NationStates Jolt Archive


Life during Wartime...

Urantia II
11-03-2005, 10:26
If you are really interested in just WHY THIS American feels the way he does about the War in Iraq, perhaps this rather lengthy post might help to understand. It is not my own work but it does express my sentiments exactly as I would have said it, if I were as eloquent as the person who did write it.

I apologize up front for the length, but it is rather well written, a link is provided for the web location of where I got the post...

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000039.html

Life during wartime.

There’s nothing I can say about the parade of still pictures, the faces on the television – except, perhaps, that they all seemed to share a fierce pride in their eyes, photographed for the first time in their Marine Dress Blues. Surely their families are proud of them. I certainly am, and I never got to know any of them. And now, I never will.

Names scroll in little yellow letters across the bottom of our glowing screens: Sergeants, and Captains, and Privates. These men have died for us. More will follow. You may be against this war, but even if you are, the fact remains: these kids died for all of us. We asked them to go, and they went.

All across this nation -- here and there, sparkling across the map like fireflies on a summer night – sedans are slowly rolling to a stop outside of small, modest homes. Men in uniform emerge, straighten their tunics, and walk slowly up driveways. Doorbells are rung. Maybe here and there smiles will evaporate in shock and surprise as doors are opened, but more likely the face will be one full of stunned realization that the very worst thing in the whole world has happened. And children will be sent to their rooms. And the men will speak in somber, respectful tones. And sons and mothers and fathers and wives will be told that the one thing they love more than anything in this world has been taken away from them, that their sons and daughters will not be coming home, that their fathers or mothers have gone away and will never come back, not ever.

Why do we do this? What could possibly be worth this?


This war is an abject and utter failure. What everyone thought would be a quick, decisive victory has turned into an embarrassing series of reversals. The enemy, -- a ragtag, badly-fed collection of hotheads and fanatics – has failed to be shocked and awed by the most magnificent military machine ever fielded. Their dogged resistance has shown us the futility of the idea that a nation of millions could ever be subjugated and administered, no matter what obscene price we are willing to pay in blood and money.

The President of the United States is a buffoon, an idiot, a man barely able to speak the English language. His vice president is a little-seen, widely despised enigma and his chief military advisor a wild-eyed warmonger. Only his Secretary of State offers any hope of redemption, for he at least is a reasonable, well-educated man, a man most thought would have made a far, far better choice for Chief Executive.

We must face the fact that we had no business forcing this unjust war on a people who simply want to be left alone. It has damaged our international relationships beyond any measure, and has proven to be illegal, immoral and nothing less than a monumental mistake that will take generations to rectify. We can never hope to subdue and remake an entire nation of millions. All we will do is alienate them further. So we must bring this war to an immediate end, and make a solemn promise to history that we will never launch another war of aggression and preemption again, so help us God.


So spoke the American press. The time was the summer of 1864.

Everyone thought the Rebels would be whipped at Bull Run, and that the Confederacy would collapse within a few days or hours of such a defeat. No one expected the common Southern man to fight so tenaciously, a man who owned no slaves and who in fact despised the rich fire-eaters who had taken them to war.

Lincoln was widely considered a bumpkin, a gorilla, an uncouth backwoods hick who by some miracle of political compromise had made it to the White House. Secretary of War Stanton had assumed near-dictatorial powers and was also roundly despised. Only Secretary of State William Seward, a well-spoken, intelligent Easterner and a former Presidential candidate, seemed fit to hold office.

After three interminable and unbelievably bloody years of conflict, many in the Northern press had long ago become convinced that there was no hope of winning the far, and far less of winning the peace that followed. After nearly forty months of battle and maneuver, after seeing endless hopes dashed in spectacular failure, after watching the magnificent Army of the Potomac again and again whipped and humiliated by a far smaller, under-fed, under-equipped force, the New York newspapers and many, many others were calling for an immediate end to this parade of failures.

It took them forty months and hundreds of thousands killed to reach that point. Today, many news outlets have reached a similar conclusion after ten days and less than fifty combat fatalities.

Ahhh. Progress.


A few years ago, I made up my mind to visit for the first time many of the places I had come to know so well. So before my 1996 Christmas trip to visit my father at his house in Valley Forge – another place rich with ghosts and history -- I made a tour of as many Civil War battlefields as I could, driving northward through Virginia, seeking out the unremarkable hills and fields that I had followed with Shelby Foote through more than 2,300 pages of his magnificent Civil War trilogy.

It was bitterly cold the day I walked up the steep embankment where Hood’s Texans broke the Union line at Gaines Mill, and then I thrust my hands into my pockets and walked a few hundred yards and three blood-soaked years away to the lines at Cold Harbor, where the remains of the opposing trenches lay almost comically close.

As I walked from the Confederate to the Union positions, the green pine forest was as peaceful and serene a place as is possible to imagine. And there I stopped, halfway between the lines, listening to the winter breeze swaying the trees, and looked around – at nothing. Just a glade like any other in the beautiful back woods of Virginia. And yet here lay seven thousand men – here, in this little clearing. Seven thousand men. The Union blue lay so thick on this ground that you could walk from the Confederate lines to the Union ones on the backs of the dead, your feet never touching the grass.

You can see them, you know. Not that I believe in ghosts, or the occult. But when you stand on a field like that, in a place like that, with a name like that – Cold Harbor – you feel it. You feel the reality of it. This happened, and it happened right here. The history of that ground rises like a vapor and grabs your imagination by the neck, and forces you to see what happened there.

The next day, I stood in a tiny rut, a small bend in a shallow, grassy berm, where for sixteen hours men cursed and killed each other at point-blank range, where musket balls flew so furiously that they cut down a foot-thick oak tree. Here, at the Bloody Angle of Spotsylvania, the fighting was hand-to-hand from the break of dawn to almost midnight, uninterrupted horror that to this day remains for me the most appalling single acre in human history. There, on that unassuming, peaceful, empty field – it might as well have been the back of a high school -- men had become so agitated that they climbed the muddy, blood-slick trenches, clawed their way to the parapets to shoot at a man a foot or two away, then hurled their bayoneted muskets like a javelin into the crowd before being shot down and replaced by other half-mad, raving automatons.

What trick of time and memory, what charm or spell does history possess, that can turn such fields of unremitting violence and terror into places of religious awe and wonder? Why are some people called to these places, in America and around the world, to stand in wonder – not only at the brutality of war, but at the transcendental, ennobling power of them? How does slaughter and death turn into nobility and sacrifice? Why can we recite the names of places like Roanoke, Harrisburg, Phoenixville, Marseille, Kiev, Vanuatu and Johannesburg with no more passion than we muster while reading the ingredients on the back of a cereal box, while names like Antietam, Gettysburg, Valley Forge, Verdun, Stalingrad, Guadalcanal and Rorke’s Drift thunder through time as if the earth itself were being rung like a bell?

Today we are at War. The future is dark and filled with uncertainties. We are at a time of great peril and momentous decisions are being made by the hour. We know history is being written before our very eyes. No one knows how things will turn out – only history will know.

We can, however, step back from 24/7 embedded coverage. We can in fact gain what is most missing in these anxious days -- perspective. Like all worthwhile journeys, this will take some time.

First, we need to go to the one place that could perhaps best make sense of all this blood and terror and waste and pain.


I found it, finally. As with all the other places I had visited, I had great difficulty realizing where I was because the reality was so much smaller than what I had imagined. Off in the distance stood Seminary Ridge, where Pickett and Armistead and the rest would march into history – but that was not what I wanted to see.

I had made my way over the boulders of The Devils’ Den, caught my breath when I found myself in a small alcove where a dead Confederate had lain in one of the most famous photos from the war. And finally, I found the marker I was looking for, and walked – such a small distance – down and then up again that little stretch of hill.

This was it, all right. This was the place. I was standing on the exact spot where the very existence of the United States of America, where all of our lives and our history, all our subsequent glory and tragedy, turned on what lay in the heart of an unassuming professor of Rhetoric from a small college in Brunswick, Maine.



One of the most subtle distortions caused by history’s telephoto lens is the sense of predetermination. We know the Allies won World War II, as decisively as any conflict in history. But in London, 1940, such an outcome would have seemed unthinkably optimistic. The fact is, it was a very, very near thing.

We look back on the Union victory in the Civil War with the same sense of it being a foregone conclusion. But it was not. By the second day of July in 1863, the mighty armies of the Union had been beaten in every major battle except Antietam – and that had been not much better than a tie. And they had not just been defeated. They had been thrashed. Whipped. Sent reeling again and again and again by a half-starved collection of scarecrows in homemade uniforms.

None of this was lost on the Union men that morning, not the least on that Professor of Rhetoric from Bowdoin College. He had seen, first hand, the disasters at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. For those men, as for us today, the future was dark and unknowable. Yet history can often show where we are going by showing where we have been, in the same way that a ship’s wake extending to the Southern horizon is a sure sign of a Northward course. And that course, for the Union, for the United States as we know it today, was bleak.

Were the South to win that July day, the first northern state capitol – Harrisburg – would fall to the Confederates. Nothing would stop them from reaching Baltimore, and Washington. If the Army of the Potomac lost yet again on this field, the South would very likely take Washington, the British would enter the war on the side of the Confederacy and the mighty Royal Navy would break the Union blockade. In the words of Shelby Foote, the war would be over -- lost.

The Federal position was strong, but it had a fatal weakness. At the southern end of the Union line were two small hills. The smaller and nearer, called Little Round Top by the locals, overlooked the entire Union position. Artillery placed on that hill could fire down the entire Union line, wreaking carnage on the men below. The entire position would become untenable.

No one was on Little Round Top.

Across the ground that Pickett would cross the next day, this did not escape the eye of Confederate Lieutenant General Longstreet. He knew that if he could get some guns on that little hill the battle would be over. Indeed, the war would be over – won. He asked Lee if he could send his toughest men, John Bell Hood’s Texans and Alabamians, to take that hill. Lee agreed.
Back on Cemetery Ridge, the Blue commanders realized, to their horror, the danger they were in, and sent some regiments down the line to hold that hill, extending the left of their line up Little Round Top. And there, on the afternoon of July 2nd, 1863, history and the Professor of Rhetoric collided.


Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was an amateur. And everything he knew about tactics he had read, on his own, in a little book he carried with him in case it would come in handy. He knew that his 20th Maine Regiment was the extreme left of the entire Union army. In fact, he could look over to that man standing there, the one with the neatly trimmed beard: that fellow, right there, was the end of the line.

Chamberlain knew the significance of his position on the field. He knew if he failed the Union left would roll up and crumble the way the right had a few weeks before in the disaster at Chancellorsville. He knew the Union could not bear another defeat of that magnitude.

Up from the valley below came Hood’s men: fierce, shrieking, caterwauling demons, the same set of wolves that had shattered the Union line at Gaines Mill and whipped and humiliated their opponents every time they had taken the field. They came up through the thin forest yelling like furies.

Chamberlain casually walked the line, keeping his men cool, plugging holes and moving reserves while showing the utter disregard for his own life that commanders of both sides were expected to show during those horrible brawls.

Repeated and steady volleys drove the Southerners back, but not for long. They came again. Again they were driven back. Again they came with their weird and terrifying Rebel Yell, and again they were knocked back by withering volleys from the 20th Maine. The Northerners were holding on, but by sheer guts alone, for each charge and counter volley knocked more men out of the line, heads and arms and torso exploding under the impact of the heavy lead musket balls. Worse, they were by now almost out of ammunition.

The Confederates were skilled tacticians. When the men from Maine showed more determination than expected, they looked for a way around them, to hit the line from behind. Quickly they sent their men sideways, to the left, trying to get around the corner and attack from the rear.

Chamberlain saw this. Armies could readjust themselves, but there was nothing in the little book about what to do with a single regiment. So he planted the flag, and on that spot, he sent men off at a right angle, like an open gate, to confront the flanking Confederates head on.

Again they came on, getting right to the lines this time. Again they were shot and clubbed back down the hill. Again they massed for another charge, their determination to take that hill as strong as the 20th’s was to defend it. Only now, Chamberlain’s men were completely out of ammunition. During this latest repulse the Rebel veterans had staggered back down the side of Little Round Top under a hail of rocks being thrown by the exhausted men in Blue.


And so we come to this exact time and place. It is the 2nd of July, 1863, just south of a small Pennsylvania town. You are on a small hill covered with thin pine trees. Your face is black with gunpowder: it burns your throat and eyes, it has cracked your lips, and you are more thirsty than you believed possible.

All around you are dead and dying men, some moaning, some screaming in agony as they clutch shattered arms or hold in their bowels. The field in front of you is covered with dead Rebels, and yet the ground looks alive, undulating, as the wounded Confederates try to crawl back to safety. In the woods below you can hear fresh enemy troops arrive, hear orders being issued in the soft accents of the deep South. You have no more musket rounds. There aren’t even very many rocks left to throw. And you know that this time, they will succeed.

