Iraq vs. Civil War of the United States of America

[Butters 0]

Has anyone studied the Civil War of the United States of America? I find it interesting how many people were killed (many more than in Iraq) after the North declared victory over the South and how long it took (and is taking) things to change. Why do we expect Iraq to change instantly?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[BillyVance 34]

You also might be interested to know that it took Germany's insurgents about 4 years to finally give up after the end of WWII.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[billvon 2,990]

>Has anyone studied the Civil War of the United States of America?

A great many people have. Up until recently, though, anyone who suggested that there was a civil war going on in Iraq was called a fool. Hopefully that sort of semantic nonsense is over.

>Why do we expect Iraq to change instantly?

Because our leaders told us that it would be over quickly. You might ask them why they said that.

[Butters 0]

Quote

>Has anyone studied the Civil War of the United States of America?

A great many people have. Up until recently, though, anyone who suggested that there was a civil war going on in Iraq was called a fool. Hopefully that sort of semantic nonsense is over.

Agreed. History has shown that civil wars often occur when a repressed minority is given equal rights. What made anyone think this situation would be different?

Quote

>Why do we expect Iraq to change instantly?

Because our leaders told us that it would be over quickly. You might ask them why they said that.

So, did the population that believed our leaders think that history would not repeat itself or didn't they know our history?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 2,990]

>So, did the population that believed our leaders think that history
>not repeat itself or didn't they know our history?

I don't know. I suspect they simply believed what they were told - that this was a simple war of liberation from a villian, we'd be greeted as liberators, the war would probably not last even six months, and (later) that the Iraq war had nothing in common with a civil war. Sometimes I think it's easy to confuse patriotism with blind obedience.

[spudboy 0]

I think the real problem is the fact that our leaders expected Iraq to just change instantly. The public most certainly has a right to be angry over the fact that an entire new war started while we were supposed to be in control of the situation, and we are most certainly entitled to positive results

[Butters 0]

Quote

I think the real problem is the fact that our leaders expected Iraq to just change instantly. The public most certainly has a right to be angry over the fact that an entire new war started while we were supposed to be in control of the situation, and we are most certainly entitled to positive results

I disagree. I think everyone who believed (leaders and followers) that Iraq would change instantly were part of the real problem. What new war are you referring to? It does not appear to be any more out of control than our civil war. What positive results are we entitled to?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 2,990]

>What new war are you referring to?

The sectarian violence between Iraqi religious factions. We are no longer fighting the Republican Guard; now we are fighting sectarian fighters and (in some cases) rouge Iraqi government police and military forces.

>It does not appear to be any more out of control than our civil war.

Well, the violence is steadily increasing instead of decreasing, and the only plan that seems to be acceptable to our administration is "more of the same." That, to me, indicates we no longer have control of the situation. If we were making progress towards a peaceful Iraq it would be easier to say that things were under control.

[spudboy 0]

as far as I know, Iraq was not engaged in a civil war before we got there, so you would need to refer to it as a new war. The possitive result that most people are looking for is an economic and military independence from the USA, that just doesnt appear to happening anytime soon.

[willard 0]

Quote

>What new war are you referring to?

The sectarian violence between Iraqi religious factions. We are no longer fighting the Republican Guard; now we are fighting sectarian fighters and (in some cases) rouge Iraqi government police and military forces.

>It does not appear to be any more out of control than our civil war.

Well, the violence is steadily increasing instead of decreasing, and the only plan that seems to be acceptable to our administration is "more of the same." That, to me, indicates we no longer have control of the situation. If we were making progress towards a peaceful Iraq it would be easier to say that things were under control.

If I may, Bill, I would respectfully add that a contributing factor in Iraq is the multitudes of foreigners who have traveled to Iraq for the sole purpose of killing Americans soldiers. Addded to the poor planning and it is easy to see why things have turned out the way they did.
The American Civil War (I assume you are referring to the second one, during Lincoln's administration) was far from over when Lee surrendered his forces to Grant. It was months before the rest of the Confederate forces were disbanded, and fighting between the southerners and the northerners sent south went on for decades. As I heard on the History Channel the other night, "The Union won the War of the States, but the South won the war of reconstruction." I fear that we have only seen the beginning of the fighting in Iraq.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

as far as I know, Iraq was not engaged in a civil war before we got there, so you would need to refer to it as a new war.

Not an overt war, but there were factions trying to spur a serious civil war for quite a long time. Hence the assassination attempt on Saddam (atleast the one that we know about) in which he responded with mass murder to quelch the uprising.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[shropshire 0]

<>

Hey News Flash.... If the Foriegn Military forces weren't there, then the insurgents would likely not be able to have a pop at them - now would they?

Chicken or Egg?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[willard 0]

Quote

<>

Hey News Flash.... If the Foriegn Military forces weren't there, then the insurgents would likely not be able to have a pop at them - now would they?

Chicken or Egg?

Exactly my point. Our presence there invites violence.

[Butters 0]

Quote

>What new war are you referring to?

