing drugs would be a way to massively increase State and Federal revenues.

Brilliant, and maybe we could have used this money to pay for the cost of the wars...instead of fighting poppy growth in Afghanistan, they would be paying for their own occupation. We wouldn't need as many prisons, still waiting for a return on that investment, we would completely destroy Mexico's economy...and make it a safe place to visit again overnight. I'm thinking we could sell off Texas too. National Debt solved!


That's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the War on Poverty and yet we haven't figured out that one is a lost cause.

Not by a long shot...and at least we would be spending it on our own countrymen, trying to create a better educated and trained work force.

[MasterKiller]

What's your problem with religion?

And if you're right, how do explain the fact that many States have legalized gambling?

Maybe it has something to do with them telling me I can't buy liquor on a Sunday.

Nevada is the only state where casino-style gambling is legal statewide. All other states (19 out of 50) that allow casino-style gambling restrict it to small geographic areas (e.g., Atlantic City, New Jersey or Tunica, Mississippi), or to Native American reservations or property.

[David Jamieson]

Freedom of religion ends where human suffering begins.

In some cases, where any suffering begins.

Religion can be an ugly and stupid thing all too often.
I think it unfortunate that it is trying to replace real faith and real love.

Got no time for it.

[BJJ-Blue]

Not by a long shot...and at least we would be spending it on our own countrymen, trying to create a better educated and trained work force.

My point is it hasn't worked. We actually have more people in poverty now than we did when the War on Poverty began. Of course when you subsidize poverty, you get more poverty. Too bad Democrats haven't grasped that concept in 50 years.


Maybe it has something to do with them telling me I can't buy liquor on a Sunday.

Nevada is the only state where casino-style gambling is legal statewide. All other states (19 out of 50) that allow casino-style gambling restrict it to small geographic areas (e.g., Atlantic City, New Jersey or Tunica, Mississippi), or to Native American reservations or property.

So the religious right has said gambling is ok as long it's only on the coasts and Indian reservations? Is that your argument now?

And those 19 States have gambling, period. And some States (Texas is one) that do not have casinos do have other forms of legalized gambling; bingo, State lotteries, and off-track betting despite the evil religious right.

And one more thing, Nevada is a VERY religious State, they have alot of Mormons there, yet they not only allow casinos statewide, they still have cathouses. That's hardly the religious right forcing their views on people.

[mawali]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion price tag for America's wars.

Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday.

The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (http://www.costsofwar.org)

In the 10 years since U.S. troops went into Afghanistan to root out the al Qaeda leaders behind the September 11, 2001, attacks, spending on the conflicts totaled $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion.

Those numbers will continue to soar when considering often overlooked costs such as long-term obligations to wounded veterans and projected war spending from 2012 through 2020. The estimates do not include at least $1 trillion more in interest payments coming due and many billions more in expenses that cannot be counted, according to the study.

Obama has a point in that he has been in office for 3 years or so but bringing the troops home is excellent as opposed to sending them to fight in a way that many people OKayed (more or less) in the first place.

The psychological battle is worse only because of the deciet of the military industrial complex. Inflation, economy, NAFTA plus the scars of war and when these vets try to find jobs, there is nowhere to go and no one will hire them!
They become vulnerable because they have been lied to and when they try to seek help they are branded as 'cowards'.. Things are changing but they remain the same but it is far worse.

Why would a mortgage institution purpose foreclose on the home of a militay person knowing s/he is deployed to defend the freedom we so eagerly try to protect? Why fire a reserve (IRR) sent for 1 year and claim he never showed up to work knowing his reserve status. This is what many are dealing with!

I know guys who have been deployed between 3-5x but the military is saying they have enough personnel! A big shell game if you ask me. Just venting my patriotism!

[MasterKiller]

My point is it hasn't worked. We actually have more people in poverty now than we did when the War on Poverty began. Of course when you subsidize poverty, you get more poverty. Too bad Democrats haven't grasped that concept in 50 years.



So the religious right has said gambling is ok as long it's only on the coasts and Indian reservations? Is that your argument now?

