The US treated Iraq better than they treated the Confederacy

[Schadenfroh]

The US may have done some terrible things to the Iraqi people, but it pales in comparison to what the US did to its brothers and sisters in the south during the Civil War. The US has not waged a total war against the Iraqi people.

For example, the war criminal William Tecumseh Sherman waged an open war against civilians by burning entire cities to the ground, destroying food stocks and causing intentional hunger across the civilian population in his attempt to aid in the reelection of President Lincoln.

After starving Vicksburg into surrendering, Sherman marched to Jackson, Mississippi and burned the place to the ground.

Leaving Jackson, he marched east, destroying everything in his path until he reached Meridian. He then burned it to the ground:

In February 1864, Sherman's army reached Meridian, where they destroyed the railroads and burned much of the area to the ground. After completing this task, Sherman is reputed to have said, "Meridian no longer exists."

Atlanta was also destroyed by him: linked

Northern troops under Sherman captured Atlanta after a forty-day siege of the city. Sherman burned much of the city on November 15 before leaving to begin his march to the sea.

The most famous crime against the south is Sherman's March to the Sea, linked

William T. Sherman left Tennessee with 100,000 troops. He marched to Atlanta, Georgia. He ten marched from Atlanta to the Atlantic Ocean. During this 300 mile march Sherman's soldiers burned and destroyed everything in a width of 60 miles.

At Savannah, Georgia, Sherman gave a city to Lincoln as a "christmas gift"
link

Sherman marched with 62,000 men to the port of Savannah, living off the land and causing, by his own estimate, more than $100 million in property damage.At the end of this campaign, known as Sherman's March to the Sea, his troops captured Savannah on December 22. Sherman then telegraphed Lincoln, offering him the city as a Christmas present.

Off to Columbia, Linky

Columbia, South Carolina, captured on February 17, 1865, was dealt with particularly harshly by Sherman's men. Two-thirds of the city was burned down

As far as PoWs were concerned, neither side treated the other very nicely.... linky


The US military occupied the south until the last troop withdraw around 1877. The occupation lasted about 12 years, I highly doubt the US military will occupy Iraq for that long.

 

[Termagant]

Just because something bad happened in the past does not excuse bad actions occuring in the present. Standards of warfare have changed for the better; there is much more emphasis on protecting civilians and property now. Of course some of this forum always bemoan that the US "can't" slaughter women and children like terrorists do.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
The US may have done some terrible things to the Iraqi people, but it pales in comparison to what the US did to its brothers and sisters in the south during the Civil War. The US has not waged a total war against the Iraqi people.

Whats your point? Just because we treated others worse during a different war doesn't mean that all of the sudden we can just brush off all of our crimes now. Thats like me saying that Sherman's actions weren't as terrible as they sound because the people who he was punishing had tortured millions of slaves. One atrocity is no excuse for another.

EDIT: Btw, why can't some southerners just get over the Civil War already? Its not like it was 150 years ago or anything.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

We should exhume Sherman and Grant and then charge them with crimes against humanity at the ICC. Oops, I forgot . . . we didn't sign that treaty.

 

[ITJunkie]

What the bloody hell is the point of this thread?!?!?

 

[Craig234]

In other news, at least the second worst serial killer in history isn't as bad as the worst!

Out of Hitler, Mao and Stalin, at least two didn't do as much bad as the worst of the three!

The OP is an apologist.

 

[HombrePequeno]

I hate to tell you this but the Civil War was 140 years ago. I'm not sure if you know that or not. Things may have changed a little since then.

Comparing now to then is fvcking retarded. You could also point out that we treat our PoWs better than Hitler, Stalin, etc. Likening the situation to 140 years ago is about as relevant to likening the current situation to conditions under those regimes. All of those comparisons make no sense at all because the current world has a lot more rights (at least the US does) than 140 years or even 60 years ago.

 

[aka1nas]

By what standard would call General Sherman a war criminal? The first Geneva Convention wasn't established until 1864, and I am pretty sure that the US didn't sign it right away.

 

[sandorski]

Collateral damage!

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Andersonville was a real picnic, I'm sure.

Are you seriously comparing Iraq to the Confederacy? It's even more absurd than comparing Iraq to WWII!

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Andersonville was a real picnic, I'm sure.

Are you seriously comparing Iraq to the Confederacy? It's even more absurd than comparing Iraq to WWII!

QFT....lets distract the public from the horrible mess in Iraq with day dreams of how it was in WW2 and the Civil War.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
QFT....lets distract the public from the horrible mess in Iraq with day dreams of how it was in WW2 and the Civil War.

Well, liberals love to compare the current conflict to previous ones.

Although I'd say going back to the Civil War is stretching it.

 

[brownzilla786]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
We should exhume Sherman and Grant and then charge them with crimes against humanity at the ICC. Oops, I forgot . . . we didn't sign that treaty.

😀

This thread was really fun reading
😀 😀

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie
What the bloody hell is the point of this thread?!?!?

It is a parody thread. Although, I may have disguised it a little too well.

