Linkster
09-11-2007, 11:24 PM
The year is 1862 - September 11th Gen Lee and Gen McClellan are headed to the same place only by fate - Antietam, Md near Sharpsburg - where just 5 days later - the largest loss of lives of US citizens on American soil in history occurs - over 23,100 US citizens fall in one days battle
The reason I bring this up is that there is a lot to learn from corrolations between a time when the US was in the middle of a crisis and what is occuring today in Iraq
The battle in 1862 came at a turning point for other countries that were contemplating becoming involved in the US battle - specifically the British and French, who were looking at official recognition and support of the Confederacy at the time.
Although the British did actually support the south in their fight in small ways with shipbuilding and supplies occasionally, it is interesting to contemplate the fate of the US nation if the British had taken a similar role that the US has recently taken in Iraq.
Given the history of the British fight against the "terrorists" in the US colonies and their perceived continuing "war on terror" that was being touted in Britain at the time in many of their worldwide colonies (yes thats correct - George Washington and his "buds" were designated terrorists), take a moment to consider what would have happened if Britain had inserted their army and navy into the Civil war.
The British were the largest army and navy in the world at the time, and with their preference to support the south, the outcome of the civil war here in the US would not only have been a much longer, more costly endeavour, but would end up reversing the entire premise that the nation had been built on 100 years prior by our "patriots". The British would become the "occupiers", and would have been trying to knock out deals of compromise between a seriously opposed ideology that existed in this country at the time - a war between agriculture and industry. While some still try to lay the blame of the civil war on slavery and related issues, most know that this really didnt even become a talking point until the third year of the war when Lincoln used it to try to bolster recruits for his failing Army.
The point to all of this you ask? Simply put - think about the "goals of the Iraqi" instead of constantly talking about the "goals of the US" in Iraq - think about how you would feel had the English come into our civil war and taken over the political process - occupied your farms and places of business - and started your government over based on their template of governemental success
Of course as a final note - think about the fact that 35 years ago - Iraq was a democracy with a republican slant - very similar to our current government - with the addition of a figure-head "king" similar to the British model of democracy - and had been since the end of British rule in Iraq. That was taken away by the United States in concert with a military coup that installed the military power that evolved to be led by Saddam Hussein with the US's full support. We even armed the military and gave financial aid to make sure it succeeded.
Ask yourself this final question - what will the Iraq of 10 years from now (which Bush admitted today is his goal of completion) look like - the same as 35 years ago maybe? Which begs the question - instead of looking back one year to see what our successes have been - look back in history a few decades and do that same comparison - will we be able to say that the US has really accomplished anything at all?
Copyright - Linkster at DCJunkies.com
The reason I bring this up is that there is a lot to learn from corrolations between a time when the US was in the middle of a crisis and what is occuring today in Iraq
The battle in 1862 came at a turning point for other countries that were contemplating becoming involved in the US battle - specifically the British and French, who were looking at official recognition and support of the Confederacy at the time.
Although the British did actually support the south in their fight in small ways with shipbuilding and supplies occasionally, it is interesting to contemplate the fate of the US nation if the British had taken a similar role that the US has recently taken in Iraq.
Given the history of the British fight against the "terrorists" in the US colonies and their perceived continuing "war on terror" that was being touted in Britain at the time in many of their worldwide colonies (yes thats correct - George Washington and his "buds" were designated terrorists), take a moment to consider what would have happened if Britain had inserted their army and navy into the Civil war.
The British were the largest army and navy in the world at the time, and with their preference to support the south, the outcome of the civil war here in the US would not only have been a much longer, more costly endeavour, but would end up reversing the entire premise that the nation had been built on 100 years prior by our "patriots". The British would become the "occupiers", and would have been trying to knock out deals of compromise between a seriously opposed ideology that existed in this country at the time - a war between agriculture and industry. While some still try to lay the blame of the civil war on slavery and related issues, most know that this really didnt even become a talking point until the third year of the war when Lincoln used it to try to bolster recruits for his failing Army.
The point to all of this you ask? Simply put - think about the "goals of the Iraqi" instead of constantly talking about the "goals of the US" in Iraq - think about how you would feel had the English come into our civil war and taken over the political process - occupied your farms and places of business - and started your government over based on their template of governemental success
Of course as a final note - think about the fact that 35 years ago - Iraq was a democracy with a republican slant - very similar to our current government - with the addition of a figure-head "king" similar to the British model of democracy - and had been since the end of British rule in Iraq. That was taken away by the United States in concert with a military coup that installed the military power that evolved to be led by Saddam Hussein with the US's full support. We even armed the military and gave financial aid to make sure it succeeded.
Ask yourself this final question - what will the Iraq of 10 years from now (which Bush admitted today is his goal of completion) look like - the same as 35 years ago maybe? Which begs the question - instead of looking back one year to see what our successes have been - look back in history a few decades and do that same comparison - will we be able to say that the US has really accomplished anything at all?
Copyright - Linkster at DCJunkies.com