This cartoon makes a good point

[MaverickX]

[LittleApple81]

1. I don't see the connection to Iraq.

I don't think the civil war was about oil and vested interests, but I might be mistaken.

[MaverickX]

12. the Civil war was fought over the fact ...

The South was opposed to the high tariffs being put on goods designed to increase government revenue and protect Northern industries. If the South seceded the Federal govt would've lost a huge source of revenue.

[tom_paine]

22. Grossly oversimplified.

The Civil War was fought for a number of reasons, contrary to Bushevik/Confederate Broederbund Propaganda, foremost was the "States' Right" to lawfully condone chattel slavery.

Among things contributing to the "straw that broke the camel's back" the 1860 election was the vast Northern outpouring of support for John Brown from the 1859 raid on Harper's Ferry that enraged the South.

There's more, much more, but you get the idea

A gross and grotesque oversimplification you made there, MavX.

But very Fair and Balanced.

[benfranklin1776]

43. I love that sig line!!

n/t

[Kolesar]

2. "the stress is getting to you, sir", "go see a play"

[Emillereid]

3. The parallel with Iraq fails for me too

This cartoon seems to liken Bushit to Lincoln -- not in this or any other universe.

[meegbear]

4. me too ...

please advise.

[ixion]

5. yep, me as well...

I fail to see any connection.

[MaverickX]

9. there is a connection

Both were controversial wars arguably fought for economic reasons but sold on humanitarian reasons.

[sangh0]

21. The connection is

that Bush*, like those who claim the Civil War was motivated by economic considerations, are being untruthful about the causes of these wars.

[mmm]

6. there is no comparison

not in intent, and not in outcome.

[MaverickX]

8. first of all...

What was the intent of the Civil War? To free slaves? Yeah right. The intent was arguably economic and to help industry.

[tabasco]

31. You have a very poor understanding of history

If you think slavery was not a major issue leading to the war. If it makes you feel more intelligent to buy into the revisionism, have at it. But do some reading or talk to objective historians who studied the war.
The cartoon is propaganda. There is little or no parallel between Iraq and our Civil War.

[MaverickX]

33. uh the revisionism is that

Lincoln freed the slaves.

[MaverickX]

7. I think he means...

There is chaos in Iraq and doves call it a quagmire but they don't seem to feel the same way about the post-war South. I'm not saying Bush is like Lincoln, however the Civil War was arguably about the North's economic advantage and frankly it's bs that the Union went to war to "liberate" slaves much like going to war to "liberate" the Iraqis. Like Bush, Lincoln is overrated and was in the pocket of industry. How was the Civil War different from Iraq?

[MrBenchley]

11. How was the Civil War different from Iraq?

For one thing, Lincoln didn't lie about the South having slaves.

[MaverickX]

14. Saddam didn't oppress his people?

Lincoln did sort of lie about the necessity of invading the South and lied about Southerners firing the first shot.

[MrBenchley]

17. Who the hell are you trying to kid?

"lied about Southerners firing the first shot."
Peddle that neoConfederate crap to someone dumb enough to believe it.

"A Virginia secessionist, Edmund Ruffin, claimed to have fired the "first shot" of the battle and the Civil War.At about 7 a.m., some two and a half hours after the general bombardment of the fort had commenced, Anderson gave the order for Sumter's guns to begin their reply."

http://scnc.cps.k12.mi.us/fort.htm

"Edmund Ruffin - geologist, agricultural reformer
(and, he fired the first shot at Fort Sumter)
Edmund Ruffin was an agricultural reformer, proslavery ideologue, and Southern nationalist. "

http://www.beachonline.com/ruffin.htm

[MaverickX]

34. oh of course..

Anyone who rejects the total pc version of the Civil War is a neo-confederate. Try again buddy.

[CatWoman]

23. or weapons of mass reproduction

(as slaves were better known as)

[coda]

38. " How was the Civil War different from Iraq? "

You're talking about a mammoth undertaking on the order of "War and Peace". LOL

Wouldn't " Similarities of the Iraq War and Civil War? " be a better place to start?