And those 19 States have gambling, period. And some States (Texas is one) that do not have casinos do have other forms of legalized gambling; bingo, State lotteries, and off-track betting despite the evil religious right.

And one more thing, Nevada is a VERY religious State, they have alot of Mormons there, yet they not only allow casinos statewide, they still have cathouses. That's hardly the religious right forcing their views on people.
And yet, I still can't buy liquor on Sundays.

[BJJ-Blue]

And yet, I still can't buy liquor on Sundays.

Why are you complaining that you can't buy liquor on Sundays, but it's ok to ban Happy Meal toys, it's ok to ban certain light bulbs, and it's ok to ban music in public parks?

It sounds to me like you only complain when a certain group forces it's values on you, but yet you approve of another group forcing it's values on others.

[Hebrew Hammer]

It sounds to me like you only complain when a certain group forces it's values on you, but yet you approve of another group forcing it's values on others.

What could be more American than that?? Its kind of like our foreign policy...we'll bomb you into democracy. Some where along the line we forgot democracy comes from within. Hence the 'Arab' spring all around the countries we actually occupied.

[Drake]

Obama has a point in that he has been in office for 3 years or so but bringing the troops home is excellent as opposed to sending them to fight in a way that many people OKayed (more or less) in the first place.

The psychological battle is worse only because of the deciet of the military industrial complex. Inflation, economy, NAFTA plus the scars of war and when these vets try to find jobs, there is nowhere to go and no one will hire them!
They become vulnerable because they have been lied to and when they try to seek help they are branded as 'cowards'.. Things are changing but they remain the same but it is far worse.

Why would a mortgage institution purpose foreclose on the home of a militay person knowing s/he is deployed to defend the freedom we so eagerly try to protect? Why fire a reserve (IRR) sent for 1 year and claim he never showed up to work knowing his reserve status. This is what many are dealing with!

I know guys who have been deployed between 3-5x but the military is saying they have enough personnel! A big shell game if you ask me. Just venting my patriotism!

These vets have free college and receive a ton of classes on how to market themselves to civilian employers. I'm not going to get too deep into this, but when you have a guy with an unmarketable MOS, who chose to play X-Box or drink during reset (and MANY do), and has the manners of a wild boar, you have a recipe for failure. This is a result of lack of personal motivation.

You can't hire someone as a forklift driver, machine operator, doctor, lawyer, or any other job that pays anything close to a livable salary if they don't know how to do it, even IF they were in the service.

We DO have enough personnel NOW. And we'll be cutting the force here shortly, as we have, historically, after every conflict. I have nobody coming to fill my position here when I leave. The Afghans are on their own in that respect.

I earned my BS, MS, and I'm finishing my PhD - Army paid for everything. If someone CHOOSES not to use that benefit, then they are setting themselves up for failure.

[David Jamieson]

These vets have free college and receive a ton of classes on how to market themselves to civilian employers. I'm not going to get too deep into this, but when you have a guy with an unmarketable MOS, who chose to play X-Box or drink during reset (and MANY do), and has the manners of a wild boar, you have a recipe for failure. This is a result of lack of personal motivation.

You can't hire someone as a forklift driver, machine operator, doctor, lawyer, or any other job that pays anything close to a livable salary if they don't know how to do it, even IF they were in the service.

We DO have enough personnel NOW. And we'll be cutting the force here shortly, as we have, historically, after every conflict. I have nobody coming to fill my position here when I leave. The Afghans are on their own in that respect.

I earned my BS, MS, and I'm finishing my PhD - Army paid for everything. If someone CHOOSES not to use that benefit, then they are setting themselves up for failure.

Place will fall back into being a sh!thole.
Afghan army is a joke. They're high all the time. lol

Seriously, are any of them ANA fellers ANY good at all with soldiering? Every time we get a glimpse they appear to be an incompetent pack of chronic hashheads wasting ordinance and bullets like they're candy.

substantiate? refute?

[Drake]

Place will fall back into being a sh!thole.
Afghan army is a joke. They're high all the time. lol

Seriously, are any of them ANA fellers ANY good at all with soldiering? Every time we get a glimpse they appear to be an incompetent pack of chronic hashheads wasting ordinance and bullets like they're candy.

substantiate? refute?

Can't speak for the ANA, but the ANP here under BG Razziq are friggin' terrifyingly efficient now. There's problems, but nothing that we aren't already fixing. You'll never hear about the Afghan led airstrikes, rounding up of TB, or clearing ops going on almost daily here.

We are neck deep in the fighting season... and so far the TB are having a hell of a time really getting any traction.

[Syn7]

Meh, if they keep it up, I shall simply rescind my consent to be governed.

Dunno why people don't bump hip to these available ways for people to reclaim their country.

step off the grid and step away from the crazy.
Takes a lot of abilities that a lot of people simply don't have anymore.

Your average 20 something in an urban environment is pretty much useless out in the real world.

Your average 40 something has probably been on a few camping trips and likely knows a few basic survival tactics.

Odd how the younger generations are being robbed of their ability to survive simply by the fact that they are not required to do so in an urban environment which is where more than 85% of the people are.


and stay in the realm? just rescind(sp?)?
i knew you could give up citizenship but i had no idea you could refuse to be governed yet remain in the same community. so what? you dont pay taxes but you cant use hospitals cops firemen and roads??? whats that all about???

or do you mean just take off into the great wild? lots of people do that and are justy never heard from again. some live long, some dont.....

i grew up with one foot in the city and the other in the bush... i lived in an urban area but took off into the mountains for days, sometimes even weeeks when we were late teens... i know i can survive with basic equipment cause ive done it. im pretty sure i could get by with a few tools, as long as im not hurt or somehow held back in some other way, weather related or something.... i mean, if you drop me off in the arctic with a hoody and tennis shoes im a dead man almost for sure.

blades
fire
good clothing and packs
minor fishing tackle, like handline gear

thats pretty much it, with that i can create whatever else i need as long as the environment isnt crazy extreme. around BC im fine for sure. i miss our old treks into the rockies. we covered some serious ground. did some pretty dumb stuff too, i must admit. like climbs without fall protection, for example.

we had some fresh dirt bike treks too

gotta really plan those tho, cause of the fuel situation. u can only carry so much and go so far without re-loading somehow. and its hard to find somebody who will drive in a truck and meet you with gear along the way cause they all wanna be on their bikes. somebody has to do it tho.

[BJJ-Blue]

Can't speak for the ANA, but the ANP here under BG Razziq are friggin' terrifyingly efficient now. There's problems, but nothing that we aren't already fixing. You'll never hear about the Afghan led airstrikes, rounding up of TB, or clearing ops going on almost daily here.

We are neck deep in the fighting season... and so far the TB are having a hell of a time really getting any traction.

Your opinion means nothing. Jamieson presented his 'facts' on the issue and thus the case is closed. He is never wrong, so by default you are wrong. Your experience, education, and training mean squat in the face of Jamieson's 'facts'.

[BJJ-Blue]

What could be more American than that?? Its kind of like our foreign policy...we'll bomb you into democracy. Some where along the line we forgot democracy comes from within. Hence the 'Arab' spring all around the countries we actually occupied.

Reagan's foreign policy was nothing like that. He didn't bomb the USSR or any of Eastern Europe into democracy. He did it without firing a shot. He is known as "The Great Liberator" in Eastern Europe for good reason.

[Drake]

Your opinion means nothing. Jamieson presented his 'facts' on the issue and thus the case is closed. He is never wrong, so by default you are wrong. Your experience, education, and training mean squat in the face of Jamieson's 'facts'.

I won't get into the details, but sometimes, when I shake a certain someone's hand out here (not Karzai), I can't help but wonder if this sense of unease is the same one Rumsfeld felt when he shook Saddam's hand way back then.

It's unsettling, really...

[Reality_Check]

Reagan's foreign policy was nothing like that. He didn't bomb the USSR or any of Eastern Europe into democracy. He did it without firing a shot. He is known as "The Great Liberator" in Eastern Europe for good reason.

As I'm sure you are aware, Hebrew Hammer was referring to the foreign policy of the current administration (engaged in hostilities in 6 countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Somalia) and the previous administration who claimed we could impose democracy by force of arms. Neither administration has proven to be all that successful. Bringing up President Reagan was a non-sequitur.

[BJJ-Blue]

As I'm sure you are aware, Hebrew Hammer was referring to the foreign policy of the current administration... Bringing up President Reagan was a non-sequitur.

I was well aware of that. I was just showing an example where force was not used. I was not making a comparison.

However there is one big similarity; liberals complained back then that Reagan was spending too much to accomplish his goals and they are now complaining Bush (and even the community organizer) are spending too much to accomplish theirs. Of course Reagan's money was money well spent, he accomplished his goals. Time will tell how this conflict will turn out.

[David Jamieson]

And yet, I still can't buy liquor on Sundays.

Really? Why not? you have laws preventing you from buying something legal on Sundays because of religious moral ideals?

really?

Vote for the guy that scrubs that crap I guess.

[Hebrew Hammer]

I was well aware of that. I was just showing an example where force was not used. I was not making a comparison.

However there is one big similarity; liberals complained back then that Reagan was spending too much to accomplish his goals and they are now complaining Bush (and even the community organizer) are spending too much to accomplish theirs. Of course Reagan's money was money well spent, he accomplished his goals. Time will tell how this conflict will turn out.

Actually I think you were making a comparison...that being said, giving Reagan credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union is like giving Obama credit for the Arab Spring. Reality is that those countries were ripe for change, the Russians chose say Communism is no longer working for us, it only occurred on his watch. Reagan's economic policy of cutting taxes and increasing spending is and was NEVER a good idea. If you don't think so, go out and take a new car or home loan and then quit your job for a minimum wage one and see how that works out for you. His administration tripled our national debt and has help to lead us down this series of excessive deficit spending that we are now in. Either increase taxes with spending, you don't do war on credit, or cut taxes and cut spending.

Don't get me wrong, I actually liked Reagan, his military arms race and defense spending was the icing on the cake that probably hastened their collapse...only because Communism, in that form was a failed economic ideology...just look at modern day China who have embraced more western style economy, with their own slant...whose leadership will also succumb to a multiparty type government eventually.

[BJJ-Blue]

Actually I think you were making a comparison...that being said, giving Reagan credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union is like giving Obama credit for the Arab Spring. Reality is that those countries were ripe for change, the Russians chose say Communism is no longer working for us, it only occurred on his watch.

Reagan was either Nostradamus or it was his policies working that made the USSR implode. He said we would ratchet up our defense spending and they would do the same to keep up. He said their inferior system, communism, would go broke doing that. And he was 100% correct.


Reagan's economic policy of cutting taxes and increasing spending is and was NEVER a good idea. If you don't think so, go out and take a new car or home loan and then quit your job for a minimum wage one and see how that works out for you.

Bad analogy.

Reagan's tax cuts increased revenue. So that does not equate to quitting my job. The correct comparison would actually be me getting a large raise. But you are half correct, the spending was the problem. But Reagan's military spending increases accomplished their goals, while decades and decades of social spending has only made that problem worse.

The correct formula is to cut taxes and cut spending. That tackles the problem on both ends, and in the correct ways.


His administration tripled our national debt and has help to lead us down this series of excessive deficit spending that we are now in. Either increase taxes with spending, you don't do war on credit, or cut taxes and cut spending.

Again, his Administration accomplished it's goals in regards to it's spending. That's the key here. Of course the community organizer's massive spending has not accomplished it's goals. It did not keep unemployment under 8% as were told it would. And the community organizer has spent more in 2 years than Reagan did in 8.


...only because Communism, in that form was a failed economic ideology...just look at modern day China who have embraced more western style economy, ...

Agreed 100%.

Lets try and discuss this more in depth than what we disagree on. Knowing this is true, why in the world are we trying to move more 'left' while China is heading 'right' at a rapid pace? So of course the jobs are leaving here, and going to China. I just can't fathom how so many people lack common sense in this regard. There can be no argument here if all involved simply have a room temperature IQ. China's economy is going to surpass ours soon enough, and the reason why should be crystal clear. You and I get it, why do so many others not get it?


And I can source the Reagan years increased tax revenues if you want (my links are at home, I'm at work). It's actually quite well known that that indeed did happen. You're quite rational, so I hope you either already know this, or you will acknoledge that as fact once I do source it if asked.

[Drake]

“If you keep a bird in a cage for twenty years and then open the door and say its free, it may be free, but it doesn’t have the courage of flight.”
~Akrem, assassinated Afghan Chief of Police, Kandahar


Something to think about...

[David Jamieson]

“If you keep a bird in a cage for twenty years and then open the door and say its free, it may be free, but it doesn’t have the courage of flight.”
~Akrem, assassinated Afghan Chief of Police, Kandahar


Something to think about...

African Americans have no courage?

[Drake]

African Americans have no courage?

How long did it take them? Most went right back to being slaves after the Union went through.

Nearly 100 years after being free did they stay have the courage to stand up for themselves.

Are you always this smug and "know it all"? The man died because he stood up to the wrong people, and you swing back with some revisionist approach to history? Blacks were servants to whites for over a CENTURY after they were legally free. Never stood up for their right to vote, their right to ride where they please on the bus, to sit where they want in restaurants.

Akrem hit the nail on the head. You did not.

[KC Elbows]

How long did it take them? Most went right back to being slaves after the Union went through.

Nearly 100 years after being free did they stay have the courage to stand up for themselves.

Are you always this smug and "know it all"? The man died because he stood up to the wrong people, and you swing back with some revisionist approach to history? Blacks were servants to whites for over a CENTURY after they were legally free. Never stood up for their right to vote, their right to ride where they please on the bus, to sit where they want in restaurants.

Akrem hit the nail on the head. You did not.

Not sure I'd agree with your assessment 100%. Indian nations who fought against what was happening to them got wiped out. When the army and the courts and the police and industry are largely for your situation, rising up by force or attempts at changes that threaten the status quo are often pipe dreams. Yes, a population may be cowed, but their avoidance of rising up may be based on rational awareness of what is necessary for survival and not reticence.

Black leaders in the era you are discussing were aware of how much they could push without risking getting killed for no gains whatsoever. They debated the need for more, but this debate was most relevant at the point where it was unclear what would happen. After the end of slavery, probably the riskiest thing to be was a black man rising in influence and wealth. There are tons of stories about how such people were cheated out of what was theirs, and even their lives, by whites, backed by white police. white courts, white juries, etc. Rising up requires leaders, and black leaders could not survive while proposing any major changes.

[bawang]

african americans are stil not free. america controls the black man by his genitalia, roughly quoting louis farrakhan.

[sanjuro_ronin]

How long did it take them? Most went right back to being slaves after the Union went through.

Nearly 100 years after being free did they stay have the courage to stand up for themselves.

Are you always this smug and "know it all"? The man died because he stood up to the wrong people, and you swing back with some revisionist approach to history? Blacks were servants to whites for over a CENTURY after they were legally free. Never stood up for their right to vote, their right to ride where they please on the bus, to sit where they want in restaurants.

Akrem hit the nail on the head. You did not.

I don't think it is an issue of courage per say.
When one is caged and beaten it is the will that suffers, not courage.
Free the body means nothing when the mind and spirit are still captive and broken.

[Drake]

I don't think it is an issue of courage per say.
When one is caged and beaten it is the will that suffers, not courage.
Free the body means nothing when the mind and spirit are still captive and broken.

Which is what Akrem was saying...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Which is what Akrem was saying...

Which I agree with.
It's far to east for free people to talk of freedom and courage to fight for it, when we have never HAD to or ever been under the TRUE mantel of oppression and dictatorship.
Slavery exists because people's wills and minds are broken, not because they lack courage.
Untill you free a person's mind and they have will and hope and faith in something better, they will never be free.

[BJJ-Blue]

Blacks went from being slaves to plantation owners to being slaves to the Democrat Party. Akrem was right in that way, they were not really ready for freedom in a sense. They went from having one 'master' to a having different 'master'. When 95%+ of any group all thinks the same, there simply is not alot of free thinking going on, just alot of following.

[SoCo KungFu]

When 95%+ of any group all thinks the same, there simply is not alot of free thinking going on, just alot of following.

Oh the ironing

[David Jamieson]

Blacks went from being slaves to plantation owners to being slaves to the Democrat Party. Akrem was right in that way, they were not really ready for freedom in a sense. They went from having one 'master' to a having different 'master'.
wow, you're like a total idiot today! that's awesome.



When 95%+ of any group all thinks the same, there simply is not alot of free thinking going on, just alot of following.

yeah, you just described the elitist racist scumbag party...I mean the GOP. :p

[KC Elbows]

Ack.

Ack.

Black Americans in Jim Crow era weren't cowed OR lacking will or faith or hope as a group.

They were lynched for being "uppity". They were largely excluded from the courts. They were targets, especially the ones most able to cause trouble. They were excluded from business transactions outside their own race.

Slowly, they made ground with the help of some allies. Over time, they pushed for change while often touting the American Dream, instead of mere rebellion by force.

How cowed, weak, and lacking will.:rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

^ I agree with this.

People were killed. People fought back. More people were killed.

When the ones who are supposed to have "freed" you do not act in that manner, then you switch to survival mode and you simply don't really grow any trust for your oppressors overall although you may come to trust individuals according to how they act and how they treat you.

I would also add that the civil rights movement, it's people and it's leaders had more courage than any American who opposed them in their struggle for egalitarianism.

It still festers in many places. It is still embedded into everyones consciousness.

[KC Elbows]

I understand it's far more fun to debate the failures of emancipation without citing a single history of Reconstruction or discussing the debates between black leaders of the time on what courses were wisest and most fruitful. After all, white people did all the work. That's the lesson of civil rights.

Ack.

Hell, I'll just join in.

Carpetbaggers and scalawags! All those black legislatures that formed after emancipation(all seven hundred million of them, it's true!) didn't understand what to do with freedom.

It's so lucky there were white people to help convey what liberty minded individuals are all about! Hail Woodrow Wilson!

[KC Elbows]

Thomas Jefferson sold disagreeable slaves to plantations in the Deep South, as punishment, where they probably died or were broken, or, if lucky, fled to live with native peoples.

Who typified love of freedom and hatred of tyranny more, Jefferson, or those slaves?

Those slaves didn't survive to help make their people free, though.

[KC Elbows]

Blacks never petitioned for freedom before we freed them.

They never sought the vote before we gave it to them.

They never opposed Jim Crow laws before we did.

They never opposed segregation before we did.

All true, I swear.

[KC Elbows]

There are never circumstances that favor oppression so that sane people would be forced to, for a time, accept oppression.

We're talking fact, here. True unfalse factitude.

Little known fact. The jews could've left Egypt anytime. The Pharaoh was quoted as saying "What's a jew? Why are all these people milling about? Yahwhat?"

[KC Elbows]

I've always thought it was nice that the white man let black people have Haiti, no questions asked.

[David Jamieson]

I think they're unconscious now KC, you can stop beating them now...

[BJJ-Blue]

Oh the ironing

Can you please expound on that?


Thomas Jefferson sold disagreeable slaves to plantations in the Deep South, as punishment, where they probably died or were broken, or, if lucky, fled to live with native peoples.

I've never heard that one before. Can you source it? The only thing I know about Jefferson and his slaves was the Sally Hemmings issue. And instead of just killing her to avoid a scandal, he took extra care of her and her children. And before someone says it, it's never been proven he fathered the child. DNA testing proved someone from his family did, but it's not been proven it was Thomas Jefferson himself.

[KC Elbows]

Can you please expound on that?



