The Lessons of History - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

wonderwench · 07-11-2004, 12:01 PM

I dedicate the following article to those who are characerizing the War to liberate Iraq as being one of imperialistic profiteering.

Quote:

ONE DAY the historians will look back on Washington's war against a smaller, weaker and less well-armed foe and write things that might be unpalatable to many American patriots and those in Canada and elsewhere who support them.

They will say all sorts of things. And many of them will be true.

They will, for instance, point out that the Republicans only won the election before the war after a very low turnout of the electorate and that there were allegations of corruption and tampering. They will explain that the U.S. president was very unpopular in many circles and that many in the press wrote against him week after week.

They will question the motives for the war, insisting that various business interests made profits out of the invasion and occupation. They will say that the reasons the president and his advisers gave for the war turned out to be doubtful if not absolutely untrue and that it was all an excuse to bludgeon this smaller country into submission and a new way of life.

They will say that the war was immoral and that the victorious American forces acted not as liberators but as oppressors. They will write that the local population resented the Yankees and that bands of armed men roared around the country killing Americans, murdering locals who collaborated with them and trying to destroy the new infrastructure of the state.

They will show that many Democrats were in favour of peace and campaigned before and during the war for all hostilities to cease. They will show that some of the more radical members of the Democratic Party even called the president and his Republicans a group of traitors and baby-killers.

They will paint horrific pictures of violent demonstrations in the United States against the war by those who thought it unethical and illegal, and talk of how some of those called to fight resisted and faced arrest and trial for their actions. They will describe how some lawyers tried to litigate against the war and even took their case to foreign governments so as to gain sympathy.

They will tell us that many of those who served in the U.S. military and fought and died were motivated as much by poverty as by patriotism and that some of them, frankly, didn't even know what the war was about. They will show that on occasion raw nationalism took the place of sober reflection.

They will say that the president and commander-in-chief was too motivated by his religious beliefs and that he read the Bible too often. As a result he actually thought he had God on his side and that the conflict was one between good and evil -- one that had to be won if people were to be free and equal.

They will give examples of the brutal treatment of some enemy prisoners by the Americans and say that this destroyed the entire moral argument for waging the war in the first place. They will write of camps where captured men were humiliated and denied their basic human rights as prisoners of war.

They will say that some of the new rulers of the conquered state were not universally liked by the rest of the population. They may have been local but they did not represent all of the people and were thought by some to be outsiders. They were also imposed on the masses by the Americans and needed American support to keep them in power.

They will tell us that the people and governments of many countries condemned the war and said that the Americans were barbarians. They will record how there were enormous protests against American policy, and Americans, in foreign cities and that some of them were ugly and violent.

They will say all of this -- at least, they would, but there's no need.

Because they already have. I speak not of Iraq but of the American Civil War.

The president, of course, was Abraham Lincoln. The cause was the preservation and integrity of the United States and the emancipation of people of colour. It was a war for freedom, dignity and the rule of law. A war that had to be fought.

I'd like to see the usual suspects make an argument against it.

But then, almost a century and a half ago, the usual suspects did.

wilbjammin · 07-11-2004, 12:17 PM

I've read this comparison before - there's a few major points to note: Iraq was never part of the United States, Lincoln didn't go to war because was an abolitionist, we're squandering the concept of dignity with the prisoner abuse scandal and the use of contractors that we hired through the Dept. of Interior, as much as we talk about liberation many places are still without running water and electricity in Iraq, the explosion of violence in Falluja started right after Paul Bremer shut down an Iraqi-ran newspaper. I could go on and on... I think there is just as compelling of an argument that Bush is as incompetent as Andrew Johnson and his inability to successfully rebuild and reunite the country equitably after a decisive military victory.

Kadath · 07-11-2004, 02:32 PM

Link to the story. Citing the author is considered good form.

wonderwench · 07-11-2004, 02:37 PM

I did link to the story. The first line is a link.

Paq · 07-11-2004, 03:27 PM

I'm sorry
but the civil war is nothing like the war in iraq...

absolutely nothing like it.

not even close

and lincoln really didn't care about freeing the slaves.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

I am beginning to see more people arguing that bush is akin to johnson with the horrible struggle to rebuild after a war...

Zeld2.0 · 07-11-2004, 03:37 PM

Comparing this to the Civil War is pretty silly as others have already mentioned.

yatzr · 07-11-2004, 06:19 PM

lincoln didn't care about freeing the slaves...well, everybody says bush doesn't really care about freeing the iraqis, so there's a similarity right there

.

Paq · 07-11-2004, 06:25 PM

Doh....good point, yatzr

apeman · 07-12-2004, 04:00 AM

i agree totally - we should stop the occupation of the Confederate States

interesting, but not a parallel so much as divergent i think

07-11-2004, 12:17 PM	#2 (permalink)
wilbjammin * * *	I've read this comparison before - there's a few major points to note: Iraq was never part of the United States, Lincoln didn't go to war because was an abolitionist, we're squandering the concept of dignity with the prisoner abuse scandal and the use of contractors that we hired through the Dept. of Interior, as much as we talk about liberation many places are still without running water and electricity in Iraq, the explosion of violence in Falluja started right after Paul Bremer shut down an Iraqi-ran newspaper. I could go on and on... I think there is just as compelling of an argument that Bush is as incompetent as Andrew Johnson and his inability to successfully rebuild and reunite the country equitably after a decisive military victory. __________________ Innominate.

07-11-2004, 02:32 PM	#3 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Link to the story. Citing the author is considered good form. __________________ it's quiet in here

07-11-2004, 03:27 PM	#5 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	I'm sorry but the civil war is nothing like the war in iraq... absolutely nothing like it. not even close and lincoln really didn't care about freeing the slaves. "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388. I am beginning to see more people arguing that bush is akin to johnson with the horrible struggle to rebuild after a war... __________________ Live. Chris

07-11-2004, 06:19 PM	#7 (permalink)
yatzr Insane	lincoln didn't care about freeing the slaves...well, everybody says bush doesn't really care about freeing the iraqis, so there's a similarity right there . __________________ Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.

07-11-2004, 06:25 PM	#8 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	Doh....good point, yatzr __________________ Live. Chris

07-11-2004, 02:37 PM	#4 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	I did link to the story. The first line is a link.

07-11-2004, 03:37 PM	#6 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Comparing this to the Civil War is pretty silly as others have already mentioned.

07-12-2004, 04:00 AM	#9 (permalink)
apeman Wah Location: NZ	i agree totally - we should stop the occupation of the Confederate States interesting, but not a parallel so much as divergent i think __________________ pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy