BattleVonWar wrote:The Civil War is one of the many Wars that was a bloody hell that we as a people should not have needed. I think the war aims was the freeing of the slave but ultimately if you read up that was not really accomplished. Slavery is alive and well today right under your nose when you enter a Brothel, strip club, escort agency, etc... etc... etc... Outsources to places in Canada/Africa/Asia/etc...
So we outsourced our slavery and washed our dirty hands. Plus the people that were previously on paper slaves remained in a sort of limbo after the war. So I think our hearts were in the right places but slavery has been here since the beginning of time and will be here for a lot longer than most of us. Merely not as blatantly disgusting object destroying African American lives as it was.
The Civil War is merely part of an ongoing struggle for humanity to come to terms with itself.
Afghanistan was something I was really behind at the beginning but at this point. I feel we shouldn't give a drop of American blood to any Country anymore. Our people are worth more than this and after examining the terrain and fighting techniques of our opponent there.... a victory is impossible without us committing long term or to an all out war. Which we will not do... All of our lives are precious, I have become opposed to America fighting in any War that does not threaten her directly.
Honestly BattleVonWar, I have no idea what you are talking about. Slavery in the antebellum was not a business model. It was a way of life. The South was a Slave Culture and the South was not about make a sudden 180° turn away from one of its predominant cultural characteristics for no reason at all. In fact, the South deemed it necessary to attempt to secede from the United States and fight the bloodiest war Americans have ever waged to protect that culture.
De facto slavery still exists in the world, but firstly, the Civil War was never intended to end slavery throughout the world; only on US soil.
Girls 'sold' to textile mills in India and Bangladesh are de facto slaves. They must work in the mills per contracts their parents signed while the girls were minors, and for which their parents were paid, until the mill has extracted the contractual amount of labor from them, often 10 years.
Prostitution and stripping are not slavery, unless you consider pimps, who in the underground coerce women to work for them as prostitutes. This situation is cause by the legislatures refusing to legalize and regulate prostitution. In two counties in Nevada prostitution is legal and regulated and there are absolutely no reports of any women being forced into working in the brothels there. In fact there has been at least one BBC documentary made about one of the brothels in which many of the prostitutes are openly interviewed and none of them showed any signs of coercion. Many spoke openly of how they enjoyed some of the advantages of the work they were doing.
In Germany, Switzerland and Holland prostitution is legal and regulated. There are still however occasional cases of women being held as sex-slaves. These are women who enter the country illegally, being tricked by some mafia group--of which there are many in Europe--that they will work in a bar as waitresses or some other unskilled job. When they arrive their passports are taken from and they are forced into prostitution, for which they receive no payment.
I read an article a couple of years ago about several women who where held as slaves in France. Not as sex-slaves nor as prostitutes, but as household slaves. Of the one I remember that she had been held in an apartment at the time of her discovery by the police for about 3 years. The women/girls had gone to France illegally. They were offered help to sneak into the country and told that they would work as household help and maids and earn a normal wage. When the arrived their passports were taken from them and they were locked in the apartments where they worked, never being left without supervision or a chance of escape.
But these types of slavery are far different from the slavery organized in the slave states of the US. Once you were a slave in that system, unless your 'owner' freed you, you would never be free nor any of your children. And after the 1857 Dred Scott vs Sanford supreme court decision and the laws passed forcing free-states to persecute escaped slaves everywhere within the US, not even if a slave escaped and fled to a free-state would he or she be free. This made it legally to bring and hold slaves in any state of the Union so long as their sale and purchase occurred elsewhere. Free-states became state where only the trade of slaves was illegal. Under the law slaves were not persons and had no rights. They were not slaves through force and violence of their 'owners' but through the force and authority of the state and federal governments.
--
The US did not invade Afghanistan to 'free' its people other than if such freedom would allow them to prevent such terroristic organizations as al-Qaeda from operating there and these "freed" citizens were willing and able to do so. The US gave not a single drop of blood to their country. Our actions were self-serving.
Not only are "all our lives" precious, but
all lives.