The sectarian violence between Iraqi religious factions. We are no longer fighting the Republican Guard; now we are fighting sectarian fighters and (in some cases) rouge Iraqi government police and military forces.

Would you agree that the "new" war is a byproduct of the "previous" war? If so, should we not have been able to predict the "new" war?

Quote

>It does not appear to be any more out of control than our civil war.

Well, the violence is steadily increasing instead of decreasing, and the only plan that seems to be acceptable to our administration is "more of the same." That, to me, indicates we no longer have control of the situation. If we were making progress towards a peaceful Iraq it would be easier to say that things were under control.

The current strategies do not appear to be dealing with the escalating violence, insurgents, or political/religous differences of the population. (The current administration has also been unable to deal with a rise in violent crime, increase in illegal immigrants, and growing seperation amongst the population due to political/religous issues at home.) However, I think the situation is still in enough control that a change in leadership and or strategies could turn things around in short time frame.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[shropshire 0]

Sorry - I seem to be arguing over the same point - my mistake.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

<>

Hey News Flash.... If the Foriegn Military forces weren't there, then the insurgents would likely not be able to have a pop at them - now would they?

Chicken or Egg?

Exactly my point. Our presence there invites violence.

Yes, and the presence of provocatively dressed women invites rape.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 2,990]

>Would you agree that the "new" war is a byproduct of the "previous" war?

Yes.

>If so, should we not have been able to predict the "new" war?

Several people did predict just that. They were labeled with various colorful names. "Defeatocrat" and "terrorist sympathizers" are two I recall. As I recall, the mainstream media largely ignored such predictions in favor of reporting on the official dialogue.

>I agree that the current strategies do not appear to be working and need to be changed.

Yes. To accomplish that, we must first admit that things are not going so well. I am glad to see that the administration has taken the first steps towards that - Bush recently admitted that we're not winning ibn Iraq. I hope this trend continues, and our administration is able to see the need for a change in direction.

[spudboy 0]

I agree with you completely, it also highlights a major difference between the two wars, because during our civil war there was no foriegn nation caught up between us.

[billvon 2,990]

>I would respectfully add that a contributing factor in Iraq is
>the multitudes of foreigners who have traveled to Iraq for the sole
>purpose of killing Americans soldiers.

I agree, although I believe it is a small effect. Most insurgents are Iraqis.

>I fear that we have only seen the beginning of the fighting in Iraq.

I agree there too. I think the fact that there will be a lot more killing in Iraq is now pretty clear. Our remaining decision concerns how much american killing there will be.

[Butters 0]

Quote

>I fear that we have only seen the beginning of the fighting in Iraq.

I agree there too. I think the fact that there will be a lot more killing in Iraq is now pretty clear. Our remaining decision concerns how much american killing there will be.

So do you believe that we should back away (saving American lives) and allow them to have their own civil war?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

<>

Hey News Flash.... If the Foriegn Military forces weren't there, then the insurgents would likely not be able to have a pop at them - now would they?

Chicken or Egg?

Exactly my point. Our presence there invites violence.

Yes, and the presence of provocatively dressed women invites rape.

No, it's more like swimming with sharks. Do it long enough and things will get real ugly real quick.

[GQ_jumper 4]

I agree there too. I think the fact that there will be a lot more killing in Iraq is now pretty clear. Our remaining decision concerns how much american killing there will be.

Quote

I can't remember exactly what the numbers were, but to the best of my knowledge a fairly good number of the insurgents were foreign that we dealt with the second time I was there, obviously it depends on what part of the country you are in, I'll dig around at work tomorrow and see if I can find any hard numbers I can post here, or maybe I'm just making thing up, who knows with m

as for the civil war, this thing was waiting to happen whether we were here or not, at some point there would have been someone in power who didn't maintain control of the Shia and it would have broken out. What I'm really curious about is how much US forces are taking part in dealing with the civil war as opposed to just fighting insurgents, I should be getting my legal briefs this month, as of yet I haven't heard anything on this.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[shropshire 0]

Well, my take... a Knee jerk reaction (apparently without adequate planning of the complete project life-cycle!!) helped to cause the problem in the first place... so compounding the problem with another knee jerk reaction would not be a cool idea.



P.S - In our house, if you cause a mess, you clean it up!!

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

<>

Hey News Flash.... If the Foriegn Military forces weren't there, then the insurgents would likely not be able to have a pop at them - now would they?

Chicken or Egg?

Exactly my point. Our presence there invites violence.

Yes, and the presence of provocatively dressed women invites rape.

Lousy analogy

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Well, my take... a Knee jerk reaction (apparently without adequate planning of the complete project life-cycle!!) helped to cause the problem in the first place... so compounding the problem with another knee jerk reaction would not be a cool idea.

A new strategy for the sake of a new strategy (knee jerk reaction) would not be a cool idea especially given our current strategy (knee jerk reaction). Time for a brain jerk reaction ... our leaders have those right (at least the old leaders did)?

Quote

P.S - In our house, if you cause a mess, you clean it up!!

That is why I don't think we should leave.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch