Lincoln vs Bush

Post Reply New Topic

Ed please talk to the topic not just to hating Bush thank you.

The purpose of the Civil War was to preserve the union. (or, the purpose of the War Between the States was to dissolve the union) Thus it can be considered a war of self-preservation.

Freeing the slaves was a separate issue. While freeing the slaves accomplished good, I believe it created the notion that the Federal Government has authority over the individual states, which of course is the exact opposite of what the Constitution says!

The Iraq War is different; in this case the President (for whatever reason) decided he wanted to invade Iraq and topple Sadaam Hussein. Since he did not have any reasons to justify the war, he ordered the CIA to create fake intelligence that would say that Iraq had WMD's, and was about to use them on us. Using this fake intelligence, he managed to bamboozle Congress and the American people, and get his approval. Note that the rest of the world (except for Tony Blair) is not so gullable, and said no.

Because the Civil War was not about freeing the slaves, it has nothing in common with the Iraq war.

Well if you go by the notion that we went to war with Iraq for Oil its Hegomonic reasons right there (similiar to keeping the Union alive by taking the Souths infostructure.) And just remember Kerry believed Bush too (and said they have WMDs much more then Bush did) and also remember the 2000 RNC platform said nothing bout Iraq; the 2000 DNC platform said "we will seek to remove Saddam Hussien from power" (or something like that I forget the exact words.)
Ender

The South seceeded from the union in response to Lincoln's reelection.

If the Blue states were to seceed from the union because of Bush's reelection, would you favor having Bush wage war to preserve the union?

First off it was because of his elected not reelected he was reelected in the middle of the war. Next remember not a single person in most Southern states voted for him. And third are you now saying you hate the Civil War too. And lastly you didnt debate anything I said you just made new arguements generally thats a bad debating tactic as it means you concede the points.
Ender

1. I don't think we went into Iraq for oil.
2. we didn't go to war with the south for their "infrastructure." Being an agricultural region, they didn't even have much.
3. I don't care what Kerry or the Democrats said or wrote. I didn't support them then, and I only support them now when they oppose Bush's policies. Kerry was stupid enough to fall for Bush's lies, and that doesn't make him prime presidential material in my book!
4. Party platforms are always bu!!s**t.


oh, and sorry about the "reelection" mistake... you are correct. My point was that the secession wasn't over slavery.

I've disgusted when the Republican party of today is refered to a the Party of Lincoln. I'm absolutely certain that Abraham Lincoln would have nothing to do with today's Repugnantcan Party.

I also believe that if Abraham Lincoln could have seen the furture and viewed the total lunacy of a NASCAR race (grown men going in a circle really fast), and its heavily southern fanbase, he'd have said "Let them go."

Seeing politics in this country today, I also say we should have let them go. The North would have eventually dominated the South economically. And, we wouldn't have to deal with southern politicians.

good points!

I think you guys are forgetting to mention that Rumsfeld would look a lot edgier if he was a pair of burning walruses

I would look a lot happier if Rumsfeld were a pair of burning walruses, introduce him to some of the pain he's caused to so many tens of thousands of others.

I knew bush was lying, and was screaming about it more than six months before the invasion! In fact, it was so obvious he was lying that I really don't know how so many people were taken in! Are Americans really that stupid? (yes)

No politician from that long ago would side with either party, they're both too corrupt. I personally don't like the party system. From a political view, I almost wish the South would've won. Then again, I'm from the South which would make me a bit biased. Don't worry, I don't like NASCAR.

Huh. How so? What was your proof? Was it just a gut instinct?

These are excerpts from a blog I was writing at the time:

Well, when you look at how much of the UN was bought off already you can see where whether or not they themselves thought he had WMDs would still not persuade them to wanna see him taken out. I'm still convinced that the rest of the world believed Hussein had WMDs a good ways before Bush even sent Powell to the UN and that while they believed they were there just as much as we did they just didn't feel like doing anything; as for the source of all that complaissency I can see it pretty clearly being all those oil-for-food vouchers and such (not to mention that our most verbal opponents, who also believed he had WMDs before we had anything to do with trying to convince them, were over there right up through the time we invaded selling them all kinds of military gear and before that had all kinds of oil contracts in Iraq and had been trading with them the whole time, something illegal according to the rules set in place most likely by the UN themselves).

Not to mention to get back on the topic is going to war over WMDs that arent there all that much worse then going to war because we had our base in a foreign country attacked (when they already said they wanted us gone.) Let me put that in perspectative, Germany says that they want us to move our base, we say no we like it right where it is, they attack it, we declare war with them.