Lincoln vs Bush

Post Reply New Topic

Okay I want someone who is totally opposed to the Iraq War (I'm not totally for it but I want to see someone do this) to try defending the Civil War.

Lets see we launched an unprovocated attack against a soverign democracy (well not that democratic but it would have been given time and it was much more democratic then Iraq ever was) to keep the Union together (hegomonic reasons) and to free slaves (whats the differnce between that and to free oppressed Iraqis.) Then you consider many more people died and Lincoln did some things that would have you calling him a dicatator now. Then you consider the situation of the African Americans didnt exactally improve after the Civil War and more people there were killed in the years fallowing the war as were killed on the years precedding the War. How the hell do you defend this war and hate the Iraq War???
Ender

PS Dont even try saying that it was provocated because while they did fire first they fired at a base that housed occupiers.

Interesting point...

It could be argued that the Iraq war is just as necessary as the civil war...

That said... Bush lied about the Weapons of Mass Destruction... which is VERY unethical...

Yeah but then again so did Kerry :-/.

I don't. You are making an assumption that people unanimously support the civil war, which is far from the case. I support the quote by Ben Franklin: "there's never been a good war or a bad peace".

So we shouldn't have fought the Revolutionary War (wait wasnt Benny for that.... Im confused) and just stayed a Brittish colony.

India used to be ruled by Britain and so was Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc. They all managed to obtain their independence without resorting to violence. For the record, I do support the revolutionary war. I'm just saying that war is not always necessary.

Edit: and just because someone views something as bad doesn't mean they don't view it as necessary. War is always bad and should be avoided at all cost. The only time it is ever necessary is in defense of freedom and one's country. Iraq and the civil war were both fought on foreign soil (The south seceded, legally, so the north had no right to invade.)

Last edited by Psychlone on 21 Jun 2005, 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sounded like you were saying no war was neccessary.

Sorry, I edited my post to clarify things a little better.

If you think about it, the Civil War and Iraq war have a lot in common. We got paranoid, didn't trust them, didn't like the form of government, and so we decided to invade. It's as simple as that.

I don't defend the Civil War. After visiting the South, I sort of think things might be better if the 'War of Northern Agression' had turned out differently.

My only arguement on that though has been and still is did *he* or anyone else even in the UN know he was lying? The way Saddam was ducking and playing games with the inspectors, it almost seems like it would lead any person who didn't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to believe he had em.

Robert E. Lee was a genius, he had all the best Generals that VMI had to offer, and a bunch of hillbillies in Richmond that denied him the supplies he needed to win for their various political reasons. The Union on the other hand, had a bunch of incompotent drunks for Generals. Lee's strategies were not fully appreciated for 60 years until they were analyzed in comoarison to tactics used in WWI. Lee owned some slaves, but was not a proponent of slavery. I believe that if the South won, the Generals would have been the furue of Confederate politics and would have eventually abolished slavery and built a very strong government based on their education and leadership abilities. However, I feel it was fr the best that the Union won because I'm not sure how long the animosity between the North and South would have lasted and could have potentially cost the allies victory in WWII.


Saddam was acting guilty, and the Mossad's claim that the weapons were smuggled into Syria haven't been confirmed or debunked yet either. Everyone seems to have overlooked the UN's corruption in this thread. Every UN official (including Annan) that had anything to do with the Oil For Food program was making money off of smuggling oil for Saddam, which Saddam sure didn't use for food for the people. Furthermore, the UN turned a blind eye to misuse of the food. When coalition forces captured Saddam's palaces, they found UNICEF food crates inside. With the UN being so cmplicit in Saddam's buisness operatins, I can't see any reason why the coalition forces don't seize the UN's assets and Put Annan and the otjher co-conspiritors on trial for thieir role in Aiding and Abetting Saddam.

Well, for one we can't because they have diplomatic immunity (ie. if we could do stuff like that, they could put our generals or people like Bush and Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes). As for anyone else in the world, I'm you've probably noticed that they're philosophy on human rights as well as things like this are much different than ours and that they identify us as the problem for disrupting the status quo much quicker than anything or anyone else. Because of that, you can bet that Annan will be there for his full term, probably get a nice retirement package, have all kinds of people from all over the world cheering him on what a great man they think he was, and then he might get a book deal with some leftist publisher over here and make lots of cash. That's just how it is unfortunately, people like him or Clinton just don't seem get theirs.

I'm all for putting Bush and Rumsfeld on trial in the World Court for Crimes Against Humanity. Perhaps Cheney, Rice, Bolton, and Powell as well.

_________________________________
My apologies to the Iraqi people for killing tens of thousands of you, and destroying your country. I will try to make amends by punishing the criminals in our government who caused this atrocity.

lol, Rice for President 08'! !!

I'm proud that I voted Bush in twice and the next 'R' will far more than likely get my vote as well.

As it says on one of my bumper stickers, "if you voted for Bush you have blood on your hands."