These men have never been beaten, least of all by you. You are a professor of Rhetoric at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. As you walk what is left of your line, you know you have fought bravely and well, done more than could ever be asked of you. You have no choice but to fall back in orderly retreat. Your men are out of ammunition. To stand here and take another charge is to die. It’s that simple. These men are your responsibility. Their families depend on you to bring them home. Many have already died. To not retreat will likely condemn many more wives to being widows, not the least your own.

You look down past the dead and dying men to the bottom of the hill. Masses of determined Confederate men are emerging, coming for you. They are not beaten. They are determined to have this hill. Off to your left stands Old Glory, the hinge in your pathetic, small gate.

You know that this is war to preserve a Union, a system of government four score and seven years old. Many said such a system of self rule could not possibly survive. If you retreat now, today will be the day they are proven right.

You cannot go back. You cannot stay here. Your men look at you. You utter two words:

“Fix Bayonets.”

You can see the reaction on the faces of the men. No, that can’t be right. He couldn’t possibly mean it.

But you do mean it. You know history. In the middle of this shock and death and agony, amid the blood and stench and acrid smoke, you have the perspective even now to see what is really at stake here.

As Chamberlain walked his line one last time, he smiled, and shouted, “Stand firm, ye boys of Maine, for not once in a century are men permitted to bear such responsibilities!"



Today, the United States is at war with Iraq.

Before the Civil War, we would have said, “the United States are at War with Iraq.” Before the Civil War, the United States was plural, a collection of relatively weak, sovereign nations. After the Civil War, we were welded by fire and death into a single, indivisible nation. There is a marker, in a forest, on a hill, to mark that transition.

We are a nation because the Rhetoric professor did not retreat. He did not tire, he did not falter, and he did not fail. As the Confederates charged Little Round Top to take the hill, the battle, and the war, the schoolteacher from Maine drew his sword, and swung his gate around like a baseball bat, hitting the Rebels on the side as they leapt down upon the shocked and awed Confederates who promptly broke and ran.

There would, of course, be two more years of blood and carnage: Pickett’s Charge was 24 hours in the future; the Bloody Angle and Cold Harbor further down that dark, unseen road. If you told the men of the 20th Maine that day they had saved the Union on Little Round Top, they would have looked at you as if you were mad. It was, after all, a relatively small engagement in the biggest, bloodiest battle in the history of the Western Hemisphere.

But you have to ask yourself if perhaps Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain might have had a glimpse of the future. “Not once in a century are men permitted to bear such responsibilities!” he had shouted. He knew, on some level, that this history being written large, that the actions of a small, battered regiment, indeed, the actions of a single man, would determine whether we would live in one country, or two.

In 1865 the issue of American Slavery, an issue dodged in 1783, an issue compromised in 1850, and an issue that tore us apart as a people was settled once and for all, by force of arms. By War. Secession was settled, too – settled most emphatically.

War settled whether the Mediterranean Sea would be a Carthaginian Lake or a Roman one. War settled whether Jerusalem would be Christian or Muslim. War determined whether a surrender document would be signed aboard the Missouri in Tokyo Bay or on the Yamato just off Alcatraz in San Francisco Bay. War determined whether France would be living through four years, or a millennia of darkness under Nazi supermen, and a weird, ghostly war determined whether or not there would be Englishmen and Scots and Americans living and dying in gulags in Siberia.

And four years of unimaginably brutal war determined whether or not the United States of America would in fact be a land where all men are created equal. War determined whether the fatal, poisonous stain of slavery would split the nation into two irreconcilable camps, or whether the blood and sacrifice of men at Little Round Top and The Angle and Cold Harbor would, in part, wash away that stain and put right that which was unable to be put right at the birth of this awesome experiment in self-rule.

We have markers on the fields at Gettysburg because there men died so that men and women like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice and Vincent Brooks and Shoshana Johnson and millions of other African-Americans would have a chance to experience the American promise as full and equal members. Having walked these fields of slaughter and murder, I now know that the marble and monuments are not glorifications of death, but reminders of the sacrifice of men determined to fight and die to do the right thing for people other than themselves.

Lincoln’s purpose at the beginning of the war was to preserve the Union. “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union. 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.”

But if our Civil War was started for the most pragmatic of reasons, by the time it was over the motivation had changed. When Grant took overall command and swung the Union armies deep into the south like a sledgehammer, the war took on a brutality and carnage unbelievable even to those jaded by the previous horrors. And yet as the Union armies swung through the south singing The Battle Hymn of the Republic, the voices of the men would swell in choked emotion as they sang:

As he died to make men holy
Let us die to make men free
While God is marching on.

Sacrifice and death transformed that War, and remade the nation. Abolition, at the outset a position taken by a vocal minority in New England and the Midwest, became the great cause of liberation and freedom for all men.

Back in 1996, when I walked those fields, I did not know how such a thing could have happened. But now I do. For I see exactly the same thing happening today regarding our War in Iraq. And for that I am deeply gratified and very proud.



No sane person wants to fight a war. But many sane people believe that there are times when they are necessary. I believe this is one of those times.

For it seems to me that if you are against any war – if you believe that peace is always the right choice -- then you must believe at least one, if not both of the following:

1. People will always be able to come to a reasonable agreement, no matter how deep or contentious the issue, and that all people are rational, reasonable, honorable, decent and sane,

or,

2. It is more noble to live under slavery and oppression, to endure torture, institutionalized rape, theft and genocide than it is to fight it.

History, not to mention personal experience, shows me that the first proposition is clearly false. I believe, to put it plainly, that some people have been raised to become pathological murderers, liars, and first-rate bastards, and that these people will kill and brutalize the good, meek people and steal from and murder them whenever it is in their personal interest to do so. You are, of course, free to disagree about this element of humanity. I, however, can put a great many names on the table. History is littered with people and regimes just like this: entire nations of murderers and thugs, savage and brutal men who could herd grandmothers and babies into gas chambers and march to battle with guns in the backs of old men and teenage girls for use as human shields. I believe these people are real, and that they cannot be reasoned with. I believe that there are entire societies where dominance and force are the norm, and where cooperation and compromise are despised and scorned. Again, history gives me quite a sizable list, and that list is evidence of the first order.

