If you like that movie, you're an overly-sentimental fuckwit. Discuss.

Why would anyone want to discuss this with you, your mind is obviously made up you just want to be a dick.

BigK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would anyone want to discuss this with you,
> your mind is obviously made up you just want to be
> a dick.


The only dick here is the Spielberg's, which also happens to be in your mouth. How could anyone sit through that schlock? It was idiotic, dialogue-laden moralizing. Absurd.

John Willie Booboo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BigK Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why would anyone want to discuss this with you,
> > your mind is obviously made up you just want to
> be
> > a dick.
>
>
> The only dick here is the Spielberg's, which also
> happens to be in your mouth. How could anyone sit
> through that schlock? It was idiotic,
> dialogue-laden moralizing. Absurd.


I am glad you made my point on what a dick you are, fine job asshole.

Curious OP, just what was it specifically that you didn't like about the movie?

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Curious OP, just what was it specifically that you
> didn't like about the movie?


The hero worship, the lack of a single action sequence (hello, it was the most dramatic and bloody conflict in American history), the endless monologues with homespun tear-jerking references to freedom and rights, the awkward ending to the film, like Steve S. couldn't figure out how to end the thing...and the constant, pseudo-intellectual prattle by those who have seen the movie about 'how you have to see this film' bullshit. It's maudlin, moralizing schlock and should be dismissed as such.

Hi BigK. I love your constant references to dicks. Maybe we can meet later to dickcuss it.
Attachments:

John Willie Booboo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The hero worship, the lack of a single action
> sequence (hello, it was the most dramatic and
> bloody conflict in American history), the endless
> monologues with homespun tear-jerking references
> to freedom and rights, the awkward ending to the
> film, like Steve S. couldn't figure out how to end
> the thing...and the constant, pseudo-intellectual
> prattle by those who have seen the movie about
> 'how you have to see this film' bullshit. It's
> maudlin, moralizing schlock and should be
> dismissed as such.

Do you perhaps have a Confederate flag on you pickup?

John Willie Booboo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you like that movie, you're an
> overly-sentimental fuckwit. Discuss.

You are correct. Its one of those things where if you dont go along with the crowd you wont feel inline with public opinion. Kind of like some Broadway show with a bunch of fags prancing around. You say it was great just to fit in.

Hmmm... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Willie Booboo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The hero worship, the lack of a single action
> > sequence (hello, it was the most dramatic and
> > bloody conflict in American history), the
> endless
> > monologues with homespun tear-jerking
> references
> > to freedom and rights, the awkward ending to
> the
> > film, like Steve S. couldn't figure out how to
> end
> > the thing...and the constant,
> pseudo-intellectual
> > prattle by those who have seen the movie about
> > 'how you have to see this film' bullshit. It's
> > maudlin, moralizing schlock and should be
> > dismissed as such.
>
> Do you perhaps have a Confederate flag on you
> pickup?

Not at all. I think the South got what they had coming. I think it's still backwards-ass uneducated awful place filled with loafer-wearing racists. One of my heroes is U.S. Grant. So, no. Not some Confederate sympathizer. I am, however, a fan of good movies and willing to say when a movie sucks, even if it's against public opinion. You remember the English Patient? Now that shit sucked so bad it ate the corn outta my shit. But woe to the person who had the balls to speak out against that movie! It's the same thing with Abraham Lincoln: Entertainment Killer.

Kind of like the Oceans 11 series. What a piece of shit and each got worse than the one before. But because it was so hyped everyone just had to see them.

Interesting, you like US Grant, a President who had one of if not the worst second terms ever. Way to pick em.

Granted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting, you like US Grant, a President who
> had one of if not the worst second terms ever. Way
> to pick em.


Yeah, I really like him for his presidency too. Had nothing to do with the fact that he was the best general that the U.S. produced between the Revolution and WWII. Are you really that fucking stupid?

Granted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting, you like US Grant, a President who
> had one of if not the worst second terms ever. Way
> to pick em.


wait four years
Attachments:

John Willie Booboo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, I really like him for his presidency too.
> Had nothing to do with the fact that he was the
> best general that the U.S. produced between the
> Revolution and WWII. Are you really that fucking
> stupid?

Winfield Scott was the greatest general the U.S. produced between the Revolution and World War I. Second is Robert E. Lee. (I disagree with his politics; he was a great general) Grant is third.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Willie Booboo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, I really like him for his presidency too.
> > Had nothing to do with the fact that he was the
> > best general that the U.S. produced between the
> > Revolution and WWII. Are you really that
> fucking
> > stupid?
>
> Winfield Scott was the greatest general the U.S.
> produced between the Revolution and World War I.
> Second is Robert E. Lee. (I disagree with his
> politics; he was a great general) Grant is third.

Winfield Scott is a good call, but he largely missed out on the big one. Yeah, I know Anaconda Plan, etc. But he was never a battlefield commander during in the Civil War. It's an accident of history, but the greatest leaders are born in a time when the greatest is expected from those leaders. Shit, Gen. Shallikashvili could have been the greatest military mind of all time, but he didn't have the historical advantage of living in era that produced an existential crisis.

But to your point, R.E. Lee is a great one, for sure. TJ Jackson, Sherman, Sickles and (sadly) N.B. Forrest are way up there too.

John Willie Booboo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Winfield Scott is a good call, but he largely
> missed out on the big one. Yeah, I know Anaconda
> Plan, etc. But he was never a battlefield
> commander during in the Civil War. It's an
> accident of history, but the greatest leaders are
> born in a time when the greatest is expected from
> those leaders. Shit, Gen. Shallikashvili could
> have been the greatest military mind of all time,
> but he didn't have the historical advantage of
> living in era that produced an existential
> crisis.
>
> But to your point, R.E. Lee is a great one, for
> sure. TJ Jackson, Sherman, Sickles and (sadly)
> N.B. Forrest are way up there too.

Winfield Scott was a great organizer. He could be likened to the Civil War's Eisenhower. His record during the War of 1812 and the Mexican War was extremely impressive. Remember, the Mexican Army wasn't pathetic; it was relatively modern.

Lee was great. Sheridan was an excellent cavalry commander. I believe Sherman was a beneficiary of going up against weakened Confederate forces and mediocre leadership... Hood wasn't all that great. On the other hand, Grant's victory at Shiloh was aided by Johnston's death.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Willie Booboo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Winfield Scott is a good call, but he largely
> > missed out on the big one. Yeah, I know
> Anaconda
> > Plan, etc. But he was never a battlefield
> > commander during in the Civil War. It's an
> > accident of history, but the greatest leaders
> are
> > born in a time when the greatest is expected
> from
> > those leaders. Shit, Gen. Shallikashvili could
> > have been the greatest military mind of all
> time,
> > but he didn't have the historical advantage of
> > living in era that produced an existential
> > crisis.
> >
> > But to your point, R.E. Lee is a great one, for
> > sure. TJ Jackson, Sherman, Sickles and (sadly)
> > N.B. Forrest are way up there too.
>
> Winfield Scott was a great organizer. He could be
> likened to the Civil War's Eisenhower. His record
> during the War of 1812 and the Mexican War was
> extremely impressive. Remember, the Mexican Army
> wasn't pathetic; it was relatively modern.
>
> Lee was great. Sheridan was an excellent cavalry
> commander. I believe Sherman was a beneficiary of
> going up against weakened Confederate forces and
> mediocre leadership... Hood wasn't all that great.
> On the other hand, Grant's victory at Shiloh was
> aided by Johnston's death.


You're making a good case. But I still maintain that Scott wasn't as significant in the 'big one' (at the least the 19th Century version) than Grant and Sherman. The analogy to Ike is interesting, but Ike commanded Overlord. That's huge.

Grant was a genius. He, along with Ed Stanton and Lincoln himself, understood what the war required from a strategic and tactical point of view. He knew that in order to destroy the war engine of the South, they had to destroy the economic life blood. It was revolutionary. Yeah, now it's old hat now. Bomb the shit outta factories and all those soldiers don't have munitions. But at the time, it was explosive and controversial. The Emancipation Proclamation is the equivalent of the bombing campaign over Europe in 1943-1945, and Sherman's March to the Sea is total war.

John Willie Booboo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Grant was a genius. He, along with Ed Stanton and
> Lincoln himself, understood what the war required
> from a strategic and tactical point of view. He
> knew that in order to destroy the war engine of
> the South, they had to destroy the economic life
> blood. It was revolutionary.