Economics are involved in every war, but it's hardly pertinent to the point he's trying to make.

He attempts to create parallels between the Iraq and Civil War and builds the foundations for his point on fallacy(sand). Lincoln was certainly planning Reconstruction, but wasn't dealing with post-war problems in real time, as they occured.



Better yet, why not use the Mexican-American or Spanish-American Wars, as they make for a far better comparison than the Civil War?

[MrBenchley]

10. Gee, as I recall

the South actually DID have slavery....

[MaverickX]

13. umm..

There were Union states that had slaves too. Missouri was a slave state and didn't secede.

[MrBenchley]

18. So frigging what?

Missouri doesn't have WMDs.....and neither does Iraq, unless this unelected drunk plants them...

[Philosophy]

15. This is just apologetics

The cartoonist is trying to justify and equate the Iraq war with the obvious good that eventually came out of the Civil War. No deep historical references.

[MrBenchley]

20. Not to mention the fact

that Lincoln got shot just five days after Appomattox...it's unlikely anyone came running to him with a laundry list of post-war woes.

[damnraddem]

16. Yes, and the 'good' point it makes is:

it may be politically expedient to try to link a bankrupt policy to one that paid dividends. Or maybe that it's good politics to spin the issues and thereby confuse the voters.

[MrBenchley]

19. What's especially ironic

is that so many Republicans and a big chunk of the appointistration have now publicly aligned themselves with Jefferson Davis. That asswipe Gail Norton even has said "the wrong side won the Civil War."

[Proud_American]

24. MrBenchley, you're killing me!

"Appointistration." OMG that is too good! Is it yours? May I use it?

[MrBenchley]

25. Feel free

I love the nickname that the late Sally Baron hung on this unelected drunk: whistleass.

[Martin Eden]

26. the POINT is only as good as the analogy...

…and the analogy is anorexic (very thin).

The post-war problems are vastly different, and the Civil War was just that – an internal conflict. The combatants had a common history, language, and religion. Iraq was invaded by a foreign power, and the struggle has incited people in neighboring countries to join the resistance.

The Civil War was fought for many reasons. Regional economics & tariffs were part of it, but slavery was a major factor. The agitation of the abolitionists, the Dredd Scott decision, and John Brown’s raid were tearing the nation apart over the slavery issue. The biggest bone of contention was the admittance of new states – would they be slave or free? The Missouri Compromise was abandoned in favor of the Kansas/Nebraska Act (popular sovereignty) and Kansas erupted in bloodshed between factions for each side.

The South seceded to protect their “peculiar institution” and because the election of Lincoln tipped the scales of federal power unacceptably towards the North. The North fought primarily to preserve the Union – and after 1863 also to free the slaves. Many northerners did not fight for the slaves, but for many others it elevated the conflict to a noble cause.

This cartoon seeks to compare the freeing of the slaves with the liberation of Iraqis, and the forming of our “more perfect union” with the development of democracy in Iraq, contending the sacrifice is worth it.

The problem with this is that we did not invade Iraq to liberate them or to spread democracy – or even to eliminate WMD – we invaded to slake our thirst for oil, enrich corporate America, and to advance the agenda of deluded neocon ideologues who think they can remake the world with military might.

To compare their motivations with that of Lincoln is offensive – and ludicrous.

And, as opposed to those who gave “the last full measure” in the Civil War, our troops in Iraq WILL have died in vain, because the efforts of the neocons are doomed to failure

[Jack Rabbit]

30. Well stated, Mr. Eden

The analogy given in the cartoon is one of the most absurd explanations of the situtation in Iraq yet, which is saying a lot.

Maybe if the freed slaves had committed acts of resistence against the Union Army, it might make some sense. After all, it's the "liberated" Itaqis who are resisting their own presumed liberation.

Of course, that explains why the analogy fails.

[Martin Eden]

39. You've got thr crux of it

In Iraq those we liberated are resisting us, whereas in the post-Civil War South the resistance came from the oppressors of those who were liberated.

A technical flaw in the cartoon shows Lincoln being confronted with post-war problems -- yet he had been assassinated by that time.

[KG]

27. bush apologists and the apologists that apologize for them,

this cartoon goes beyond the ridiculous to the offensive.

[snippy]

28. The Civil War was fought for only one reason.

That reason was to reaffirm the fact that no state has the right to secede from the United States.

The reasons the confederate states attempted to secede may be argued endlessly, but many of those states made the reason explicitly clear in their declarations of secession or other bills passed by their respective legislatures. A comparison of the Constitution of the Confederate States to the Constitution of the United States also isolates the reasons for secession. The declarations or bills of secession and the two Constitutions can be found in any law library or through a Google search.

At the time of his first inaugural, Lincoln was willing for the Constitution to be amended to expressly allow slavery to continue and to prohibit the federal government from interfering with states rights to permit slavery. He was not willing to allow states to violate the Constitution by seceding unilaterally.

[CatWoman]

32. Lincoln was adamant

that he was all about saving the union, slavery or no.

I get so sick of the B.S. rhetoric -- the civil was was NOT about freeing slaves.

It was about saving the union.

[MaverickX]

35. I totally agree..

Lincoln didn't support integration and would've kept slavery legal to save the union.

[ddoumeche]

29. Where is Lincoln ?

This cartoon avoid the real problems, it's just GOP-style spin.

First, if the war is ended, what is the comparaison with an ongoing civil war ?
Secund, the most serious problem is the number of troops. As the USA now has a professional army and no more conscription, it lack troops to send abroad, especialy since 50,000 men is sitting for nothing in Asia (South-Korea's army is 5 time more powerfull than the north, japanese defense budget is equal to british one). So there is only 4 divisions left to replace the 12 currently in Iraq. Apart from restablishing conscription or reorganising the iraq army, there is no solution and in march (or before), the situation will become catastrophic.

We all know what Lincoln would have done. But Bush is not Lincoln.

[MaverickX]

36. Lincoln is overrated...

And frankly the Civil War wasn't that great. How many Americans lost their lives?

[Martin Eden]

37. The Civil War wasn't that great.

Gee, and I thought everyone enjoyed it tremendously!

The question is, did those hundreds of thousands die in vain?

Would you prefer a divided America, the perpetuation of slavery, more conflicts over the western territories -- perhaps an America fragmented between three or more nations -- much weaker separately than united?

Let's hear your argument that it would be better if the South was allowed to secede.

[MaverickX]

40. Let's hear your argument that it would be better if the South was allowed

Bush wouldn't be President.

[Martin Eden]

41. What argument would you have made 3 years ago?

Did the ascension of W and the neocons change your views on this subject?

Everyone on this board can find fault with the history that actually transpired in the U.S. It's a little more challenging to describe the path not taken.

[Skittles]

46. LINCOLN IS OVERRATED?

AMERICA WOULD BE DIVIDED IN HALF LIKE KOREA NOW WERE IT NOT FOR LINCOLN.

[Cocoa]

42. this cartoon has it all wrong!

the proper comparison is to the American Revolution. Rummy said it himself. The good Iraqis are the patriots, and the bad Iraqis are the British. And yes, he said it with a straight face.

[Uzybone]

44. its a bullshit cartoon

and compares to Bush and his illegal war in any sense. Its amazing to me that there are proconfederates who can call themselves liberals. And yes, anyone who believes that the South didnt start the war is either ignorant or a pro-confed. The reasons the war was fought were many, but it all came down to states rights..and the right the South was pissy about was the right to own human beings as some people own cattle, cats and chickens. Saying the war had nothing to do with slavery is nonsense.

[snippy]

45. All true.

[Skittles]

47. I AGREE

100%. AND THAT G.D. FLAG WILL FOREVER BE A F***ING DISGRACE.