There are people – pacifists – who do not deny this, and these are the people who I really do find repulsive and deeply disturbing, for these are people who acknowledge the presence of evil men and evil regimes, and yet are unwilling to do anything about them. These are the people who cling to fantasies about containment and inspections and resolutions, people who acknowledge that barbarism and torture are rampant but who desperately cling to these niceties as long as nothing bad happens to them. When you point out to them that 9/11 showed that bad things can happen when you ignore such people, they simply point out that Hitler or Stalin or Mao is not as bad as all that, that they haven’t done anything to us yet, that action against them is unconscionable and illegitimate.

There are also people who say “better Red than dead,” people who would rather face the possibility of slavery – for ourselves or others -- than the certainty of a fight, with all it’s attendant blood and misery.

I’m sorry to say it, but to me that is nothing but sheer cowardice and refined selfishness.

We fight wars not to have peace, but to have a peace worth having. Slavery is peace. Tyranny is peace. For that matter, genocide is peace when you get right down to it. The historical consequences of a philosophy predicated on the notion of no war at any cost are families flying to the Super Bowl accompanied by three or four trusted slaves and a Europe devoid of a single living Jew.

It would be nice if there were a way around this. History, not merely my opinion, shows us that there is not. If all you are willing to do is think happy thoughts, then those are the consequences. If you want justice, and freedom, and safety, and prosperity, then sometimes you have to fight for them.

I still don’t know why so many people haven’t figured this out.



Growing up a sci-fi nerd has a few – very few – advantages. One of the greatest was getting to read the Time Guardians series of novels by the late, and deeply gifted Poul Anderson.

These stories were the cream of a hoary old sci-fi genre, that being the idea of parallel universes, histories where interference or accidents caused the chips to fall in very different ways. Poul Anderson showed me worlds in which the Chinese discovered America, where Carthage defeated Rome. Other writers have taken us to worlds where desperate Americans vie for jobs as household servants to the occupying Japanese administrators after the American loss in World War 2, and to a 1960’s Nazi Germany where all evidence of the Holocaust has been buried and destroyed. I’ve read accounts of Winston Churchill emerging from behind the barricades of 10 Downing Street, Tommy gun in hand, being cut down in a hail of bullets from the invading Nazis at the collapse of street-to-street fighting in London. There are many others.

All of these stories have a common thread: someone has gone back in time, tinkered ever so slightly, and produced a horrific world in which, for example, the Nazis and the Japanese divide their American possessions at the Mississippi. In them, something has gone horribly wrong.

But I have often wondered, what if this history, the one we know as reality, was the one gone horribly wrong? For example:

In the fall of 1999, the Clinton Administration took the hugely unpopular decision to invade Afghanistan to root out Islamic terrorists organized by a largely-unknown fanatic named Osama Bin Laden. Operation Homeland Security cost the lives of almost 300 servicemen, and did long-lasting damage to our relations with NATO, the UN, and especially Russia. President Clinton, at great political cost to himself and the Democratic Party, claimed to be acting on repeated intelligence that Bin Laden and his “phantom” organization – whose name escapes me – planned massive and sustained terrorist attacks against the United States. Peace protestors gathered between the towers of the World Trade Center in September, 2004 on the five-year anniversary of the illegal and immoral invasion, calling on President Gore to pay the UN –ordered reparations to the Taliban Government.

Or:

Today, April 20th, Germans again celebrate the birthday of Adolph Hitler with a parade down a stretch of the autobahn, one of his greatest achievements. Although forced from office in disgrace when a platoon of French soldiers contested his entry into the Rhineland in 1936, his rebuilding of Germany following the ruin of the Great War, and his subsequent lobbying for American economic support, culminating in the Lindbergh Plan and Germany’s spectacular economic growth through the forties and fifties, so rehabilitated his reputation that he remains one of the greatest and most revered figures in German history.

And we can go on like this for a very long time.

I see history as an unimaginably huge and complicated railroad switching yard, where by moving a pair of steel rails a few inches one way or another, the great train of history can be diverted from Chicago to Atlanta. These switches may seem ridiculously small at the time, but the consequences are often immeasurable.

So when I stood on Little Round Top and walked down that little hill for the last time that day, I saw more than dead and dying men littering the ground. I saw two nations where today there is one. I saw a Second Civil War, perhaps in 1909, or 1913, for these two countries would never peacefully co-exist – not with people as proud and energetic as we. I saw not seven thousand dead at Cold Harbor, but 70,000 cut down in an hour by machine guns in the Battle of Tallahassee, saw the gas attacks along the Cleveland Trenches that left half a million dead and dying. I saw, perhaps, the dimmest outlines of a Third American War, fought perhaps in ’34 or ’37 with millions of civilians killed in great air raids over Washington and Richmond. Of course, these millions never died. They lived long and full lives, most of them – and had children, namely us. They didn’t die, these millions, because the men at Cold Harbor and The Angle and Little Round Top did.

Now it seems fair to say that you can boil down the opinions of many of those opposed to the War in Iraq to a question uttered by leading anti-war activist Susan Sarandon, who asked, “I want to know what Iraq has done to us.”

There are two reasons to fight this war. One is so that History will never be able to answer that question. I don’t ever want to read about the VX attacks that left 16,000 dead at Atlanta Hartsfield airport. I don’t want to see the video of makeshift morgues inside the LA Coliseum as more anthrax victims are emptied from the hospitals. And I don’t want to look at helicopter shots of a blackened, radioactive crater where Times Square used to be, or of millions of dead bodies burning in funeral pyres, like columns of failure, dead from starvation and disease in the worldwide depression that such an attack on New York would produce.

I’m sure Miss Sarandon, and others, would criticize this response as fantasy. I’m also sure that had President Clinton taken military action against Bin Laden in the 1990’s, the idea that planes could be flown into skyscrapers, that thousands would die as the New York skyline collapsed upon them would be seen as equally as fantastic and absurd. Preposterous. Paranoid. Impossible.

But the fact remains that History will be written one way or another. Saddam’s crimes are well documented, as are his ambitions and his WMD programs. Are they worth stopping with force, before they have been used? I say yes, emphatically, and that anything less from the President is a dereliction of duty.

Many do not see it this way. I have to ask those people if they would have supported a military invasion of Afghanistan, with all the consequent upheavals, UN condemnation, and protest, in order to get Osama Bin Laden before he made 9/11 a symbol of disaster and death. The howls of protest that such people would have put up at such pre-emptive action are exceeded only by the shrieks from these same people that something wasn’t done about 9/11 before it happened.