I've never heard that one before. Can you source it? The only thing I know about Jefferson and his slaves was the Sally Hemmings issue. And instead of just killing her to avoid a scandal, he took extra care of her and her children. And before someone says it, it's never been proven he fathered the child. DNA testing proved someone from his family did, but it's not been proven it was Thomas Jefferson himself.

"Treatment of Slaves

Jefferson wrote that he didn’t like to sell slaves. Yet Jefferson sold 70 slaves in 1790 to pay off debts he owed. He also sold slaves as punishment. And he sold those who continually ran away.

Between 1769 and 1820, twenty slaves ran away from Monticello. Several returned on their own. They were later sold. Only three slaves, Sam, Jenny and Harry, were never found. They may have reached freedom.

Overseer Edmund Bacon wrote that Jefferson “could not bear to have a servant whipped.” But Jefferson did have his slaves whipped. When runaway Jame Hubbard was captured, Jefferson “had him severely flogged.” Three other runaways were whipped. Letters and slave narrative told of several cruel overseers on Jefferson’s other farms. "

http://classroom.monticello.org/kids/resources/profile/259/Elementary/Slave-Life-at-Monticello/

"Edmund Bacon, Monticello’s overseer for sixteen years recalled that Jefferson “was always very kind and indulgent to his servants. He would hardly ever allow them to be overworked, and he would hardly ever allow one of them to be whipped.” But by law, Jefferson’s slaves were his property. And he treated them as property. When circumstances required it, he bought and sold them, gave them as wedding gifts, and hired or leased them out. Slaves who refused to obey were punished and some were sold “South.” And Jefferson granted only seven slaves their freedom. "

http://classroom.monticello.org/kids/resources/profile/263/Middle/Jefferson-and-Slavery/

As for the Hemmings issue, the preponderance of evidence is that they were Jefferson's children. They are males of the Jefferson line, and no other known Jefferson has ever been linked to a female in the Jennings line so as to be a sire, besides Thomas.

[BJJ-Blue]

As for the Hemmings issue, the preponderance of evidence is that they were Jefferson's children. They are males of the Jefferson line, and no other known Jefferson has ever been linked to a female in the Jennings line so as to be a sire, besides Thomas.

Thanks for the sources, I've never seen those before. Slavery was wrong, I really wish the Founders had chose to abolish it. But they didn't, although it was only to keep the Union together.

As for the children, some historians say it could have been his brother.

[David Jamieson]

Thanks for the sources, I've never seen those before. Slavery was wrong, I really wish the Founders had chose to abolish it. But they didn't, although it was only to keep the Union together.

As for the children, some historians say it could have been his brother.

On 28 August 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act was given Royal Assent, which paved the way for the abolition of slavery within the British Empire and its colonies. On 1 August 1834, all slaves in the British Empire were emancipated, but they were indentured to their former owners in an apprenticeship system which was abolished in two stages; the first set of apprenticeships came to an end on 1 August 1838, while the final apprenticeships were scheduled to cease on 1 August 1840, six years later.

Believe it or not, the Scottish were the first to hit the legal book with talk of abolition of slavery.

[KC Elbows]

If memory serves me correctly, the U.S. was among the last or the last in the Americas to abolish slavery.

[David Jamieson]

If memory serves me correctly, the U.S. was among the last or the last in the Americas to abolish slavery.

Trinidad was the first, although they be Carribean.
Canada doesn't have much of a history of slavery, although Native folk DID enslave other Native folk.

I think Canada is better know for smuggling slaves out of the States with teh underground railroad.

This I know for sure, North America today does not advocate slavery in any way other than wage slavery. lol :p

[Lucas]

i am 100% for robot slaves. screw the robots.

[BJJ-Blue]

If memory serves me correctly, the U.S. was among the last or the last in the Americas to abolish slavery.

Puerto Rico abolished it in 1873, Cuba in 1886, and Brazil in 1888.

Worldwide, we weren't very near the last to abolish slavery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

[bawang]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biadSUyWr0A

i jack off to this