Actually it was old hat even in the 1860s. The problem for the ACW was that Frederick the Great and Napoleon had showed the world that victory in war could be won "on the cheap" by major battlefield victories, something that was proved again by the Prussians in 1864, 1866 and 1870. And Grant was not the first to realize the importance of destroying the Confederacy's economic ability to sustain war. Scott aimed at the same thing with his Anaconda plan.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Willie Booboo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Grant was a genius. He, along with Ed Stanton
> and
> > Lincoln himself, understood what the war
> required
> > from a strategic and tactical point of view. He
> > knew that in order to destroy the war engine of
> > the South, they had to destroy the economic
> life
> > blood. It was revolutionary.
>
> Actually it was old hat even in the 1860s. The
> problem for the ACW was that Frederick the Great
> and Napoleon had showed the world that victory in
> war could be won "on the cheap" by major
> battlefield victories, something that was proved
> again by the Prussians in 1864, 1866 and 1870. And
> Grant was not the first to realize the importance
> of destroying the Confederacy's economic ability
> to sustain war. Scott aimed at the same thing
> with his Anaconda plan.

Let me clarify, while the Anaconda Plan certainly aimed to close off the Southern ability to prosecute the war by closing off Southerners' financial wherewithal (i.e., exports/imports), Grant/Lincoln/Sherman's innovation was that the engine itself--i.e., slavery as an institution and the infrastructure that supported it--had to be annihilated. (Incidentally, while the oh-so-boring events of Lincoln were playing out, Sherman had already initiated the March to the Sea, blacks were being liberated and pressed into Union services as "contraband," and every slave in the South had theoretically been emancipated for over two years--and yet somehow Spielberg and Doris Kearns Goodwin are convinced that slavery would have survived but for the passage of the 13th Amendment...puh-lease.) They understood this policy aim and implemented it. They burned nearly every plantation from New Orleans to Charleston in order to achieve that aim, something the Anaconda plan never called for.

I disagree about whether total war was old in the 1860's. Maybe it was for the Romans and Carthaginians, but no one had practiced it in the West for centuries.

Come on. At best what Lincoln, Grant and Sherman did was European economic warfare on steroids.

European nations had a good understanding prior to the ACW of the benefits of undermining your opponent's economic basis for waging war. There are plenty of examples from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries as well as the Napoleonic wars. There were reasons though why European nations did not USUALLY carry it as far as the U.S. did during the ACW. The first is that it does little good to conquer an area if you have to make it a desert to do so. The second is that your enemy today could well end up being your ally tomorrow. The third was of course that whatever you do to your opponent, you have to expect your opponent will do to you. Ask the good citizens of 1864 Chambersburg PA what they thought of the economic warfare being waged and you'll find similar sentiments to those expressed in the Shenandoah.

This is probably the most highbrow discussion that FFU has ever seen.

John Willie Booboo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're making a good case. But I still maintain
> that Scott wasn't as significant in the 'big one'
> (at the least the 19th Century version) than Grant
> and Sherman. The analogy to Ike is interesting,
> but Ike commanded Overlord. That's huge.

Scott was more significant in planning than either Grant or Sherman. In terms of battlefield success, his time had passed. The Civil War was more or less fought around the principles of the Anaconda Plan. McClellan and McDowell were very skeptical of the Anaconda Plan. Neither was above mediocre.

> Grant was a genius. He, along with Ed Stanton and
> Lincoln himself, understood what the war required
> from a strategic and tactical point of view. He
> knew that in order to destroy the war engine of
> the South, they had to destroy the economic life
> blood. It was revolutionary. Yeah, now it's old
> hat now. Bomb the shit outta factories and all
> those soldiers don't have munitions. But at the
> time, it was explosive and controversial. The
> Emancipation Proclamation is the equivalent of the
> bombing campaign over Europe in 1943-1945, and
> Sherman's March to the Sea is total war.

Yes, both Grant and Lincoln understood what the war would require. Both knew that they had to starve the South out, no matter how long it took. It wasn't an unbelievably revolutionary strategy, but it hadn't been actively used in the Western world for over 100 years. The Russians did use it against Napoleon, but that was more of a "make the land unusable as we retreat." Sherman's March to the Sea was one of the first examples of total war in over 100 years.

At the time, it was considered savage. Georgians are still pissed about it, which I think is hilarious. I wouldn't call the Emancipation Proclamation the same thing as the combined USAAF-RAF bombing campaign, but I would call it a significant economic blow. However, it didn't have much effect in most of the South until 1864 at earliest.

John Willie Booboo Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> Let me clarify, while the Anaconda Plan certainly
> aimed to close off the Southern ability to
> prosecute the war by closing off Southerners'
> financial wherewithal (i.e., exports/imports),
> Grant/Lincoln/Sherman's innovation was that the
> engine itself--i.e., slavery as an institution and
> the infrastructure that supported it--had to be
> annihilated. (Incidentally, while the oh-so-boring
> events of Lincoln were playing out, Sherman had
> already initiated the March to the Sea, blacks
> were being liberated and pressed into Union
> services as "contraband," and every slave in the
> South had theoretically been emancipated for over
> two years--and yet somehow Spielberg and Doris
> Kearns Goodwin are convinced that slavery would
> have survived but for the passage of the 13th
> Amendment...puh-lease.) They understood this
> policy aim and implemented it. They burned nearly
> every plantation from New Orleans to Charleston in
> order to achieve that aim, something the Anaconda
> plan never called for.

Technically speaking, slavery had only been abolished in the Confederacy. Until the passage of the 13th Amendment, all border states could hold slaves.

John Willie Booboo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you like that movie, you're an
> overly-sentimental fuckwit. Discuss.

I'm not an overly-sentimental fuckwit and I liked the movie.

yea

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Willie Booboo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > Let me clarify, while the Anaconda Plan
> certainly
> > aimed to close off the Southern ability to
> > prosecute the war by closing off Southerners'
> > financial wherewithal (i.e., exports/imports),
> > Grant/Lincoln/Sherman's innovation was that the
> > engine itself--i.e., slavery as an institution
> and
> > the infrastructure that supported it--had to be
> > annihilated. (Incidentally, while the
> oh-so-boring
> > events of Lincoln were playing out, Sherman had
> > already initiated the March to the Sea, blacks
> > were being liberated and pressed into Union
> > services as "contraband," and every slave in
> the
> > South had theoretically been emancipated for
> over
> > two years--and yet somehow Spielberg and Doris
> > Kearns Goodwin are convinced that slavery would
> > have survived but for the passage of the 13th
> > Amendment...puh-lease.) They understood this
> > policy aim and implemented it. They burned
> nearly
> > every plantation from New Orleans to Charleston
> in
> > order to achieve that aim, something the
> Anaconda
> > plan never called for.
>
> Technically speaking, slavery had only been
> abolished in the Confederacy. Until the passage of
> the 13th Amendment, all border states could hold
> slaves.

Right, the point being that military necessity and war policy had been moving inexorably in the direction of abolition for years before the events of the movie Lincoln. Once you free nearly 50% of the population of the South, let hundreds of thousands of blacks fight as freemen, destroy a huge percentage of the slave infrastructure, you don't put that cat back in the bag. Slavery was not going to be a part of the new American nation, regardless of the passage of the 13th Amendment. The passage was both a political and a legal/constitutional event, but like all legal and political "innovations," especially in war time, it was just catching up with the reality on the ground and the policy being implemented. I dispute the notion that the passage of the 13th Amendment was the seminal event in the abolition of slavery. It was symbolic, really not much more than that. You don't go to that much trouble annihilating an institution if you're just willing to let it survive after the fact.

I like the movie and plan on adding it to my collection when it comes out on DVD. If you are not into history you may not like it. If you are only into "action movies" you will not like it. I don't like scifi movies, I like reality and history so I really enjoyed it.

John Wilie Booboo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right, the point being that military necessity and
> war policy had been moving inexorably in the
> direction of abolition for years before the events
> of the movie Lincoln. Once you free nearly 50% of
> the population of the South, let hundreds of
> thousands of blacks fight as freemen, destroy a
> huge percentage of the slave infrastructure, you
> don't put that cat back in the bag. Slavery was
> not going to be a part of the new American nation,
> regardless of the passage of the 13th Amendment.
> The passage was both a political and a
> legal/constitutional event, but like all legal and
> political "innovations," especially in war time,
> it was just catching up with the reality on the
> ground and the policy being implemented. I dispute
> the notion that the passage of the 13th Amendment
> was the seminal event in the abolition of slavery.
> It was symbolic, really not much more than that.
> You don't go to that much trouble annihilating an
> institution if you're just willing to let it
> survive after the fact.

It wasn't just military policy either. Congress banned the importation of slaves as soon as the clause protecting it expired. The Compromise of 1850 more or less banned slavery in what became the Union, despite the inclusion of a very powerful fugitive slave act. The passage of the 13th Amendment was mostly a formality. However, it was somewhat necessary in order to overturn the precedent set by the Dredd Scott case.

Again, anybody who makes the case that the Civil War was based on slavery is an idiot. It's far more complex than slavery and states rights vs. federalism.

My favorite general of all time is Petreus. Nailing primo tail was more important than being director of the CIA. I hope that shit was good, dude. I guess anything is good compared to that ewok you're married to.