Here is what I personally believe:

I believe that after September 11th, 2001, the Bush Administration sat down and took a very cold and hard look at what was going on in the world. I believe that they came to the conclusion that the post-WWII policy of depending on a strongman, an Attaturk or even a Nasser, to lift the Middle East into the modern world was an abject failure. I believe that they saw a region so seeped in despair and failure and repression that it would continue to generate, through asymmetrical warfare and weapons of mass destruction, an intolerable threat to the United States.

I believe that they came to realize that even if we were to pay the price of living in a police state, we cannot stop terrorists with flyswatters. Despite our best efforts, sooner of later, some of them will succeed, either with jet-fueled airplanes, or smallpox aerosols, or Sarin-filled crop dusters, or a suitcase nuke in Times Square or the steps of the capitol. As long as the failure of Arab nations generates such rage and hatred, they will keep coming. There is no end to the numbers a swamp like that can generate.

I believe that the United States government has taken a very bold decision to take the first steps to drain that swamp, and that this War in Iraq is the throwing of a railway switch to divert us from a very terrible train wreck lying ahead in the dark tunnel of history yet unwritten. Surely they know full well that this action will, in the short term, cause even more hatred and anger to be directed to us. But I see this as a chance – perhaps our last chance – to eliminate one of the states capable of and committed to the development of such weapons, and in the bargain establish a foothold of freedom and democracy in a region notable for its resistance to this historic trend.

Furthermore, I see it as a means of averting such wars in the future, for it shows in the most stark terms available that we are serious about this issue, and more than anything, when we talk about the safety and security of the United States of America we mean what we say. Entire wars have been cause by miscalculations of an enemy's resolve. As Tony Blair made clear in his ringing speech before Parliament on the eve of the war, to back down now, to show ourselves incapable of action, would have made all subsequent diplomatic efforts essentially meaningless. Showing that we will fight -- and fight all the way -- will make it far less likely that our enemies will miscalculate the way we allowed Saddam and Bin Laden to miscalculate.

As national policy, it is risky, and it is extremely dangerous. It is also an act of astonishing courage and leadership, because the alternative is horrible beyond contemplation. We are in the very early stages of a great and difficult campaign, one fraught with many setbacks and much loss. Although chaotic and uncertain to us today, it is a campaign that makes sense only through the long lens of history, for despite the blood and destruction, and the faces of those brave men and women held up to us nightly, it is the course most likely to steer us through these reefs into the open waters of security and a peace worth living under – a peace based on real security, on a free and democratic and successful Middle East, not the petty and false peace of inaction and denial in the face of the threatening storm. The world faced this choice in the late 1930's, and chose an easy 'peace' -- "Peace for our Time." History records our reward.

Those who oppose this war may not be willing to face the pages of history that will forever remain unwritten by us taking this action in Iraq. But two things we can be assured of, and both of them are worth noting in these anxious times.

First, while we cannot say that Weapons of Mass Destruction will never be used against the United States, we can -- because of this courageous action --say that they will not be Iraqi weapons. No one denies that these exist -- only that a raving lunatic, a paranoid, murdering psychopath can be trusted to not use them. A swamp littered with chemical weapons shells, with anthrax-dispersing jet aircraft, and with a robust, stubborn and dedicated nuclear weapons program is being drained nightly before our eyes. That is a great victory.

Second, while the long-term outcome is hard to see through the fog of war, we are in fact sending our own children to die to set a people free. When Saddam’s murdering henchmen are dead and gone, when he and his psychopathic regime lie burning and shattered like his posters and statues, we may – or may not – see people emerge from three decades of horror to greet us as liberators, once they truly realize that doing so will not cost them their lives.

But even if they don’t, it does not matter. The Japanese and Germans saw us as conquerors and occupiers too, not to mention the people of Alabama and Georgia and South Carolina. All of these people fought, and fought hard, for regimes that had kept them in bondage. Nazism and Japanese Imperialism fell away relatively quickly and painlessly. American racism was a deeper problem; it has taken more than a century to remake this society, and while that war is not yet over it most certainly has been won.

We may or may not have prevented more attacks on the United States. We may or may not have generated a greater short-term threat from terror. I personally think that recent history has shown that resolute action, that taking the offensive, has been a great deterrent to terror, and that the operation in Iraq will do much more in that regard. I could be wrong. History will tell us, soon enough.

But of one thing I am absolutely certain. Despite all the switches in the rail yard, there is a flow and a direction to history that cannot and will not be denied.

It is the slow, uneven, grasping climb toward freedom. There are markers on Little Round Top, on the beaches at Normandy, and in the sands of Nasiriyah that show us where men have fought and laid down their lives, and willingly left their wives without husbands and their children without fathers, all for this idea. It is an idea bigger than they are, bigger than self-centered movie stars, bigger than cynical and bitter journalists, bigger than Presidents and Dictators, bigger, in fact than all human failure and miscalculation.

It is the idea that people – all people – deserve to live their lives in freedom. Free from fear. Free from want. Free from despair and hatred.

My country has, again, taken up that banner, and the behavior of our young men and women under unimaginable stress and provocation have filled me with fierce and unremitting pride. We fight, nearly alone, alongside old and true friends, British and Australian, themselves decent and honorable people, long champions of freedom who have their own Waterloos and Gallipolis and cemeteries marked with fields of red poppies, rolls of sacrifice and honor that should fill all American hearts with pride. For friends like this are worth having, and I will always prefer the company of one or two solid, dependable friends over legions of fashionable and trendy and unreliable ones.

And someday, centuries from now, in the world we all hope for but which only a few will fight for, all of this death and destruction will be gone. All that will be left will be small markers in green fields that were once deserts, places where Iraqi families may walk someday with the same taken-for-granted sense of happiness and security I had in Pennsylvania and Virginia.

And perhaps they will read the strange-sounding names, and try to imagine a time when it was all in doubt.


Posted by Proteus at March 29, 2003 03:37 PM
Urantia II
15-03-2005, 05:03
So, let’s begin with the very first analogy...

The piece begins by giving examples of what the Press is writing about the War we are fighting...

It is very easy to equate the sentiments being espoused as nearly identical to the sentiments being espoused today, are they not?

And yet, as we learn in the next paragraph, it is NOT what is being said today but rather what was being said in the U.S. Press during the middle of the Civil War. The Press was calling for an end to the "illegal acts" of their own Nation, just as some are doing today, are they not?

And so we go one further to examine how we look at such events today...

