Formerly Babra

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Strat: The Confederacy depended on the theft of Union supply trains and the pillage of cities and towns...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Government depots were fair game, but could you please name one town or city pillaged by Confederates? ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me. [This message has been edited by Formerly Babra (edited 08-27-2000).]

Well, they're Canadian divisional patches. Just a coloured rectangle. Nothing fancy, but they add flavour. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

Re the Supreme Court decision: "These lawyers are of the opinion that anything that hath been done before, may legally be done again; and so they take great care to record the decisions of the courts, and these they compile into volumes, which they term Precedent. They then cite these authorities to support any calumny or absurd notion; and the judges never fail of directing accordingly..." (Anonymous) ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

Guns in buildings during setup should definitely be allowed IMO. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

Couple of points: Nathan Bedford Forrest did not serve in the Army of Northern Virginia. The cavalry commander was JEB Stuart. (all these tank names -- see, we ARE on topic ) The question IS very interesting, Olduvai. If the South was "in the wrong" by seceding, then so is the United States as a whole for doing the same thing. Bit of a quandary, what? ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by guachi: If that is the amendment I am thinking of, it ALSO would have barred ANY new states from having slavery. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You have hit the nail right on the head, Guachi, and THAT is why the South seceded -- to protect a right they did not yet have. It's a bizarre dichotomy to be sure. An examination of the slavery issues between 1820 and 1860 will bear this out. They wanted as many slave states as free states in the union to ensure proper representation of their interests in Congress. If they had agreed to the amendment, free states would soon outnumber them and slavery would cease through outside pressure. Of course abolotionism was strong, and it was getting stronger. There were abolotionists in the south too. There was international pressure as well. But the war was NOT fought over this issue. Emancipation did not occur until 1863, two years after it began. The right and wrong of who started the shooting is another twisted issue. One can fairly argue that Sumter was Union territory and thus the Union was right to defend its interests. One could also argue just as fairly that keeping a fortress in the harbour of a foreign power was a provocative act and the south was right to defend ITS interests. Again, it boils down to whether or not secession was legal. Do people have the right to self determination or not? ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

Mystery solved. Here's a nice clear pic of a Sherman IIC of the 8th Princess Louise's (New Brunswick Hussars). Churchill track has been welded on for protection and the 17 pounder has been camouflaged to look like a 75, but there's no mistaking this vehicle. The caption underneath it read in part "many people say the IIC never existed..." ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me. [This message has been edited by Formerly Babra (edited 08-26-2000).]

Babs is losin' it! SERENITY NOW!!!! ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

I'm playing a pbem using a platoon of Stuarts. They're all dead though... ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

I added divisional patches though. Problem is, they appear on the tankers too. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

The right of secession is some sticky territory and I don't want to delve into it. I just find it amusing the way the facts of history get (often unintentionally) twisted. To stray again back to the original contention that there is some similarity between the rise and fall of Nazi Germany and the Confederacy, I would have to say that the North bears a closer kinship than the south. Both started their war to regain control of territory they believed theirs by right, and both conducted officially sanctioned pogroms. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

Here's a British Sherman IIA. I don't think there's any controversy that the two vehicles share the same hull. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by howardb: I had some evil FJ take out 44 infantry + a sherm and a HT and to top it off that team didn't lose a single man. Crazy luck I'll say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but just wait 'til Nuremburg... ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DEF BUNGIS: So what your telling me is you can't differentiate between different types of armorment by this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You can if you know what they look like already. That pic, for instance, is classic 17 pdr, given away by the muzzle brake. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Southern sympathizers may argue otherwise but they have neither law nor victory of war to back-up their claims. Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Certainly not victory. The only legal case that could be made for any State's secession is if that State can prove the Federal Government was not upholding the Constitution. The Constitution is the covenant between the Federal and State Governments. It is a matter of common law that where one party fails to uphold a contract, the covenent is void. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

Check out the Heroes Corner on CMHQ ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by guachi: In response to Elijah: On what moral grounds does ANY state or nation have to argue that slavery should be legal? ...Second, do you not have ANY idea what the governments stance was towards slavery? ...Gee, I would think that the reason the blacks had little Civil Rights was because of racist laws implemented by Southern whites. I notice no one refuted my statement that the Southern states were hypocritical in their claim of state's-rights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess they're not the only hypocrites. The following is an excerpt from an article by Dr. Michael Hill <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Few authors and commentators on the war have dared present one basic fact that overthrows the myth of Yankee beneficence toward the slaves. On 2 March 1861, the 36th U. S. Congress (minus, of course, the seven seceded states of the Deep South) passed by a two-thirds majority a proposed amendment to the Constitution. Had it been ratified by the requisite number of states before the war intervened and signed by President Lincoln (who looked favourably on it as a way to lure the Southern states back into the Union), the proposed 13th Amendment would have prohibited the U. S. government from ever abolishing or interfering with slavery in any state. The proposed 13th Amendment reads: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." Note well that this amendment was designed to be unrepealable (i.e. "No amendment shall be made . . . .") This gives the lie to claims that a righteous North went to war in 1861 to free the slaves. Moreover, it undermines the claim that the South seceded to preserve the institution of slavery. If that had been the South's goal, then what better guarantee did it need than an unrepealable amendment to the Constitution to protect slavery as it then existed?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Edit: And just to throw some fuel on the fire about who were most like the Nazis I'll toss this in... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Those who claim US Grant was anti-Jewish have ready ammunition, which Grant provided with his own hands. It is his infamous "General Orders Number 11," written in Oxford, Mississippi, on December 17, 1862. This document essentially excluded Jews from his department and its racist content has earned him justifiable censure ever since. The offensive portion of the order was in the initial paragraph: "The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also Department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department." The actual order was signed by the General's chief of staff, John Rawlins, and zealous supporters of Grant sometimes use this to absolve their man from blame. Unfortunately, this doesn't wash. Whether Grant's signature was on the order or not, he was responsible for both the prevailing sentiment and the order itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me. [This message has been edited by Formerly Babra (edited 08-26-2000).]

The hotkey menu can help you there. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

I'm only interested in sitting at the next table when they have that beer. My signature was made just for people like you, "Dr." ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

I tried to scan the pics but when I attempt to reduce them to a size useable here they turn all grainy. We'll have to wait for Def. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

You've got them right, spook. Two of the three pics are IICs and one is a Hybrid IC. Good call. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

The tale of Polish cavalry "charging" German tanks is false. However, there were many combats between German armoured forces and Polish cavalry brigades, particularly in Silesia. The Wolynska Cavalry Bde significantly delayed 4th Pz Div between 1st and 3rd September. 4th Pz lost 28% of its tanks during these battles, about 80 tanks. The Krakowska Cav Bde, at first successful against the German 4th Inf. Div at Koszecin, was pushed back by the German 2nd Light Division. Krakowska Bde was hit again by the 3rd Light Division and finally broken with heavy losses. Interestingly, the first tank battle of the war, at Piotrkow, ended with the loss of seventeen German tanks, two self propelled guns and fourteen armoured cars. Two Polish tanks were knocked out. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

Huh????? Where do you get that from, Bastables? ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

Hey, this is a family forum! Keep the Hamster in the cage, buddy! ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

Not 100%, no, but they do help. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.