I once had a very wise history professor (who through some very interesting parents aquired the name James Fenimore Cooper) talked about the Civil War as the bulk of his American History course. Fair enough. Not only was it his particular field of interest, but it is probably the most defining point in American history. He made it very clear that the North did not have any love for black people. They simply disagreed with slavery, and that's ignoring all the economic reasons that people also used. And as you have said, Lincoln was controversial. Taking a stand on that particular issue would be.

And though I read the sarcasm when you said that it was cool because we won the war, I have to wonder, "We who?" The south still hasn't recovered. I wonder if people have thought about why there are so many trailer homes in the worst part of the country for them. It's because they are cheap and disposable. If you want to go any deeper than that, you will realize that there are a good many people who view the people who live in them as cheap and disposable too.

"So we have to ask ourselves the question. Do we truly oppose this war that We the People started? Or are we merely sick of it? And are looking for excuses to be sick of it?"

Those of us who spoke before the war and said that it was a bad idea oppose it. The ones who have turned since then are sick of it. Me? I am both. I cannot speak about Vietnam, because to show my age, we had left before I was born. But I didn't need to remember it to know this was going to go badly. When Afghanistan people attack and you use that as a segue to go to Iraq, there is a problem. When nobody is really asking any questions about it, there is a problem. And when someone does have the sheer gall to ask the President whether Iraq was behind the attacks, he is answered with, "Have you seen the new rosebushes outside. Purty, aren't they. Next question." THERE IS A PROBLEM!!! And like you've been saying all along, when you still have people like my mother-in-law that think there were weapons, despite her beloved President admitting there were not, there is a problem. Most of all, when you elect him to do the same crackerjack job he's been doing, there's a huge problem. Possibly a problem that cannot be repaired within our society.

Ya know, I love your blogs, but they make me realize more and more that I want a divorce- from my country. We'll cite irreconcilable differences. It's not that we don't love each other- we just can't get along together anymore. (I swear, this will become my signature line someday.)

But if you want to be like them, you'll have to emulate. -Ayria

Much briefer than I'd like though, I need to be elsewhere.

The south still hasn't recovered.

McPherson addresses this. Prior to the Civil War, most of our major politicians were from the South. After? Lyndon Johnson was our first President from a former Confederate State. (Woodrow Wilson grew up in the South but ran as a New Jersey resident.) Per capita incomes in the Confederate states before the war were close to what they were in the rest of the US. Even when slaves were taken into account as people, not as cattle. After the civil war, incomes in the South dropped to less than 2/5ths of the national average, and stayed there at least through the end of the 19th century. "We" of course means the North. Which has gotten to define what "USA" means as a result of the Civil War. Which has, as a matter of course, gotten to write most of the histories. Had the South won, we would all be praising George W. Bush as an intellectual giant and the soul of personal and corporate integrity, compared to the corrupt beast Lincoln who would rape babies if given the opportunity. You think I'm kidding?

I want a divorce- from my country.

Been there. I found it didn't work. Firstly, because everywhere else is at least as bad, most places are worse. Secondly, because there is no escape. When you leave a place because of problems, as often as not you discover that you've taken them with you whereever you go. Now I am back. And making noise. Not that a whole lot of people are hearing (you can see the hit counts too). But you never know ...

Run by Tony Blair. Who is also a member of Parliament. So much for separation of powers between legislative and executive branches. Especially since Parliament gives the PM the legislation that the PM wants. Every time. Or the Government falls. Which is why their sessions look and sound like schoolhouse brawls. Because the only power that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has is to embarass the Government to withdraw any really shockingly bad piece of legislation. Anything not withdrawn becomes law. Like sending troops to Iraq in support of the US, in the hopes that Britain might be able to restore some part of the Mandate it had over Iraq in the period between the World Wars. Oh ... you didn't know that Great Britain ruled Iraq in the 20th century ....?

Which is why I didn't try to downplay the worry about Parliament. But they look better in effigy than our US leaders.

Here's a great page discussing the British in Iraq. I think you will find the middle part, immediately before, and also containing "British install a ruler" very relevant. The British take over Iraq. The Iraqis are anti-imperialist and revolt. Winston Churchill himself says that the area “could be cheaply policed by aircraft armed with gas bombs, supported by as few as 4,000 British and 10,000 Indian troops.� Scary. And eventually, these words, which look like they could be written about the war today, are the reason we find ourselves in Iraq.

But if you want to be like them, you'll have to emulate. -Ayria

There was no WE.....there was Bush & Chaney who wanted to go to war......Most Americans I know already knew the Iraqi's weren't part of 9/11. THERE WERE NO IRAQI NAMES ON THE LIST.

Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose....is anyone actually looking for him? They found Sadam hiding in a hole underground.....

If majority rules then why did the senate vote down an increase in
the minimum wage? Every pole I have read clearly showed the majority of the people polled were in favor of increasing the minimum wage. (No, I wouldn't be affected if they had. I haven't worked for minimum wage in 40 years!

I'm getting the feeling that y'all aren't Bush supporters ;-)

OC, I'm not usually into political posts, but I thought yours was very well-written (as always) :)

I may not agree w/all your points, but it was an interesting read.

MySpace or Yours

As always, O Ceallaigh a well-researched and thoughtful piece. I'll whine anyway. There are two lines that drive me batsh*t. Supporters of Iraq complaining that the media only reports the bad news which is obviously both false and beside the point. The other is opponents of the war complaining of having their patriotism questioned. It's the other straw man. Both online and off I have friends on both sides of the issue who never or rarely disrespect each other. Sure Karl Rove has harsh words for you and me and John McCain and George Washington, but who cares what Karl Rove says. So, ARGH. And well done.