We hardly ever talk about the side that was saying the things mentioned in the opening paragraph, and we have to wonder why it is we choose to ignore such things…

The only good answer we can find is that we have the perspective of History, that we know these people, right or wrong, did not "win the day" and History was written in the Blood of the men who ignored the ranting of the Liberal Media and instead chose to do what was Right, as unpopular as it may have been at the time.

And so we then come to today...

We see the same thing happening now as we saw back then. The Media espousing the Wars failures and the shortcomings of the President they proclaim to be a "dullard"... And we realize that things haven't changed all that much in nearly a century and a half…

That the Media will exercise its "Right" to be as wrong as it chooses to be. But we also see that WE U.S. Citizens do not have to "believe" the trite attitudes the Media espouses as the Truth, we can look back at History if we need to gain some perspective, can we not?

Is THAT first analogy CLEAR enough for you?

Regards,
Gaar
CanuckHeaven
15-03-2005, 05:35
Looks like you are going "solo" on this one!! Good luck!! :eek:
JuNii
15-03-2005, 05:50
Looks like you are going "solo" on this one!! Good luck!! :eek:err to whom are you refferring to?
Urantia II
15-03-2005, 06:06
Looks like you are going "solo" on this one!! Good luck!! :eek:

Sorry, I should have explained...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8439926#post8439926

Regards,
Gaar
Cogitation
15-03-2005, 06:18
Interesting analysis. Sadly, I'm not terribly familiar with the respective histories, so I can't really say anything off of the top of my head; my early US history is a bit rusty and I remember even less of the Middle East over the past century. I don't know the answers and I don't have the time to do the research, so I won't be participating any further than this. But, I do have questions whose answers should prove useful in this discussion:

The Civil War analogy would have to look at the events leading up to the Civil War, and the relevant events extend back at least 87 years to the founding of the nation. What was the general history of the Middle East over the past century?

The Civil War analogy would have to look at the relationship between the North and the South. What is the history of US involvement in the Middle East over the past century?

I remember enough of my early US history to know that the tensions between the North and the South didn't happen overnight; they built up over time. I have the vague impression that the Middle East was used as a collective pawn in the Cold War between the USA and the USSR, but I'm not sure if this impression is accurate or not. On the other hand, the tensions between the North and South were generally the tensions between equals. The analogy could be either strengthened or weakened by examining the past interactions between the US and the countries/people of the Middle East.


Sorry, I should have explained...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8439926#post8439926

Regards,
Gaar
Ahhh! I see! This thread was directed at "Domici". Nevermind, then.


--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Molnervia
15-03-2005, 06:28
"This ain't no party! This ain't no disco! This ain't no foolin' around!... No time for dancin', or lovey dovey! I ain't got time for that now! ..."

Sorry, when I saw the title of this thread I instantly thought of "Talking Heads"

Seriously though. I didn't ask them (the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines) to go anywhere, and, in fact would have preferred they stay right where they were. And, I don't fall for any of this jingoistic crap. Not one of those men and women who died did so for me, or freedom, or democracy, even if they themselves thought so at the time. This war is nothing but the settleing of a personal grudge by our "president", and what's most galling is that he's wraping himself in the flag to do it.

"1,500 and counting. When I reach 55,000 I beat Nixon!"
--What "President Smug" really wants to say, but can't...
Urantia II
15-03-2005, 06:33
*snip*

To gain perspective on the History of East versus West in the Middle East pehaps some reasearch into the Templar Knights is in order?

I am also left to wonder how, or even why, the History of the events that lead to the descriptions used by the Media are pertinent to the point being made?

Or did YOU miss the point?

Regards,
Gaar
Urantia II
15-03-2005, 06:38
Seriously though. I didn't ask them (the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines) to go anywhere, and, in fact would have preferred they stay right where they were. And, I don't fall for any of this jingoistic crap. Not one of those men and women who died did so for me, or freedom, or democracy, even if they themselves thought so at the time. This war is nothing but the settleing of a personal grudge by our "president", and what's most galling is that he's wraping himself in the flag to do it.

"1,500 and counting. When I reach 55,000 I beat Nixon!"
--What "President Smug" really wants to say, but can't...

I'm sure you didn't, but YOUR Country DID, and they went...

And now you feel it is somehow ok to denegrate their Service because YOU YOURSELF didn't make the request? I guess I have to admit it is, since THEY are putting their lives on the line every day so that you may...

I'm not so sure I would feel as proud as you apparently do proclaiming it though...

Regards,
Gaar
Molnervia
15-03-2005, 06:45
I'm sure you didn't, but YOUR Country DID, and they went...

And now you feel it is somehow ok to denegrate their Service because YOU YOURSELF didn't make the request? I guess I have to admit it is, since THEY are putting their lives on the line every day so that you may...

I'm not so sure I would feel as proud as you apparently do proclaiming it though...

Regards,
Gaar

How so? How is stomping on the people of a country that never picked a fight with us in any way protecting me, my freedom, this country, or anything else that our undeserving leadership has tried to pass as an excuse for it?

I greive for them all, and the only person I denegrate is the man who chose to send them there in my name.
Marrakech II
15-03-2005, 06:51
Very insightful post. As far as I can tell the history to that story is correct. But the main point is a good one. Basically most people in my mind don't take the big picture in mind. I think the Bush administration has taken the greater picture theory and applied it. I also think this war is far from over. There will be more governments over thrown. Either through peacful revolts (Lebanon) or armed conflict(Iraq). In the end it will all work out I think. Fifty years down the road I believe there will be a big change in the way this war is viewed. Anyway good post.
Marrakech II
15-03-2005, 06:52
How so? How is stomping on the people of a country that never picked a fight with us in any way protecting me, my freedom, this country, or anything else that our undeserving leadership has tried to pass as an excuse for it?

I greive for them all, and the only person I denegrate is the man who chose to send them there in my name.

Typical Washington State liberal. You are flat out on the wrong side of history. Maybe some day you will figure that out.
Urantia II
15-03-2005, 06:57
How so? How is stomping on the people of a country that never picked a fight with us in any way protecting me, my freedom, this country, or anything else that our undeserving leadership has tried to pass as an excuse for it?

I greive for them all, and the only person I denegrate is the man who chose to send them there in my name.

I'm not sure when bringing Freedom and Democracy to a Nation was considered "stomping", but ok...
Urantia II
15-03-2005, 07:00
Very insightful post. As far as I can tell the history to that story is correct. But the main point is a good one. Basically most people in my mind don't take the big picture in mind. I think the Bush administration has taken the greater picture theory and applied it. I also think this war is far from over. There will be more governments over thrown. Either through peacful revolts (Lebanon) or armed conflict(Iraq). In the end it will all work out I think. Fifty years down the road I believe there will be a big change in the way this war is viewed. Anyway good post.

Thank you Marrakech, it's nice to see that some out there "get it"... :D

Regards,
Gaar
Nashabur
15-03-2005, 07:02
"This ain't no party! This ain't no disco! This ain't no foolin' around!... No time for dancin', or lovey dovey! I ain't got time for that now! ..."

Sorry, when I saw the title of this thread I instantly thought of "Talking Heads"

..."Know of some Gravesites, high on a hillside.
A place where nobody goes..."

He He, I thought the same thing when I saw the thread title....
Molnervia
15-03-2005, 07:03
Typical Washington State liberal. You are flat out on the wrong side of history. Maybe some day you will figure that out.

Ahh, and here come the generalizations! Typical American, jerk-off, conservative jingo! (you started it...)

So, tell me how history will see the US (more specifically "President Smug") acting like a schoolyard asshole, wasting American lives, and in general giving the middle finger to the world, as a good thing?
Sir Peter the sage
15-03-2005, 07:12
Ahh, and here come the generalizations! Typical American, jerk-off, conservative jingo! (you started it...)

So, tell me how history will see the US (more specifically "President Smug") acting like a schoolyard asshole, wasting American lives, and in general giving the middle finger to the world, as a good thing?

Actually I think history will see the current foreign policy as finally acknowledging a cycle of depression, poverty, and oppression in the Middle East and actually doing something about it. The desire for democracy and freedom from ruthless dictators/thugs shown by the Iraqi people seems to be repeating itself in places including Lebanon and Palestine. If five or ten years from now these nations have stable democratic governments that are able to prevent ethnic strife in the region then I'd consider it a success. Even if it does not occur as quickly as hoped it is still a worthy cause.
Marrakech II
15-03-2005, 07:14
Ahh, and here come the generalizations! Typical American, jerk-off, conservative jingo! (you started it...)

So, tell me how history will see the US (more specifically "President Smug") acting like a schoolyard asshole, wasting American lives, and in general giving the middle finger to the world, as a good thing?


Again I stand by my post. Take off your John Kerry sticker already. I'm tired of seeing them still on the freeway

I guess some will never get a clue.
Urantia II
15-03-2005, 07:14
Ahh, and here come the generalizations! Typical American, jerk-off, conservative jingo! (you started it...)

So, tell me how history will see the US (more specifically "President Smug") acting like a schoolyard asshole, wasting American lives, and in general giving the middle finger to the world, as a good thing?

Tell me, do YOU believe Lincoln Freeing the Slaves was a good thing?

You suppose people, a century from now, living in a Democratic Iraq will believe that Bush did the right thing, or not?

Regards,
Gaar
Non Aligned States
15-03-2005, 07:15
And if it doesn't happen in our lifetimes? Or if it just sinks into anarchy?
Urantia II
15-03-2005, 07:20
Actually I think history will see the current foreign policy as finally acknowledging a cycle of depression, poverty, and oppression in the Middle East and actually doing something about it. The desire for democracy and freedom from ruthless dictators/thugs shown by the Iraqi people seems to be repeating itself in places including Lebanon and Palestine. If five or ten years from now these nations have stable democratic governments that are able to prevent ethnic strife in the region then I'd consider it a success. Even if it does not occur as quickly as hoped it is still a worthy cause.

Well said...

I'm not sure what people aren't understanding about how things are changing in the Middle East at almost a daily pace right now.

All they keep trying to say is that these things would have happened regardless of what we have done. Like Saddam was just going to step down and hold Elections or something like that?!?!

They got to be wrong for 8 YEARS under Clinton, now they will have to sit back and see what 8 YEARS of having a President who WILL do something is like...

All I can say is... "Watch and Learn..."

Regards,
Gaar
Urantia II
15-03-2005, 07:22
And if it doesn't happen in our lifetimes? Or if it just sinks into anarchy?

So YOUR only interest is in what YOU get out of it, and not what type of World you leave future Generations?
Non Aligned States
15-03-2005, 07:24
No, I'm just wondering if it will become the democratic paradise you seem to be espousing.
Sir Peter the sage
15-03-2005, 07:25
And if it doesn't happen in our lifetimes? Or if it just sinks into anarchy?

Well the results of the Iraqi election seem to indicate that it will require cooperation among the different ethnic groups. Thus no group will be able to dominate the others in the new government. Plus I have a feeling they will not ask the troops to leave until the Iraqi police force can stop any of those still clinging to the desire to have their old influence under the Ba'ath or foreign, extremist dissidents. For these reasons anarchy in Iraq isn't likely. Anarchy is not likely in Lebanon either. Even France seems willing to aid in a free Lebanon. The most likely course of action being international supervision of free elections, so that they are free from Hezbollah's influence. However, there is always risk in any endeavor and I suppose there is a small chance of anarchy occuring. But it is worse to allow an oppressive regime to remain intact and DEFINITELY do more harm than try and solve the problem.

From your point of view if we simply let Hitler finish his Final Solution there would have been no more death camps eventually. After all he might have stopped after fulfilling his mad desires and war could have been prevented. Because you know, its all about keeping the peace, right /sarcasm?
Urantia II
15-03-2005, 07:26
No, I'm just wondering if it will become the democratic paradise you seem to be espousing.

You believe that WE are the "Democratic Paradise" that our Forefathers envisioned?
Marrakech II
15-03-2005, 07:29
You believe that WE are the "Democratic Paradise" that our Forefathers envisioned?

They could not concive our reality. It is simply to far out from there perspectives. They were concerned with leading us on the right path. Which they suceeded at doing. Remember this was 225 years ago. Do you know what will be a success in 225 from now?
Sir Peter the sage
15-03-2005, 07:31
You believe that WE are the "Democratic Paradise" that our Forefathers envisioned?

Not addressed to me...but no. I think they expressed an ideal. An ideal to always be strived for. Just because we are still trying to reach that ideal does not mean that we should shirk our responsibility to help others have the same chance. That responsibility is ours because as a nation the United States has been blessed with the ability and resources to fight against tyrants such as Saddam and help people oppressed by miscreants like him.
Non Aligned States
15-03-2005, 07:34
From your point of view if we simply let Hitler finish his Final Solution there would have been no more death camps eventually. After all he might have stopped after fulfilling his mad desires and war could have been prevented. Because you know, its all about keeping the peace, right /sarcasm?

