English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

6 answers

OK, Cool.
Well, in 1861, it required more time to get from Washington D.C to Richmond, Virginia than it does today to go from Washington D.C to Baghdad.
President Bush is very much like President Lincoln. In example, President Lincoln was considered too simple to be a President, President Lincoln was lampooned in the press a lot and often called an ape (they didn't know what a chimp was then), the Democrats were calling for a withdrawal of troops and Lincoln stayed the course, there were riots and demonstrations against the war, President Lincoln took some austere measures with civil liberties, President Lincoln brought a backwards and feudal region into liberal modernity.
In contrast, it took the US Military less time to subdue Iraq than it did the American South and the occupation was somewhat easier than with Iraq.
In 1877, the US Military withdrew from the South giving rise to the KKK and some chaos. It would just be conjecture but would a withdrawal of the US Military bring chaos and wide spread Retaliation to the citizens of Iraq and prolong the strife for another century?
How's that?

2007-09-27 07:16:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Union and Confederate forces were official national armies fully supported and financed by their respective governments. In Iraq the 'national' government is merely a puppet for an occupying force..funded and supported by the US. The opposition in Iraq is composed of as many as a dozen or more groups and sub-groups each with it's own agenda and to some extent financed and supported by outside interests....who have agendas and interests over and above that of the contending parties. In a sense the war in Iraq is a proxy war between the US and Iran/China/ and other countries that have financial/political interest in Iraq. The American Civil War had more to do regionalism/taffifs and the general weakness of the federal government at the time...the issue of slavery gave the war a 'moral' basis, but once again if you follow the money you'll see the answer to the question. The war in Iraq has far less to do with a 'dictator' or terrorism or WMD than it has to do with who ultimately will control the oil of the middle east....again, follow the money!

2007-09-26 18:07:34 · answer #2 · answered by Noah H 7 · 1 0

There is no comparison of the American civil war and the present conflict in the Middle Eastern region. The civil war in the US concerned mostly of the internal affair between States policy and position while the Middle East is all about religion and the different cultures that comprise the Middle East. The only similarity between the two is that all men like to kill each other in both American civil war and the war in the Middle East. If only men would be kind enough to share the world with each other then there wouldn't be any war at all isn't it? An example, one slice of pizza is left on the table and we are the only two person there. Instead of killing one another for the pizza why not divide it into two and both of us tasted the pizza.

2016-05-19 21:46:49 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

I know a great video that deals with information about facts on the Iraq war. its simple and straight forward.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Khut8xbXK8&mode=related&search=

2007-09-26 17:49:17 · answer #4 · answered by letfreedomring 6 · 0 1

NO COMPARISON
CIVIL WAR ABOUT THE SOUTH AND FREEDOM OF SLAVES OR ABOLITION OF SLAVERY?

THE IRAQ WAR IS ABOUT FREEDOMS WE HAVE AS AMERICANS AND WANT TO SHARE WITH OTHER NATIONS WHO DO NOT HAVE THOSE FREEDOMS

THE ONLY PLAUSIBLE ANALOGY BETWEEN THE TWO MIGHT BE THE ISSUE OF SLAVERY BY MUSLIMS TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AS A SLAVE TO THAT CULTURES MOIRES

2007-09-26 17:48:43 · answer #5 · answered by ahsoasho2u2 7 · 0 2

Do your own homework

2007-09-26 17:45:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

fedest.com, questions and answers