Grex Agora46 Conference

Item 188: The War.

Entered by pvn on Sat Aug 30 09:10:56 2003:

The war liberated millions. But the post-war period
proved difficult. Members of the former regime went
underground and continued to fight, using terrorist tactics
- even against their fellow countrymen. Those who had
been freed lacked essential services, including food, clean
water, jobs and housing.  Opposition to the
"occupation" persisted. The reconstruction progressed
slowly. True democracy took years to establish. 

Nevertheless, most Americans today agree that
President Lincoln was right to wage the Civil War.
13 responses total.

#1 of 13 by md on Sat Aug 30 14:57:17 2003:

[I think we're supposed to get to the 2nd paragraph and say, "OMG!!!  I 
thought he was talking about Iraq!"  Then we're supposed to narrow our 
eyes and smile, and nod slowly as the silliness of our liberal-democrat 
notions dawns on us, and the truth of the comparison with the US post-
Civil War reconstruction sinks in.]


#2 of 13 by carson on Sat Aug 30 16:11:51 2003:

("War Between The States."  weren't Lincoln one a' dem dere damned
Republicans too?)


#3 of 13 by sj2 on Sat Aug 30 16:55:45 2003:

I would think that most Americans agree because it turned out to be 
good for them. But did someone ask those who suffered?


#4 of 13 by cross on Sat Aug 30 17:48:58 2003:

This response has been erased.



#5 of 13 by tod on Sat Aug 30 20:14:55 2003:

This response has been erased.



#6 of 13 by rcurl on Sat Aug 30 20:52:54 2003:

Is the argument in #0 that it was OK to invade Iraq because the South
declared their Confederate States and attacked Fort Moultrie and Fort
Sumpter? Or that the purpose in invading Iraq was to conquer it and
"maintain the union" of Iraq and the United States?



#7 of 13 by cross on Sat Aug 30 22:54:52 2003:

This response has been erased.



#8 of 13 by janc on Sun Aug 31 02:13:54 2003:

No, the presumption is that our sole objection to the war in Iraq is it is
costly in lives and resources.  But since we think the Civil War was worth
the (vastly higher) cost, then that knocks the feet out of the argument.  The
Iraqi war must be worthwhile too.  By the same logic, the fact that I just
bought a new house for $200,000.00 implies that I should be happy to buy the
Brooklyn Bridge for a mere $19.95.  What a deal!

Unfortunately, I don't disagree with the Iraqi War.  I disagree with the way
Bush entered into it, riding roughshod over global opinion.  If he'd done it
after securing the backing of the UN, I'd be much happier.  I further disagree
with the way he justified the war with the absurd claim that Iraq was an
imminent threat to the US.  If he'd justified it as a war of liberation, I'd
be much happier (though I'd think if that was the goal, that there are other
places that the US could have done more good for less cost).  I wouldn't mind
if Bush's estimates of the cost of the war didn't fly so entirely in the face
of common sense and previous experience that they can't be explained without
assuming *both* stupidity and duplicity.  I'm perfectly willing to agree that
there are many worthy reasons for intervening in Iraq - I just think our
esteemed President trashed everything America stands for in his pursuit of
the war - obliterating America's global reputation and lieing outrageously to
the American people.  I wish I once again had a president who confined his
stupidity and dishonestly to the conduct of his sex life instead of to the
conduct of the nation.

So, though the shear shock and awe of your argument would normally bowl me
over completely, the fact that it doesn't even argue against anything I happen
to believe to be true somewhat dampens the effect.


#9 of 13 by cross on Sun Aug 31 04:21:08 2003:

This response has been erased.



#10 of 13 by tod on Sun Aug 31 14:47:57 2003:

This response has been erased.



#11 of 13 by janc on Sun Aug 31 15:44:57 2003:

I think the fact that I mostly can't bear to think about Bush must be
blinding me to his virtues.  I hadn't even thought about the English and
the Spanish.  What a doofus I am!  Of course we know that the
governments of England and Spain, being so much more old world than
ours, have attained levels of enlightment unknown West of the Atlantic.
 If their leaders agreed with Bush, then he must have been doing the
right thing (never mind every other nation on the planet).

Actually, I don't think "duplicity" and "stupidity" are entirely the
right words to use.  Part of what I think Bush is after is establishing
 unchallenged American domanence of the world.  That is stupid and does
inspire duplicity, but the right word for that is "evil."


#12 of 13 by jmsaul on Sun Aug 31 16:18:02 2003:

If someone's going to accuse you of imperialism, having Great Britain and
Spain on your side isn't a great character reference.


#13 of 13 by remmers on Sun Aug 31 19:05:38 2003:

Heh.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: