What Would've Happened If We Pulled-Out Of The Civil War Just Because The Death Toll Was High ?

Question

By the way , in the battle of Antietam , we lost 26,000. . . .. 26,000 IN ONE DAY !!

Now that so many of you have committed, and publicly posted your 'answer' , I tell ya why I really asked this . I asked because I knew most liberals would not answer the question !!!
All that needs to be done to confound most liberals, is to say the word 'war' . And maybe 'death toll' and 'pull-out' .

Answer 1

What a GREAT question......and I am from Virginny!!!!!

Volleyball......excuuuuuuuuuse me......the North DID invade the south....ever hear of the March To Georgia, the TOTAL destruction of Richmond etc.
Listen folks....war is awful....EVERYONE knows that. What some people do not grasp is that sometimes it is necessary. There are those who do not agree........most of these folks live in Hollywood.

Answer 2

A "civil war", by definition is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Our current role in Iraq does not fit into the Civil War category because we are not "within" the culture, we are outside and have no place interfering.

Our civil war was fought between the North and South with little outside interference. We should afford the same consideration to others.

Internal struggles are best dealt with internally.

We dealt with ours. They need to deal with theirs...

It is not a matter of "death tolls". It is about justification.

To answer the question before the rant, America would now be divided into separate nations, just as many feel Iraq should be.

I wrote on this North/South divide a year ago. Read it at my link

Answer 3

If this is an Bush / Iraq war support post, it is apples and oranges..
You are comparing something that happened 150 years ago to today..
Our intuition has improved dramatically with the passing of time.. and we know enough now to know when we are being misled.
There is nothing left to gain.. and no way out.. but somehow there are still people standing on the soapbox screaming about some kind of objective to be accomplished to prolong the agony. Set a deadline and walk away. Presidential ego or pride is not a valid justification..
republican democrat independent liberal right wing left wing ..who cares.. I am not a sheep blindly following any herd..
I am a realist that knows this whole war is driven purely by ignorance and propaganda... the iraqi people dont even want us there anymore, so what good can we possibly do?

Answer 4

You're talking about the American Civil War? How could either side pull out? Both sides were here. If either side had surrendered earlier the war would obviously have been shorter and we'd either still have slavery or not. I think there's a little difference between a war fought on American soil to decide which American institutions are and are not valid and the current situation in Iraq. I assume that's the comparison you're trying to make. The invasion of Iraq was based on a long list of what were, at best extrapolations of bad intelligence and, at worst lies. Need we go over the list? Let's: 1. Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, al-qaida, or Osama bin Laden. 2. Saddam had no W.M.D.s, no aluminum tubes meant for centrifuges, no mobile, biological weapons units, no uranium or other means of making nuclear weapons. 3. He was not an imminant threat to the U.S. when the U.S. invaded Iraq. I don't think all U.S. troops should pull out of Iraq today or tomorrow. I do think we need to find out why our troops were sent there and how we can start cleaning up this mess.

Answer 5

I have visited that battleground often, and have taken walks in the gulches where many lied dead. At times, when you are alone, you can hear the winds whistle through the trees, and you wonder if those are the voices of the dead who are trying to tell their tales....Our Civil War is irrelevant to someone else's because no foreign forces were involved in our's. The Brits and French would have allied with the Confederacy if they had won a major battle, but it didn't happen.

Answer 6

Rifles are an excellent reason additionally precise artillery fireplace. besides the reality that some instruments used muskets maximum in the two armies used rifles, that have been precise to thousands of yards. The strategies employed have been in step with those utilized by utilising Napolean that have been progressed for infantry armed with gentle bore muskets. that have been basically smart at below a hundred yards. The rifles have been super high quality and fired heavy delicate lead bullets which traveled slow while in comparison with todays standards. those bullets tend to flatten out while they hit some thing stable like bone. in case you have been hit in a considerable bone it would shatter, by way of state of scientific technologies the only possibility of saving your life would be amputation. Even then by way of circumstances it replaced into probable you will die of an infection. well-known examples of the place the strategies have been incorrect for the weapons. Are the conflict of Fredricksburg, and Gettisburg the place troops made frontal assaults against defenders firing from arranged positions, and have been mowed down by utilising the thousands. There are examples of this by way of the war, which include the conflict of Nashville, and provides you campaigns in Vicksburg and the east. At Vicksburg furnish released attack after attack up terrain so steep adult men had to circulate slowly on their palms and knees. Attacking defenders firing from trenches. The bottomline is that with the recent weapons frontal assaults against troops in arranged positions merely approximately continually failed. the ditch warefare of WWI replaced into basically a continuation of what had occured for the time of the civil war on a smaller scale.

Answer 7

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at so let me ask you a question in attempt to get down to the point. Let's say that you are a commander of a large and powerful army and as the leader you assume absolute control over all descisions-unquestionable, above reproach. Now as we all know leaders of great armys never go into a battle that they know that they can't win right? One of the easiest ways to assure the greatest success in any war is to familiarise yourself with your adversary. One of the best ways to do this is to send out spies to gather "intelligence." Now in the Civil War era this meant literally infiltrating the adversary with imposters or simply watching the movements of their armies from a distance with a telescope. Today we have all kinds of devices like satelites, drone planes, and yes actual spies. The weakest link in the chain ,we like to call "intelligince", is the credibility of the information they bring back. At some point you hope that you have gathered enough intel to properly assess the operation so that you can feel assured that proceeding into war is the best option, if not you don't go. You negociate another method for success in achieving your objectives. However if your objective from the onset is to engage with force then there is little use in using any intel to the contrary to your motive. The true question my little armchair warior is what do we go to war for? "One" life extinguished needlessly is too many.

Answer 8

its funny that some people actually believe war should be easy, lol.
You mean people die in war, OMG we cant' do that. So what if its saving millions of lives, what about that 3000 have have died. We couldn't possibly be as responsible for saving the millions as we are for the 3000.
Today's math lesson:
1,000,000civilians> 3400
3600 WTC>3400 soldiers
26,000civil war one day>3400 Iraqi war 5yrs
seems we are still ahead!

Answer 9

The civil war had a purpose.

Iraq's civil war has no bearing on our country, nor has ever had a bearing on our country.

This war has no purpose other than to kill people needlessly.

Terrorism hasn't been defeated. Their country is still in shambles. They are still fighting their own civil war.

Again, nothing has changed in 4 years. At what point will people realize it isn't going to work? They don't even have an actual plan as to what's going on over there.

Answer 10

There were clear goals and conditions for winning the war., and the people fighting used all the weapons available to them. Different situation.

For Iraq, what the heck are our goals for winning? We're not using our air superiority either. Every time I hear the phrase "he was killed by a sniper in a high rise apartment building in Baghdad" I have to wonder why the heck there are high rise apartment buildings still remaining in Baghdad.

Answer 11

I guess it would it suck more than it does now, but not much. Our civil war was inevitable, as is Iraq's. You're correct in bringing up the number of participants killed. We killed each other indiscriminately in our civil war. If we are not willing to do the same in Iraq, how can we win?