If American's demanded the Republican President end the war after 3000 deaths...?

L96vette

According to battle estimates, the Union lost 360,000 soldeirs in the Civil War, or about 1800 per week on average. Therefore, 3000 casualties would have been reached in about 12 days.

In the Battle of Drewry's Bluff, May 12-16, 1864, the Union lost 4,160 soldiers. At the Battle of Petersburg, June 15-30, 1864, Union deaths were 16,569.

A very good question with excellent reasoning. Though every human life lost is tragic, what is even more tragic is not responding to the terrorists that want to kill us. Those who naively think that Saddam was not involved by funneling money to Al Queida, and developing chemical and biological weapons (which we have found and the Liberal media now ignores), are sadly mistaken.

King Midas

it wouldn't have happened.

Are_You_Stupid?

3 days.

More people died PREPARING for D-Day (not including the actual casualties of D-Day) than have died in Iraq.

wldathrt77

I don't know if the analogy fits...

I mean the war in Iraq is for resources and trying to force democracy and change on a people that are obviously opposed to it (well some of them anyway)

Wait.. I guess it does fit. The Confederate states should have been left alone to govern themselves and the whole situation should have been resolved with diplomacy. Equality for all men is just an idea that not everyone should have been forced to uphold. Only those that voluntarily agreed should have been held to that standard.

slicktop80

Funny how this question is either well thought out and appropriate, or poorly thought out and inappropriate, depending on which way your political gate swings. Hmmmmm.......

Huevos Rancheros

Good question.

Colorado

You may want to look at it as how long would it take FDR to surrender after Pearl Harbor or Iwo Jima, both one day. Another way would be to ask how long to surrender our doctors when AIDS or Heart Disease exceeds 3000, oops they both did. What about car accidents or repeat rapists, ditto.

Isn't the libs fascination with numbers interesting, but only when it suits their purposes. They don't like numbers on IQ, test score, abortions or even terrorists killed. Just a bunch of fun people I guess.

Gary F

People were demanding it, right up until the end.

However, there is a slight difference. Lincoln was trying to save America. Bush illegally and immorally invaded a pathetically weak country that Clinton and the UN had already taken care of.

The 3000 deaths in Iraq are for no reason. Bush sacrificed them on the altar of Osama Bin-Laden. He will kill as many Americans as he feels like because, after all, they are mostly from lower economic families and the Cons view them as nothing but dumb animals whose lives mean nothing.

Jeff F

Homerun.

Prof-Moench

just remember that the Republicans wanted to RETREAT from nazi germany in world war two.

I knew Abraham Lincoln...... Abraham Lincoln was a friend of mine....... George Bush......... Your no Abraham Lincoln......
Using the metaphor properly President Lincoln would have had to attack Canada.

elisiolloyd

Was Iraq threatening to secede from the Union?

Damn them! Then Bush was right to keep our great trans atlantic U.S. nation intact.

----someone needs a critical thinking course.

Gizmo

Ahh, good one!

dwh320

I like the way you posed that question. You leave liberals with egg on their faces. You are making them attack both President Lincoln and President Bush. Sweet.

in_moes_honest_opinion

Lincoln did make a mistake. Those southern states have been dragging us down ever since! The nothern states would have done well to team up with canada. ;-)

kujigafy

a couple i guess? though i dont think the analogy fits - war of secession v. war of... of...? wait, i know this one....

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: