execpt that our civil war was most solvable economic reasons where theirs is a my religion is right yours is not war which has already been going on in some form for 1400 years
I could dig up some quotes but I do recall Rumsfield saying we will be greeted as liberators, and that the war could take 6 day, 6 weeks, maybe 6 months
Could you possibly inject a little bit of grammar into that sentence. I read it 5 times and still cannot fully understand what you are attempting to say. Not meant as a poke at your obvious lack of attention to detail, I truly cannot understand what you are trying to say.
And we were greeted as liberators, not unlike Patton when he entered Sicily. The war began on on March 20th, 2003, Bagdad fell on April 9th, 2003. May 1st, 2003, major combat and the war ended. Saddam was captured December 13, 2003. Looks like a few weeks/months to me. The war has long since been over. Where have you been. I am talking about the rebuilding and the formation of a lasting new government. The war has been over for quite some time man.
my bad execpt that our civil war was over mostly solvable economic reasons where their civil war is a my religion is right yours is not war which has already been going on in some form for 1400 years
I thought we were talking about the Revoution.... I'm really into Civil War history, and it was a fairly complicated story. Reasons and factors that led to the war are as followed (but not in any sort of order): States Rights (one definitely being the spread of slavery to the west), especially harsh tarriffs on the south, cultural differences, stubborn leaders, false promises, and the geniune hatred of Lincoln. I could go into detail of how it would have not happened just if people cooled down.... We almost had a civil war in 1830 over tariffs and state's rights.... While our civil war was based on more rational reasons, I can barely compare the level of commitment to conflict then, to Iraqi's level of commitment to conflict now. These IED's are the main tool of the current conflict, and there's no wide spread hatred and violence in comparison to the civil war. Could it happen,...sure...but I have a feeling it won't or it would not be allowed.
Wiki seems to have a completely different take on the causes of the Civil War in America: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_civil_war Don't see any mention of "economic reasons" as a cause for civil war. Seems liberals (much like today) were not happy that a Republican was president, and beyond that, were a bit upset that Republicans opposed slavery. Obviously there are a whole host reasons, but those appear to be the two primary reasons. The similarities are almost uncanny...
The immediate causes of secession and war were the issue of slavery in the territories and the election of Abraham Lincoln, which signaled the end of Southern control over the federal government. If Lincoln was not an immediate threat to slavery, he threatened to put it "in the course of ultimate extinction."[1] And loss of the territories to free states meant the South would become increasingly marginalized. Reminds me of our current immigration policy...which the dems wholly depend on.
Yes and no. In his auguration speech he said he would support a constitutional amendment for slavery to continue to exist permanently in the southern states.... but he did not want slavery to expand westward. It's only at the end of the war that he tried to act like he was against slavery entirely...purely for political reasonss. It wasn't till the 14 amendment that slavery was truely abolished, although it's funny how that amendment was ratified....it was a mandatory part of the surrender, pere.
Mia the Karl Rove clone! Check it out, read my post again and try to grasp it. I said compare the dead now to how many were killed under Saddam... Ok that wasn't clear eh? Let me spell it out for you. Meaning it doesn't matter how they die, they wouldn't be dead had we not invaded... Hence it is perfectly logical to post those numbers vs Saddam's numbers. Still not clear enough? OK I'm thinking really hard and I know that last sentence may be too complex for you but I'm not qualified to teach below 2nd grade so I don't know what to tell you
No, just millions from economic sanctions...but bullets and blood are much worse than starvation, eh? But what are numbers!?
Please explain, I don't really know any liberal people who really give a care about immigration that much.
You're trying to tell me that you are in second grade and are posting from the library computer on your lunch hour?
I'm sure the common democrat/liberal is split in how they view immigration, because some of them are just normal people. The politicians realize the reality otherwise. In 1965, the democrats made a huge change in immigration legislation, which ensured the democrats survival as a party. I don't know if they understood what the future would bring, but they knew that chain immigration was an excellent way to get cheap votes. Chain immigration is family oriented. Say my father gets to America, and he wants to get my mother and I in, we have the possibility of getting in before anyone that might have more skill or something to offer. And since the majority of immigrants chosen aren't based on skill, but chain immigration...the vast majority of them are poor and unskilled. Literally half of all immigrants from 65 on, have been from central and southern america...again, virtually none of them skilled. The rough percentage of them that vote democrat is 80% ie why the democrats are so eager get these illegals a path to citizenship and create a huge increase in immigration levels. The modern dems are facing the very possible breakdown of their backbone ie the unions in America. Labor has being dying everso slowly, and mostly through machinery. So they figure in the long-term scheme of things, they just need to get a boatload of their constitutents. Luckily house Republicans say otherwise.. I'm not sure how old you are, but haven't you notice the movement left in both parties. The repubs now are the old dems, and the new dems are slipping into highly progressive views.