 

[GalvanizedYankee]

U.S. Grant starved Vicksburg into surrender. He was the first to pay slaves for thier labor.
After the surrender, Grant forgave the Confederate General a personal loan that was owed him.
Vicksburg was the greater victory of the day, defeat at Gettysburg was the day before.

W.T. was a hard ass, that's for sure. He was the #2 after dinner speaker of the Guilded Age,
only to be out done by Samuel Clemens.

Get over it Reb. 🙂

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Drift3r
QFT....lets distract the public from the horrible mess in Iraq with day dreams of how it was in WW2 and the Civil War.

Well, liberals love to compare the current conflict to previous ones.

Although I'd say going back to the Civil War is stretching it.

Yeah, I'm not sure you righties are in a position to talk. If I hear one more comparison with WWII, I just may have to find that button that allows me to hit someone in the face through the Internet. You didn't know such technology existed, did you? 😛

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: ITJunkie
What the bloody hell is the point of this thread?!?!?

It is a parody thread. Although, I may have disguised it a little too well.

Indeed...although I suspect it has more to do with the current discussion climate we have regarding Iraq, it actually makes the fact that you're making this comparison seem reasonable. While I suspected it was a parody, it wouldn't have surprised me in the least if it wasn't. That's how silly this whole discussion has become.

 

[LunarRay]

No.. Actually it shows you what acceptable behavior is during a Civil War... just like in Iraq... so Back Up.. let em off each other and burn the place to the ground.. just like what the US set the example for ...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Drift3r
QFT....lets distract the public from the horrible mess in Iraq with day dreams of how it was in WW2 and the Civil War.

Well, liberals love to compare the current conflict to previous ones.

Although I'd say going back to the Civil War is stretching it.

Yeah, I'm not sure you righties are in a position to talk. If I hear one more comparison with WWII, I just may have to find that button that allows me to hit someone in the face through the Internet. You didn't know such technology existed, did you? 😛

Al Gore invented it.🙂

 

[JEDIYoda]

Thx for making my day!!
I always love to come to P&N and laugh at particularly goofy topics!! lol

 

[kingtas]

The scorched earth policy during the civil war was a means to an end. So was the carpet bombings of WWII. So did the use of the atomics bombs against Japan during WWII.

However tragic the human suffering and loss of life may be, it aided in destroying the war fighting capability and moral of the enemy and saved lives.

 

[dexvx]

Did you know that when the Romans won wars, they forced the conquered people into slavery?

 

[LunarRay]

So... lets see if I understand Kingtas' posting...

A civil war is an internal event that a 'sovereign' nation under goes when there are such differences that the only way to settle them is for one side to destroy the other until a winner emerges (Sherman's march to the sea etc..) because to not destroy the south in our Civil War case would have meant prolonged fighting and destruction and folks would have died any how.. or something... and carpet bombing and nuclear bombs may be OK in this day and age... and Especially in Iraq's Civil War because the technology exists to better destroy and demoralize the 'other side'...

OK.. well... in Iraq.. who's side we on? They are sovereign so we have to take sides or get out and let them decide a winner... yup... I like that EXIT STRATEGY.... We can't decide who is right so let the Will of Allah prevail... I love it...

 

[kingtas]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
So... lets see if I understand Kingtas' posting...

A civil war is an internal event that a 'sovereign' nation under goes when there are such differences that the only way to settle them is for one side to destroy the other until a winner emerges (Sherman's march to the sea etc..) because to not destroy the south in our Civil War case would have meant prolonged fighting and destruction and folks would have died any how.. or something... and carpet bombing and nuclear bombs may be OK in this day and age... and Especially in Iraq's Civil War because the technology exists to better destroy and demoralize the 'other side'...

OK.. well... in Iraq.. who's side we on? They are sovereign so we have to take sides or get out and let them decide a winner... yup... I like that EXIT STRATEGY.... We can't decide who is right so let the Will of Allah prevail... I love it...

Whatever. War is not sterile. People suffer and die. It's easy to criticize in hindsight.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe we should have followed the the example of Isrealites killing all the Amelakites. They were such a filthy people that the Lord commanded Isreal to kill all of the people, kill all their animal, destroy all their idols, and destroy all their buildings by fire.

In my mind if you are going to wage war, the enemy is the enemy and they all deserve to die. If they truly wanted to be free they would take up arms and kill all the terrorists. Apparently they dont really want to be free. I think a new message is blowing in the wind and we will get out of Iraq one way or another. This stupid way of making war where you try to be nice to all the civilians does not work. We should have destroyed Baghdad till there was not one brick upon another, and completely wiped out the Sunni Triangle leaving no one alive. Now the Sunni's are trying to stir up a civil war. Normally the US would stay out of a civil war. I say if they want a civil war lets just pull out. Destroy all the Oil facilities till there is nothing left but sand and leave.

Sounds a bit harsh, but if they want to live in the stone age, let them live in the stone age.

We could just leave. They will probably just kill each other. Let them kill each other instead of us.