Is this a non sequitur? Secretary of State Rice compared the Iraq war with the American Civil War, telling a magazine that slavery might have lasted longer in this country if the North had decided to end the fight early.
Rice as smart and logical as any in the Bush administration must have some message here but I just don't follow. Can any one explain?
2006-09-05 18:02:10 · 8 answers · asked by murphy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
NO that is just rhetoric used to motivate you more for their cause.
There is no comparison. The south wanted to break away from the Union and become an independent nation. That was the real reason for the Civil War and she knows it. And honestly, it is lame for her to bring in the slavery to sway emotion.
Lincoln actually told the south they could keep their slaves if they would just stay in the union. Slavery abolishment was only a repercussion of the south losing.
Iraq is in a civil war for a completely different reason... for the winner to be the controlling power.
2006-09-05 18:05:57 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think the statement has as much to do with the sectarian violence in Iraq as it does the ideological divide within the U.S.
Up to his death, Lincoln and his war effort were wildly unpopular in the North. The rhetoric used by Lincoln's adversaries would be familiar to anyone today:
The war was unjust and "illegal" -- after all, hadn't the U.S. been formed when we seceeded from England? What right did we have to interfere with others' choice in government?
The war was all about greed -- Lincoln was criticized for huge war contracts that went to companies owned by political supporters.
The war was driven by radical Christians -- Abolition was driven by evangelical, some might say fanatical, Christians.
Body count = defeat -- Even in victory the Union Army lost thousands of men in each key battle. Lincoln was called a "butcher" in both the North and South.
The similarities go on and on....But the point is that there was no shortage of demands among northerners that Lincoln seek to end the conflict by any means....Former Commanding General George McClellan even ran against Lincoln in 1864 on the platform of negotiating immediate peace.
But imagine how different things would be if the South had been allowed to form it's own country. Certainly slavery would have gone on for a few more decades, but more importantly the great democratic experiment begun in 1787 would have ended right there. Instead, Lincoln and the Union perservered and the Constitution endures.
Whether you agree with it or not, Ms. Rice clearly has a vision of what is at stake here, and I believe she is trying to illustrate the difference between cease fire and enduring peace.
2006-09-06 01:49:56 · answer #2 · answered by a_man_could_stand 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no logical message here. I think the Bush administration employs some very good psychologist. If you don't think too hard and just blindly process the information, your brain is suppose to associate support for the war in Iraq with the abolishment of slavery.
2006-09-06 01:14:08 · answer #3 · answered by Mack L 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Her logic is sound it is just the way she phrased it is a little off.
If the Union had chosen to pull out of the War against the Confederate States, the Union would have lost, America would be a lot smaller and maybe slavery would have gone on longer.
If we leave Iraq too soon, fundamentalist may regain power and start torturing their fellow citizens as it has been over the last 30 years in Iraq. We leave good people die, terrorist will be emboldened to attack. If we leave Iraq we are quitters and it is a show of weakness. If we leave Iraq we lose. It really would be like us ignoring Hitler, like we did in the second world war, it took the Japanese attacking us to get us in, not Hitler.
2006-09-06 01:18:33 · answer #4 · answered by spider 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't think that it is a particularly good analogy. But the administration's policy is certainly defensible. The last several wars in which the US has been involved all ended when the American populace got tired of them and basically bugged out. The enemy is fully aware of this, and is counting on it happening again. (They have said so, in so many words.) So, our policy must depend on the message that we want to send to the bad guys.
2006-09-06 11:26:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You absolutely correct alluding to Sec of State Rice as one of the brightest lights in the Bush harbor. That being said.........
Condi Rice's point was crystal clear: If the North had "cut and run", slavery would have continued.
Her analogy to the war on terror is dead on - she was in no way comparing the actual causes and events of these wars - only the enviable results of a commitment that isn't carried through to its conclusion.
2006-09-06 01:14:28 · answer #6 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Just more artificial,emotional B.S From this morally bankrupt white house..to further elicit their followers to this blind ambition in the Mideast.
2006-09-06 01:04:37 · answer #7 · answered by dstr 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
nothing they do makes sense. ignore them.
2006-09-06 01:07:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