You realize I said nothing about a certain someone did you? And if I replace specific slaughter and replace it with wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter, does that make me better?

From a simple standpoint, the plan was shaky to begin with. It seemed to have some kind of blind belief that invasion would be a walkover. Sloppy.

As for "Democratic Paradise", perhaps it was a poor choice of words. But judging from what was being said, I was led to believe you held the opinion that it seemed to an utopian form of political structure. If not, why not air how you feel differently about it?
Molnervia
15-03-2005, 07:38
Tell me, do YOU believe Lincoln Freeing the Slaves was a good thing?

Not a fair question, because Lincoln didn't have a hand in getting Jefferson Davis the office of President of the CSA.

You suppose people, a century from now, living in a Democratic Iraq will believe that Bush did the right thing, or not?

Regards,
Gaar

You mean the democratic Iraq who's own election results were altered by the US government because they didn't get the result they wanted?
Sir Peter the sage
15-03-2005, 07:47
You realize I said nothing about a certain someone did you? And if I replace specific slaughter and replace it with wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter, does that make me better?

From a simple standpoint, the plan was shaky to begin with. It seemed to have some kind of blind belief that invasion would be a walkover. Sloppy.

As for "Democratic Paradise", perhaps it was a poor choice of words. But judging from what was being said, I was led to believe you held the opinion that it seemed to an utopian form of political structure. If not, why not air how you feel differently about it?

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the first 'paragraph'. Maybe I'll see what you're saying here tomorrow but right now its getting a little late here and I'm sleepy. :D :p

The initial plan was to topple Saddam and his Ba'ath party. Accomplished quickly enough. Dealing with disgruntled ex-Ba'ath insurgents and outside extremists...that was something that could not have been assessed and reacted to until we were on the ground.

I was never of the opinion that democracy would automatically bring utopia (in fact, we are a republic, not saying that the US is utopia either). But giving these until recently oppressed people a chance at free elections is giving these people the opportunity to decide how they want to live, instead of living in a state of fear under some tyrant's boot. And before you mention about the risk of oppressive theocracies being formed I already mentioned that the elections in Iraq seem to require cooperation among the different ethnic groups to achieve anything. The same can be inferred for Lebanon (where no single group has a clear majority).
Sir Peter the sage
15-03-2005, 07:49
You mean the democratic Iraq who's own election results were altered by the US government because they didn't get the result they wanted?

Where did you get that tripe?
Non Aligned States
15-03-2005, 08:19
The initial plan was to topple Saddam and his Ba'ath party. Accomplished quickly enough. Dealing with disgruntled ex-Ba'ath insurgents and outside extremists...that was something that could not have been assessed and reacted to until we were on the ground.


I believe there were some references as to how Iraq would become another Vietnam in the essence of US troops facing guerilla warfare after a quick victory over the established army. This was mentioned. before the invasion actually took place. Apparently it was brushed off as inconsequential. Now THAT was sloppy.
Anikian
21-03-2005, 09:17
Tell me, do YOU believe Lincoln Freeing the Slaves was a good thing?

You suppose people, a century from now, living in a Democratic Iraq will believe that Bush did the right thing, or not?

Regards,
Gaar
You know, that is a big misconception. Everyone hears of the emancipation proclamation, but few hear of his inaugural adress.

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

That's right, he said that. You know what else? He only freed the slaves of states in rebellion - border states, and any states that would switch sides, would be exempted. It wasn't until the 13th amendment was passed that other slaves were freed. You know what else? The Civil War was started over TARIFFS! Insanely high protective tariffs that forced southerners to buy only American goods, whose prices would be inflated because tariffs made foreign goods so expensive that our own products could then be sold for massive profit margins. Slavery wasn't even an issue until Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation, which was more to weaken the South and look good politically than to stop slavery.
Anikian
21-03-2005, 09:25
Sidenote I find funny - this line:
You can see them, you know. Not that I believe in ghosts, or the occult.
Karas
21-03-2005, 10:04
I'm not sure what you are getting at with the first 'paragraph'. Maybe I'll see what you're saying here tomorrow but right now its getting a little late here and I'm sleepy. :D :p

The initial plan was to topple Saddam and his Ba'ath party. Accomplished quickly enough. Dealing with disgruntled ex-Ba'ath insurgents and outside extremists...that was something that could not have been assessed and reacted to until we were on the ground.


Actually, it was pretty easy to predict. For this very reason it has been military custom to leave opposing goverments intact and force them to surrender instead of destroying them outright. In WWII the US could have nuked Tokyo and killed the vast majority of the Japanese goverment. We didn't. Instead we nuked two irrevalant cities to force a surrender. We did this because the occupation would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives otherwise.

In Iraq, basic military doctrine and basic common sense were ignored in favor of a vendetta against the Iraqi goverment. The US forces could have left the Iraqi goverment mostly intact. It would have been slightly more difficult in the short term but it would prevented much of the insergency and saved billions in the long term.
For a quick surrender we could have always nuked an out of the way city. That would have sent a message to everyone.
Urantia II
21-03-2005, 10:44
You know, that is a big misconception. Everyone hears of the emancipation proclamation, but few hear of his inaugural adress.

Are you denying that Lincoln was anti-Slavery?

If so, perhaps you need to read the Lincoln - Douglas Debates...

http://www.nps.gov/liho/debates.htm

Or what he cites in his Second Inaugural...

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it."

And...

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." 3
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
_______________________________

So please don't try an LECTURE ME about what YOU BELIEVE Lincoln's stance on Slavery was...

He states that his intent is first and foremost to SAVE THE UNION, yes...

But LONG BEFORE he ever became President he had made his position on Slavery quite clear.

Regards,
Gaar
Urantia II
21-03-2005, 10:47
I believe there were some references as to how Iraq would become another Vietnam in the essence of US troops facing guerilla warfare after a quick victory over the established army. This was mentioned. before the invasion actually took place. Apparently it was brushed off as inconsequential. Now THAT was sloppy.

Yes, and such predictions were also made to try an say we would be facing casualty numbers like we did in Viet Nam also, and such numbers have not materialized.

So much for comparisons to Viet Nam...

Regards,
Gaar
Urantia II
21-03-2005, 10:54
But I have always been particularly fond of Lincoln's "closing" of his First Inaugural...

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.