The Civil War did not start over slavery. Rather it began over money – no surprise there because all wars are fought over money & power. The Southern states, being outnumbered in Congress due to more population in the North leading to more representation for the north, were being squeezed by a set of tariffs which benefited the north at the expense of the South. Abolition was only a side issue, which many politicians used shamelessly to further their own agnda. Lincoln believed that the blacks were an inferior race who should never be given equality to whites. Perhaps his many discussions with Fredrick Douglas over the years changed that opinion. For whatever reason, The Emancipation Declaration was written as a way to unite the North to finish & win the war, & “reunite” the country. Although we “won” that war, the conflict continued in the form of Jim Crow laws. racism, & terrorism at the hands of the neo-nazis & KKK for over a century since that victory.

Remember this war was started on the lie about WMD & the Iraqi/al Qaida link. The real reason was control over more Mid East oil. & access for gas & oil pipelines from the huge oil & gas fields in the countries to the north. The new stated purpose is to save Iraq & the world from Iranian Theocratic Empire. The real purpose all along has been to build the worldwide American Empire to be ruled by the Super rich (Elites, if you prefer) by controlling the lion’s share of the world’s energy supply. (9/11 was just the excuse needed, “the new Pearl Harbor”, to achieve that end.. Googling “PNAC” & “Council on Foreign Relations” shows the history & motivation behuind what I have stated here.

So where exactly is YOUR point, or are we just supposed to guess that you’ve got one? I could go into miles of reasons for her to make her comparisons without ever even getting into the nuts and bolts. I think even middle school history students could get it.

Yes, something major is being done, and if you spent any time in the region you’d understand it’s badly needed. If you worked on an international basis you’d understand it effects us and many other countries as well.

And no, you’re not going to tell me much about living in other countries for long periods of time, particularly not Iraq.

Keep fighting “the good fight” Jimmy. I understand “comprehension” strikes some every seven minutes. The problem is getting the right minute.

The only response I can come up with – whatever. No valid analysis. It doesn’t work. You can compare any two things if you try hard enough. I guess they’re both wars. They both involve hate and injustice. The fact is, you could say, “well, just think what would happen if we decided to end X war early,” where X equals all wars that have ever occurred. She chose the civil war to evoke particular emotions, and that is manipulative by definition. Period.

You will never find a a completely synchronous comparison between any 2 wars. But certain themes remain the same. I think the 3 points I made above are a valid analysis, especially if we are trying to make some predictions on what its like to fight an insurgency fueled by an inconsolable ideology of hate.

Call it anything, find an analogy that prevents the masses from realizing how badly we are screwed in Iraq.

http://dontbealemming.com/2006/09/06/president-bush-says-terrorists-goals-are-clear-can-we-say-the-same.aspx

Posted by the Lemming Herder from Don’t Be A Lemming!

Thanks for the history lesson. With all due respect, however, I don’t think you really addressed my point, which was the difference between engaging in a civil war in your own country (which if there is one in your country, I think you’re in it whether you like it or not), and being involved in another country’s wars. If Condi is trying to say that we should be over there to correct the injustice in Iraq, which is not unlike the injustice of slavery, I would suggest that we start invading all countries were social injustice is occurring. If anyone needs suggestions, I can provide a few – Africa and North Korea to start with.

Her comparison was bad. It was inaccurate and manipulative.

Any belief or argument, can become an article of faith, which is what we see with this Republican administration and its propagandists. They are now forced to protect their core beliefs and arguments, no matter how absurd they have been shown to be, with an ongoing and constant manipulation of historical facts to fit their propaganda.

Despite the dire warnings of the Bush Administration, many people in rural and suburban America are realizing that on the list of problems and threats which endanger their children and impede their dreams, the potential of an attack by Islamic terrorists is not anywhere near the top of that list. We are not engulfed by the Civil War or fighting World War II. And it should be pointed out over and over that the Bush Administration’s insistence that we live in never-ending fear and panic of terrorists is the opposite of the American virtues of strength and courage in the face of threats.

Lincoln knew that a divided continent would be in perpetual warfare, just as Europe had been for centuries prior. The entire world will be in perpetual conflict if all of the nations within it do not synchronize our rule-sets and fight the terrorists rather than support them.

The Civil War was here in the United States!!!!!!!!!! Therefore, it was very much our business and our problem. Notice we didn’t have troops from other countries coming over to get involved. Actually, I think some were going to come over – and help the South. I guess WE are greatful no one interfered in OUR civil war, right?

http://www.thoughttheater.com

1)The unpopularity and calls for a pullout. President Lincoln was villified and portrayed as chimp-like; he was by far our most unpopular president ever. There were riots in the streets of New York protesting the war and the draft. Nobody from Massachusetts wanted to fight and die in Georgia to free some negroes, especially when Georgia never attacked them. Imagine the consequences to our continent if we allowed the south to secede. Now imagine what would happen if we allow terrorists to annex Iraq.

2)An ideological-based insurgency that lasted decades after a regime-changing war. Don’t think the civil war ended in 65′. The national guard fought a bloody insurgency against the KKK and Crimson Dragons motivated by an everlasting ideology of white supremicism and sepratism. We had to fight them militarily, politically, and ideologically for the greater part of a century to end the violence and win “hearts and minds” of the south.

3)Security vs. liberty issues. Suspension of habeus corpus, arresting newspaper editors ect…A far worse crackdown occurred back then than any of the wire-tapping or airport-screening issues that we face today. The key is that they were temporary and prooved that our democratic system is flexible enough to adapt and change back when the time is right.

I’m sure there are other similarities which may reveal themselves in this thread.

The fact is, this is the new conflict against the next great enemy, and for the terrorists, a cease-fire is nothing more then time granted by foolish idealistic enemies to restock your weapons and redouble your recruiting efforts.

Her action/inaction with the Lebanon/Israel conflict and this has worn even that away.