Cynical Nation

Lincoln was a true Republican. The Civil War had no more to do with slavery than Iraq has to do with terrorism or WMD's.

The Civil War was to transfer the riches of the powerful white men in the South into the hands of the powerful white men in the North. Exactly the same in Iraq. From Saddman to Halliburton.

The North didn't give a damn about slaves any more than Bush cares about Iraqi freedom.

Why do I find this endless naivate at a site called Cynical Nation?

Actually, NEITHER war was based on any lies.

The Lincoln administration never sold the Civil War on anti-slavery grounds, that was done by Yankee do-gooders (obviously folks who didn't know much about history) starting around the turn of the previous Century (1900).

The Civil War was RIGHTLY fought to preserve the Union and protect America's vital industrial base, which was the foundation of its economy and one which would soon make giant strides with Henry Ford's mass production of the automobile.

Ironically enough, Ford's boost to the American economy, not only allowed America's economy to outstrip the rest of the West throughout the early 20th Century, but CREATED virtually ALL the wealth (via oil demand) of today's ungrateful Arab states.

In 1861, the preservation of the Union was more imporant than anything else...it was nothing less than a matter of our national economic survival.

Likewise, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with WMDs though Saddam's Iraq has now been shown to have had stockpiles of WMDs (“In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide...”

“...Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

NBC News
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 2, 2004
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601)

and ties to international terrorists, including al Qaeda (From ABCNEWS.com: "A U.S.-led assault on a compound controlled by an extremist Islamic group turned up a list of names of suspected militants living in the United States and what may be the strongest evidence yet linking the group to al-Qaida, coalition commanders said Monday.

The cache of documents at the Ansar al-Islam compound, including computer discs and foreign passports belonging to Arab fighters from around the Middle East, could bolster the Bush administration's claims that the two groups are connected, although there was no indication any of the evidence tied Ansar to Saddam Hussein as Washington has maintained.

There were indications, however, that the group has been getting help from inside neighboring Iran.

Kurdish and Turkish intelligence officials, some speaking on condition of anonymity, said many of Ansar's 700 members have slipped out of Iraq and into Iran putting them out of reach of coalition forces.") AND ("ABC reporter involved with the bin Laden interview said.
And the ABC narrator added:

Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists, Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abas – the most notorious terrorists of their era all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad.

Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Three weeks after (Clinton's bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory) on August 31st, bin Laden reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan. Iraq's Vice President arrives in Khartoum to show his support for the Sudanese after the U.S. attack.

ABC News has learned that during these meetings senior Sudanese officials acting on behalf of bin Laden asked if Saddam Hussein would grant him asylum. Iraq was indeed interested. ABC News has learned that in December an Iraqi intelligence chief ... (who in 1999 was Iraq's ambassador to Turkey) made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden." During the meeting, ABC says their sources reported that "bin Laden was told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

ABC News was not alone in revealing this trip. In 1999, the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat (Iraq's intelligence service), had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al-Qaida men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported."http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40820 ), BUT neither of these was the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq.

Iraq was invaded because it refused to comply with UN Resolution 1441, a Resolution that England and America decided, unilaterally to be a "last chance Resolution."

Like the Civil War, America's invasion of Iraq was and remains vital to our economic interests and YES, our economic interests are worth fighting and killing for.

At least you see the Republicans as the Part of Universal liberty. That's a start.

The Democrats were on the wrong side of history in 1861 and they were on the wrong side of history again in 2003.

booya!

Um, actually everyone over age 10 who was educated outside the public school system knows that the party of Lincoln is today's Democratic Party. I know it's confusing, so I won't try and explain it to you Neocons.

Just listen to Rush and everything will be OK!

The Republicans have remained the GOP since before Lincoln, BH.

The Dems however are descended from the Federalists who'd become the Democratic Party by the time Andrew Jackson ran for President a second time. He was opposed by the National Republicans which included anti-Federalists and State's Rights supporters like Henry Clay. ("Jackson also took a free hand in changing the membership of his cabinet in a way that no other President had done. He had his first cabinet resign en masse, which to many at the time looked like the "fall of the government", but he treated it as something a President had the right to do.

"All of this lead the opposition, to speak of King Andrew I, and to picture Jackson that way in political cartoons.

"Henry Clay and others had called themselves National Republicans - based on their vision of the United States as nation while others saw it as a confederation of states - taking strong national measures like building inter-state roads. When a number of southern Democrats like John C. Calhoun, threw their lot in with the National Republicans, they were united only by their opposition to the growing "kinglike" strength of the president. Thus they came to be called Whigs, implying that the Jacksonians were Tories, in favor of "King" Andrew.")

Nope, Lincoln was no "modern day Liberal, and certainly no "modern day Democrat." Now Andrew Jackson, with his expansion of the federal powers, the infamous "Indian Removal Act" and his assault on the National Bank was a definite fore-runner to today's Democrats, who've descended directly from the Jacksonian Democrats of that day.

Every war is fought over money. Power = money. It's all the same. The Civil War was just another transfer of wealth. Lincoln didn't give a shit about the slaves. He specifically stated that he did not believe that blacks were in any way equal to whites. It was all a ruse to get at that undefended Southern money. Once the slaves were turned against them, the South did not have the manpower or resources to win.

Iraq sits on huge riches. They can't defend them. We take them.

It's all very simple.

Every war is fought over money. Power = money. It's all the same. The Civil War was just another transfer of wealth. Lincoln didn't give a shit about the slaves...(BH)

Yes, that's exactly what I said in my first post and that is ABSOLUTELY AS IT SHOULD BE. The Civil War was about MORE than slavery...it was about America's economic and national survival, something far more important to Americans.

As I said, "The Lincoln administration never sold the Civil War on anti-slavery grounds....The Civil War was RIGHTLY fought to preserve the Union and protect America's vital industrial base, which was the foundation of its economy and one which would soon make giant strides with Henry Ford's mass production of the automobile.

"Likewise, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with WMDs though Saddam's Iraq has now been shown to have had stockpiles of WMDs (see articles referred to in 1st post)...and ties to international terrorists, including al Qaeda (ibid)...Like the Civil War, America's invasion of Iraq was and remains vital to our economic interests and YES, our economic interests are worth fighting and killing for."

And I'll add the obligatory rejoinder; "The Democrats were on the wrong side of history in 1861 and they were on the wrong side of history again in 2003."

Money, not the union.

"Money, not the union." (BH)

You're dead wrong on that score!

The Civil War was fought to PRESEVE the UNION.

The manufacturing interests of the north had to bring the more agrarian South into line or risk losing this country and its burgeoning economy to some Colonial power, most likely England, who'd have been able to re-conquer a divided country.

Our independence was worth the 4 MILLION lives spent in that sruggle and our ECONOMY was worth it.

Today our economy depends upon access to cheap, available oil and yes, oil and control of that Mid-East supply is worth fighting, killing and dying for.

The economy trumps ALL.