Is it a civil war yet?

[ChumpDumper]

Attack on Baghdad Shiite slum kills 160

By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 42 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - In the deadliest attack on a sectarian enclave since the beginning of the
Iraq war, suspected Sunni-Arab militants used five car bombs and two mortar rounds on the capital's Shiite Sadr City slum to kill at least 160 people and wound 257 on Thursday, police said.

The Shiites responded almost immediately, firing 10 mortar rounds at the Abu Hanifa Sunni mosque in Azamiya, killing one person and wounding 14 people in an attack on the holiest Sunni shrine in Baghdad. It blew a three-foot hole in the dome and did severe damage to some inside rooms.

Eight mortar rounds fired in Baghdad also slammed into the Association of Muslim Scholars, the top Sunni organization in the country, causing no injuries, police.

Beginning at 3:10 p.m., the three suicide car bomb attackers in Sadr City blew up their vehicles one after another, at 15 minute intervals, hitting Jamila market, al-Hay market and al-Shahidein Square. At about the same time, two mortar rounds struck al-Shahidein Square and Mudhaffar Square, said police Col. Hassan Challoub.

Two other parked car bombs exploded around the same time, one at the edge of Sadr City and another behind the main office of radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, Challoub said. A sixth car bomb was detected and detonated out of harm's way by Iraqi police, he said.

As the fiery explosions sent up huge plumes of black smoke up over northeastern Baghdad, and left streets covered with burning bodies and blood, angry residents and armed Shiite militiamen flooded the streets, hurling curses at Sunni Muslims and firing weapons into the air.

Sadr City is the home of the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to al-Sadr.

Ambulances raced to burning wooden fruit and vegetables stalls in Jamila market to rescue dozens of wounded people. Rescue workers also removed burned bodies from mangled cars and minibuses and took them away on wheeled carts. But many other corpses of adults and children remained in the streets.

Shortly after the attack, Mahdi Army militiamen deployed around the area, setting up checkpoints and roadblocks in the area to keep all strangers away.

Challoub said the coordinated attack killed 160 Iraqis and wounded 257.

The government imposed a curfew on Baghdad beginning at 8 p.m. Thursday, saying that all people and vehicles must stay off the streets of the city until further notice. The government also closed Baghdad International Airport to all commercial flights, said Brig. Abdul-Karin Khalaf, the spokesman for the Interior Ministry.

In addition, top government officials held an emergency meeting at the home of Shiite leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim that also was attended by Kurdish President Jalal Talabani, Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi and U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, an aide to al-Hakim said.

Afterward, the three Iraqi officials appeared on national television, with al-Hashimi reading a statement from them calling for calm and self-restraint and urging politicians to work hard to reduce sectarian tensions. "We call for a revision of the government's existing security plans for Baghdad to better protect innocent civilians," he said.

The coordinated attack was the deadliest in Iraq since the U.S.-led war began in March 2003.

It surpassed a bombing in the southern city of Hillah that targeted mostly Shiite police and National Guard recruits, killing 125 and wounding more than 140 in February 2004. On March 2, 2004, coordinated blasts from suicide bombers, mortars and planted explosives struck Shiite Muslim shrines in Karbala and Baghdad, killing a total of at least 181 Iraqis and wounding 573. But that attack occurred in two separate cities.

Police Col. Hassan Chaloub said at least 150 people were killed and 238 wounded in Thursday's attack.

Sectarian fighting also broke in another part of northern Iraq on Thursday, when 30 Sunni insurgents armed with machine guns and mortars attacked the Shiite-controlled Health Ministry building. After a three-hour battle, during which Iraqi soldiers and U.S. military helicopters intervened, the attackers were repulsed. But at least seven guards of the ministry were wounded, said police 1st. Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razaq.

The Sadr City and Health Ministry attacks were the latest example of widespread sectarian fighting involving Sunnis and Shiites that is leaving Iraq either on the verge of a civil war or already fighting one.

At about noon Thursday, heavy clashes broke out between about suspected Sunni insurgent gunmen and guards at the Shiite-controlled Health Ministry building in northwest Baghdad, security officials said.

State-run Iraqiyah television said the Health Ministry was being attacked with mortars by "terrorists who are intending to take control of the building."

Security officials said about 30 gunmen, believed to be Sunni insurgents, had launched the attack. Iraqi troops were being rushed to the area and all roads leading to the ministry in Bab al-Muadham neighborhood were closed, said the security officials on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters.

Police Lt. Ali Muhsin said the attack began at 12:15 p.m. when three mortar shells hit the building, causing damage. After that, gunmen on the upper floors of surrounding buildings opened fire.

Ministry workers were trapped in the building.

"The gunmen fled as American helicopters and Iraqi armored vehicles arrived. Employees were able to leave starting about 3:15 p.m.," Health ministry spokesman Qassim Yehyah said.

Health Minister Ali al-Shemari is a follower of al-Sadr, the radical anti-American Shiite cleric.

Earlier Thursday, U.S. and Iraqi forces searching for a kidnapped American soldier also had swept through an area of Sadr City, killing four Iraqis, wounding eight and detaining five, police said.

The raid was the fourth in six days that coalition forces have raided Sadr City, which is home to the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to al-Sadr.

The militia is suspected of having kidnapped U.S. soldier Ahmed Qusai al-Taayie, a 41-year-old Ann Arbor, Michigan, resident as he was was visiting his Iraqi wife in Baghdad on Oct. 23.

The Mahdi Army also is suspected of having kidnapped scores of people during the raid on a Ministry of Higher Education office in Baghdad on Nov. 14. The ministry is predominantly Sunni Arab.

In the raid on Sadr City at about 4:30 a.m., coalition forces searched houses and opened fire on a minivan carrying Iraqi workers in the al-Fallah Street area, killing four of them and wounding eight, said police Capt. Mohammed Ismail. Iraqis often pay a small fee to crowd such vehicles and travel early in the morning to sites where they hope to get work as day laborers.

Ismail said the coalition raid also detained five Iraqis.

In a statement, the U.S. military confirmed the raid and said it was conducted in the continuing effort to find al-Taayiean. It confirm the detention of five Iraqis and that a vehicle was shot at by Iraqi forces after "displaying hostile intent." But the coalition did not report Iraqi casualties.

In another development, the U.S. military on Thursday reported the deaths of three Marines who were killed while fighting in Anbar province, where many Sunni-Arab insurgents are based.

So far this month, 52 American service members have been killed or died.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_061123185117

If it's not a civil war, what exactly would it take to call it one?

[Bob Lanier]

WTF are you talking about? The Civil War killed over 558,000 of our troops - the Iraq
liberation has yet to cost us 3,000. I know every one of those heroes' lives is a tragedy,
but have some goddamn perspective. Every one of those deaths was knowingly and
honorably given in defense of the Homeland and in the hope that the trillions and trillions
of Iraqi sperm are not mindlessly butchered by an evil tyrant but live out their potential
lives in the peace and freedoms spoiled lieberals like you take for granted - buying
American cars, watching American television, and selling Americans oil on the free market.

You have to break a bunch of eggs to properly glaze a donut, and to say otherwise is
delusional and racist. The best way to honor and give thanks to our troops is to honor and
support their mission - not to exaggerate their suffering in an attempt to force them
to suffer the shame of a retreat. This is no more a "civil war" than the quarantine areas
at Guandanmo bay are Buchenwald and Auschwitz - oh wait, the Dimmocraps are
claiming that too! :madrun I guess when there's a fascist under every bed and a
"big government" agent over every shoulder and not one of them working on behalf of
We The People then everything's blown out of proportion :lol But while you're cheering
for the deaths of "those babykillers" in uniform who are better men than you'll ever
be, I can promise you that they'll be coming back, and this time you'll be the only one spitting
on them because they'll have freed every Arab from the Mediterranean to the Chinese
border without racking up even a tenth of the casualties they suffered in the Civil War.

So cheer on your traitor scum, but I think most of THIS 600,000 will outlive you and
piss on YOUR grave. :clap

I really have to stop drinking so much. That wasn't even funny the second time around.

[bendmz]

WTF are you talking about? The Civil War killed over 558,000 of our troops - the Iraq
liberation has yet to cost us 3,000. I know every one of those heroes' lives is a tragedy,
but have some goddamn perspective. Every one of those deaths was knowingly and
honorably given in defense of the Homeland and in the hope that the trillions and trillions
of Iraqi sperm are not mindlessly butchered by an evil tyrant but live out their potential
lives in the peace and freedoms spoiled lieberals like you take for granted - buying
American cars, watching American television, and selling Americans oil on the free market.

You have to break a bunch of eggs to properly glaze a donut, and to say otherwise is
delusional and racist. The best way to honor and give thanks to our troops is to honor and
support their mission - not to exaggerate their suffering in an attempt to force them
to suffer the shame of a retreat. This is no more a "civil war" than the quarantine areas
at Guandanmo bay are Buchenwald and Auschwitz - oh wait, the Dimmocraps are
claiming that too! :madrun I guess when there's a fascist under every bed and a
"big government" agent over every shoulder and not one of them working on behalf of
We The People then everything's blown out of proportion :lol But while you're cheering
for the deaths of "those babykillers" in uniform who are better men than you'll ever
be, I can promise you that they'll be coming back, and this time you'll be the only one spitting
on them because they'll have freed every Arab from the Mediterranean to the Chinese
border without racking up even a tenth of the casualties they suffered in the Civil War.

So cheer on your traitor scum, but I think most of THIS 600,000 will outlive you and
piss on YOUR grave. :clap

I really have to stop drinking so much. That wasn't even funny the second time around.


:tu :clap :clap :clap

[spurster]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; A12

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

...

[Burly_Man]

WTF are you talking about? The Civil War killed over 558,000 of our troops - the Iraq
liberation has yet to cost us 3,000. I know every one of those heroes' lives is a tragedy,
but have some goddamn perspective. Every one of those deaths was knowingly and
honorably given in defense of the Homeland and in the hope that the trillions and trillions
of Iraqi sperm are not mindlessly butchered by an evil tyrant but live out their potential
lives in the peace and freedoms spoiled lieberals like you take for granted - buying
American cars, watching American television, and selling Americans oil on the free market.

You have to break a bunch of eggs to properly glaze a donut, and to say otherwise is
delusional and racist. The best way to honor and give thanks to our troops is to honor and
support their mission - not to exaggerate their suffering in an attempt to force them
to suffer the shame of a retreat. This is no more a "civil war" than the quarantine areas
at Guandanmo bay are Buchenwald and Auschwitz - oh wait, the Dimmocraps are
claiming that too! :madrun I guess when there's a fascist under every bed and a
"big government" agent over every shoulder and not one of them working on behalf of
We The People then everything's blown out of proportion :lol But while you're cheering
for the deaths of "those babykillers" in uniform who are better men than you'll ever
be, I can promise you that they'll be coming back, and this time you'll be the only one spitting
on them because they'll have freed every Arab from the Mediterranean to the Chinese
border without racking up even a tenth of the casualties they suffered in the Civil War.

So cheer on your traitor scum, but I think most of THIS 600,000 will outlive you and
piss on YOUR grave. :clap

I really have to stop drinking so much. That wasn't even funny the second time around.

How many Iraqis have died since the start of this Desert Adventure?

[whottt]

It's more like a religious gangwar...

And so what if it is a Civil War?

Their perogative.

Remember, Islam is a relgion of peace.

[whottt]

Bump...

[ChumpDumper]

And so what if it is a Civil War?

Their perogative.Our soldiers.

I shouldn't expect you to care about them.

[whottt]

Our soldiers.

I shouldn't expect you to care about them.


True...that draft was an evil thing.

[ChumpDumper]

So you have no trouble seeing our soldiers die unnecessarily as long as they are volunteers. You truly have no shame.

Pathetic.

[whottt]

So you molest children...

Sickening.

[ChumpDumper]

Change the subject much?

Sorry I upset you so much by pointing out how little you value American lives.

[whottt]

Sorry I upset you by pointing out how you violate children.


Demonization...love it.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, they were your words. You didn't deny them.

[whottt]

I get tired of your elementary attempts to put me on the defensive....it's a poor substitute for a coherent argument...it's trite, lame, and it's never worked on me....still you try.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, but you still didn't deny those words. It just fits your general disdain for life, so we can just leave it at that.

[whottt]

You haven't denied being a pedophile either....way to kick your own ass.

[ChumpDumper]

There was nothing I wrote that suggested it, and it was obviously a lame attempt by you to change the subject. Since you just made it up out of nothing, there was no need to respond.

[whottt]

And just when you thought he had kicked his own ass as badly as humanly possible.....



Sincerely, 90% of the arguments you have ever had with anyone on this board, you bitch.

[whottt]

bump

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I was hoping you'd actually respond to that to reassure me that you put some value on our soldiers' lives, but I understand it's more important to you to make up lies about me. I'm not what you claimed; seems it would be simple for you to refute my claim as well.

[whottt]

Took you long enough....


I notice you still haven't denied it...therefore it must be true[/chumpology101]

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not what you claimedRIF, dipshit.

[whottt]

That could mean any number of things since I have claimed you are many things...both in all seriousness and in jest...

A little more specificity here would be appropro....


Ped.

[whottt]

Bump....


Run out of energy?


Exactly why you don't need to be giving advice on wars.


I'll give you some time to recupperate...lightweight.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, you're too stupid to figure it out.

I'm serious about that.

[ChumpDumper]

By the way, you never answered the question:

If it's not a civil war, what exactly would it take to call it one?

[whottt]

Nah, you're too stupid to figure it out.

I'm serious about that.


I have no doubt that you think your own denseness is somehow the limited intellectual capacity of others...it's not true, but I definitely have no doubt that you believe that.

[xrayzebra]

By the way, you never answered the question:

If it's not a civil war, what exactly would it take to call it one?

How about a religious war? Much of Iraq is at peace. It is the Mullahs that
are fighting to impose their will on others.

And as usual, which has always been the case, the government is still
trying to do the usual crap they always did and not disarm the religious
militias they have built and try to find a way to pacify the Mullahs, much
like Saudis and others have done.

[whottt]

By the way, you never answered the question:

If it's not a civil war, what exactly would it take to call it one?


I don't see what the big deal is if it is civil war...

You can call it whatever you want.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, then. It's not a big deal. I wonder why the administration wants to avoid the term.

[whottt]

The administration is too worried about you guys bitching....

You wanted to undermine and make sure the rest of the world knew there was a split...you suceeded...congrats. It's not quite on the level of what the French did but it's pretty good...bonus points because it's your own country.

The only thing I am pissed at the current administration about is backpedaling trying to get you guys to shut up...they got elected, the mandate was given, and instead they let your whining get to them That angers me.

[whottt]

a person on ignore says whatttttttttttttt:

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (2 members and 0 guests)
whottt, boutons_

[boutons_]

The WH is immune to anti-war dissent or to the Constitution, but it's reflexive that right wing nut-cases like Whott and Clandy and AHF try to blame the Repug fuckups on war dissenters. The voters run and own the country, not the politicians.

The WH isn't backpedalling, dickhead said their Iraq policy is "full steam ahead" (or is Whott saying that was dickhead lying, again?)

They've been at best treading water, and finally were submerged by the 2006 elections and the crushing weight of the WH's own history of lying and incompetence.

The WH rats are cornered. The vast majority of the US has turned against dubya, dickhead, the war. Even dubya-sucker Blair is saying Iraq is a mess.

But Whott the Fuck blames war dissent exclusively for the WH's problems.

Stick this up your ass, Whott and friends:

the French were right in dissenting against the phony war before the Repugs invaded. The Repugs were absolutely wrong in going into Iraq.

[Zunni]

And as usual, which has always been the case, the government is still
trying to do the usual crap they always did and not disarm the religious
militias they have built and try to find a way to pacify the Mullahs, much
like Saudis and others have done.

Saddam actually had that well in hand, and he used the EXACT methodology that the Saudis do: extreme repression and violence. Works for the Syrians, too.

[smeagol]

WTF are you talking about? The Civil War killed over 558,000 of our troops - the Iraq liberation has yet to cost us 3,000.

The only lives that count are the American lives :rolleyes

[whottt]

The only lives that count are the American lives :rolleyes


If we don't worry about American lives no one else will.


WE've given enough of our blood for others...but when we needed help everyone told us to go fuckourselves...

America needs to worry less about others and more about itself...until the rest of the world gets it.

Everyone else wants to see us taken down anyway...

[clambake]

Damn, can't even admit to the reality.

Go ahead. Keep booking your flight on the Hindenburg.

[smeagol]

If we don't worry about American lives no one else will.

That's not the point of the poster's comment.

America invaded Iraq (I say wrongfully, you say wrightfully), 500,000 Iraqi lives were wasted (but only 3,000 Americans) and this idiot says it's not enough to call it a civil war. :depressed

[xrayzebra]

That's not the point of the poster's comment.

America invaded Iraq (I say wrongfully, you say wrightfully), 500,000 Iraqi lives were wasted (but only 3,000 Americans) and this idiot says it's not enough to call it a civil war. :depressed

Call it what it is: The dimm-o-crap war. The
terrorist watch the news just like you and they
know who is now suppose to be controlling our
government. And those that are, want to "cut
and run" and declare some kind of victory. So
they are just ramping up the violence and let
the media and dimm-o-craps do their thing.

[ChumpDumper]

The dimm-o-crap war.:lmao :lmao :lmao

OMG that was hilarious!

[xrayzebra]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

What is so funny about that. They have taken it
upon themselves to solve the problem.

And their solution: Cut and Run. And now they
reap the wind. The lives lost now are on their
shoulders. The terrorist will make the lives of
those in all the ME countries unbearable because
the dimm-o-craps say: Cut and Run.

OMG that was hilarious!

[xrayzebra]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

OMG that was hilarious!

What is so funny about that?

The dimm-o-craps has taken it upon themselves
to solve the ME problem, their solution:
Cut and Run. The deaths since they have taken
the reins of command in Washington are on their
hands. Not Bush!!

That has been all they have talked about.
And the Terrorist Listen........

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao again.

They haven't taken command yet.

Or said what they plan to do.

[PixelPusher]

:lmao again.

They haven't taken command yet.

Or said what they plan to do.

I wish I could remember what show I was watching (it was MSNBC) where one of the segway sluglines was "Is the honeymoon over for the Democratic Congress"...this was about a week ago.

[smeagol]

What is so funny about that?

The dimm-o-craps has taken it upon themselves
to solve the ME problem, their solution:
Cut and Run. The deaths since they have taken
the reins of command in Washington are on their
hands. Not Bush!!

That has been all they have talked about.
And the Terrorist Listen........

You are truly clueless . . . or stupid, I'm still pondering which one it is.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

If we don't worry about American lives no one else will.


WE've given enough of our blood for others...but when we needed help everyone told us to go fuckourselves...

America needs to worry less about others and more about itself...until the rest of the world gets it.

Everyone else wants to see us taken down anyway...
:lmao that's rich! when has the US gone into a war simply to help others? the US has ALWAYS looked out for itself first. Don't get me wrong, so have every other nation in the world. There is nothing wrong with that, but don't come here trying to pass the US as some altruistic nation of good doers. That is bullshit and you know it.

[Bob Lanier]

http://www.virtualp.us/gotwood2.jpg
I figured up the other day, if we added up the killed and wounded in Dimm-o-crap wars in this century, it'd be about one point six million Americans - enough to fill the city of Detroit.

[Bob Lanier]

It turns out the naive, pie-in-the-sky love-is-all-you-need dimm-o-craps were double-crossed by their islam-o-fascist allies! :lmao

At least somebody has the sense to crack down on terrorists before it's too late.


BAGHDAD, Iraq - Followers of the militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr took over state-run television Saturday to denounce the Iraqi government, label Sunnis "terrorists" and issue what appeared to many viewers as a call to arms.

The two-hour broadcast from a community gathering in the heart of the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City included three members of al-Sadr's parliamentary bloc, who took questions from outraged residents demanding revenge for a series of car bombings that killed some 200 people Thursday.

With Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki relegated to the sidelines, brazen Sunni-Shiite attacks continue unchecked despite a 24-hour curfew over Baghdad. Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia now controls wide swaths of the capital, his politicians are the backbone of the Cabinet, and his followers deeply entrenched in the Iraqi security forces. Sectarian violence has spun so rapidly out of control since the Sadr City blasts, however, that it's not clear whether even al-Sadr has the authority - or the will - to stop the cycle of bloodshed.

"This is live and, God willing, everyone will hear me: We are not interested in sidewalks, water services or anything else. We want safety," an unidentified Sadr City resident said as the televised crowd cheered. "We want the officials. They say there is no sectarian war. No, it is sectarian war, and that's the truth."

[whottt]

:lmao that's rich! when has the US gone into a war simply to help others?

Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, Somalia, Kosovo...and so on and so forth.




the US has ALWAYS looked out for itself first.

As it should....they've also been more benevolent in victory and in a position of power than any other empire in World History. Ask the Germans, French and Japanese(well, better to read a book on it than ask the French).


Don't even get me started on how much aid is given out publicly and privately....as opposed to other countries, who take it, then default, no need to mention any names ;)



Don't get me wrong, so have every other nation in the world. There is nothing wrong with that, but don't come here trying to pass the US as some altruistic nation of good doers. That is bullshit and you know it.


Comparitively to other World Empires historically, the USA is the good Samaritan. We're also a death dealer of the highest order..it's possible to be both.

[smeagol]

Don't even get me started on how much aid is given out publicly and privately....as opposed to other countries, who take it, then default, no need to mention any names ;)

:lol :lol :lol

We did not default on aid! (thet is fucking hilarious!).

We defaulted on debt which before defaulting (10 previous years) had a juice interest rate for investors.

Don't get me wrong, defaulting by my government on it obligations was a disgrace, right up there with many othe acts of disgrace you have never heard about but are too embaracing to be described.

With respect to aid, yes the US is the one who gives them most but I have seen many studies that show that other countries give more propotionally to what they make.


Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, Somalia, Kosovo...and so on and so forth.

Korea and Vietnam? Funny!

The persian gulf war? The whole World community went into that one.

Somalia? That wasn't even a war.

Oh, and you forgot Panama and Grenada :lol

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, Somalia, Kosovo...and so on and so forth.:lmao Korea?? Vietnam?? yes, the US went to war in Vietnam to help the Vietnamese... right? pfff...


As it should....they've also been more benevolent in victory and in a position of power than any other empire in World History. Ask the Germans, French and Japanese(well, better to read a book on it than ask the French). Please! how were you benevolent on Germany? because you didn't bankrupt the country immediately in order to actually get something out of it in the long run? You think the US hasn't benefitted from Germany bouncing back from utter devastation? That's not being benevolent, thats being smart. Same situation with the Japanese. Germany and Japan were in ruins after World War II, it was not in the US best interest to collect its war debts (like the russians and the english wanted to do) while the countries were in shambles.


Don't even get me started on how much aid is given out publicly and privately....as opposed to other countries, who take it, then default, no need to mention any names ;)
aid?? yeah, like the "aid" you gave Argentina didn't come with huge fucking interest rate. Don't get me wrong, what Argentina did was fucked up, no doubt, but what the US did wasn't being a good samaritan, it was more like being a loan shark.


Comparitively to other World Empires historically, the USA is the good Samaritan. We're also a death dealer of the highest order..it's possible to be both.This I agree with, comparatively, yes. Wait a sec... I thought the US wasn't an empire? Are we calling the US an empire now?

[boutons_]

"The common scholarly definition has two main criteria.

The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy.

The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.

American professors who specialize in the study of civil wars say that most of their number are in agreement that Iraq’s conflict is a civil war.

“I think that at this time, and for some time now, the level of violence in Iraq meets the definition of civil war that any reasonable person would have,” said James Fearon, a political scientist at Stanford.

While the term is broad enough to include many kinds of conflicts, one of the sides in a civil war is almost always a sovereign government. So some scholars now say civil war began when the Americans transferred sovereignty to an appointed Iraqi government in June 2004. That officially transformed the anti-American war into one of insurgent groups seeking to regain power for disenfranchised Sunni Arabs against an Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and increasingly dominated by Shiites."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/world/middleeast/26war.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

==========

It's civil war, even if the dubya suckers are too girly-man to admit it.

No matter what it's called, dubya/dickhead have lost Iraq and created a huge terrorist training ground of a theocracy, later if not sooner.

The US military is specatating the civil war, powerless to influence it.

Baker, enthroned in the Repug pantheon of Repug political hacks, will most certainly recommend disengagement aka cut-and-run (since escalation is impossible due to exhausted US military).

The Repugs, as always, will take NO responsibility for losing Iraq (and very probably Afghanistan) and blame the media and the Dems as being so powerful as to force the Repugs into lying and incompentence.

[turambar85]

Call it what it is: The dimm-o-crap war. The
terrorist watch the news just like you and they
know who is now suppose to be controlling our
government. And those that are, want to "cut
and run" and declare some kind of victory. So
they are just ramping up the violence and let
the media and dimm-o-craps do their thing.

Wait a second...so the last few days of devastating attacks, killings, and burnings have only taken place because they knew the democrats won the election? Do you seriously believe that that is what went across their minds as they burnt worshippers alive, or mortared slums?

You are seriously reaching X-ray. Stick with the facts, making off-the-wall assumptions isn't your bag!

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Call it what it is: The dimm-o-crap war. The
terrorist watch the news just like you and they
know who is now suppose to be controlling our
government. And those that are, want to "cut
and run" and declare some kind of victory. So
they are just ramping up the violence and let
the media and dimm-o-craps do their thing.


Oh my god dude you seriously are the most unintentionally funny poster on this political forum. Its almost scary how sure you are of yourself.

[xrayzebra]

Wait a second...so the last few days of devastating attacks, killings, and burnings have only taken place because they knew the democrats won the election? Do you seriously believe that that is what went across their minds as they burnt worshippers alive, or mortared slums?

You are seriously reaching X-ray. Stick with the facts, making off-the-wall assumptions isn't your bag!

Those are the facts, my young friend. Sadly. The know very well what
the dimm-o-craps want. To "cut and run". Pacifist have caused more
deaths in war than anyone. Because it gives the bad people the idea they
can do what they want with no consequences. Watch and learn, watch
and learn. You are getting a real lesson about the real world.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao
The know very well what
the dimm-o-craps want. To "cut and run".They know the Republicans want to withdraw to victory, too. What's the difference?
Pacifist have caused more
deaths in war than anyone.:lmao again. Here I was thinking it was centuries of ethnic and religious strife that we unleashed by taking out Saddam without a clue what to do after.

[xrayzebra]

Oh my god dude you seriously are the most unintentionally funny poster on this political forum. Its almost scary how sure you are of yourself.


Yes, I am sure of myself. Why? Because I have history on my side. And
those who choose to ignore history only end up repeating it. And you are
seeing history repeated. We are seriously losing a war we had won,
the pacifist, liberals and dimm-o-craps have managed to pull defeat
from the jaws of victory as they did in Viet Nam. Now shortly, unless,
we change course, you are going to see a real blood bath that will
make today seem like a Sunday school picnic. Remember what happen
to the citizens of Viet Nam after we pulled out. Millions lost their life
and millions more went into "retraining" camps.

[xrayzebra]

Here I was thinking it was centuries of ethnic and religious strife that we unleashed by taking out Saddam without a clue what to do after.

That's what you get for thinking. You know how it always messes you up.

[ChumpDumper]

Now shortly, unless,
we change course, you are going to see a real blood bath that will
make today seem like a Sunday school picnic.What does changing course mean? be specific.
Remember what happen
to the citizens of Viet Nam after we pulled out. Millions lost their life
and millions more went into "retraining" camps.And now Bush wants to have a trade agreement with those same communists. What changed his mind?

[ChumpDumper]

That's what you get for thinking. You know how it always messes you up.So there is no religious or ethnic strife in Iraq? Just American pacifists killing everybody?

[Bob Lanier]

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/5725/clippinghc6.jpg

[turambar85]

Those are the facts, my young friend. Sadly. The know very well what
the dimm-o-craps want. To "cut and run". Pacifist have caused more
deaths in war than anyone. Because it gives the bad people the idea they
can do what they want with no consequences. Watch and learn, watch
and learn. You are getting a real lesson about the real world.


Wait...so let me work through this, Ray, so that I can see the wisdom behind your words...

The terrorists are bright enough to know that a democratic win = the ability to run amuk and do as they please, yet are not intelligent enough to know when the democrats are truly in power, and that the President is still republican, and a very strong president, at least in terms of comparitive power with past presidents.

Also, the terrorists made the 9-11 attacks with the conservative hounds in office, and continued to bomb and kill for 5 years since, killing thousands upon thousands in the process. This was all done with these brilliant murderers knowing that your conservative hawks were in office.

Now, the democrats win, and the killing get a little bit more gruesome than before, but is killing nonetheless, and you attribute this to them knowing that the democrats will go easy on them...even considering the fact that many democrats, including Lieberman, have no "cut-and-run" plans, and so any votes in that regard are likely still falling in your favor.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps the killings increased due to Saddams verdict, and the time leading up to his death? The verdict and to democratic win occured at roughly the same time?

Get the facts straight. Historically, at least, the facts are generally the truth, and the truth is generally the right path. At least I have that on my side.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I haven't bothered to read all three pages, but it looks like this whole original story was nothing but propaganda from the insurgency. Hey, if it worked in Vietnam, can't blame them for trying the same thing in Iraq...

http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/11/25/getting-the-news-from-the-enemies-mouth/

[ChumpDumper]

So everything is fine over there. Bush avoided going to Baghdad just for kicks.

[boutons_]

MSM is to blame for all the worsening, increasinlgy horrible news coming from Iraq, where things are actually going really well, but the WH's "bully pulpit" and the military, always can be counted on to cover their career-protecting asses, just can't get the message out.

The Repugs wanted to invade Iraq no matter what, which included silence and complicty from the MSM about the bullshit justifications for invading Iraq. The Repugs should consider the MSM their best and silent ally in starting this phony war.

The Repugs have lost Iraq exclusively by themselves, the MSM is not losing Iraq, but the rabble right is pinning the loss of Iraq on everybody BUT the Repugs. Rabble right are lying motherfuckers, too girly-man to admit the obvious that they and their adored Repugs have created and still support the most disastrous strategic error and US Adminisration in US history.

[xrayzebra]

Get the facts straight. Historically, at least, the facts are generally the truth, and the truth is generally the right path. At least I have that on my side.

Yes. would you please do that. I am not going to go thru the whole
process for you. You will have to do the work yourself. I have stated
the facts which you will not accept. So sit back and see if I was
correct or not.

[xrayzebra]

MSM is to blame for all the worsening, increasinlgy horrible news coming from Iraq, where things are actually going really well, but the WH's "bully pulpit" and the military, always can be counted on to cover their career-protecting asses, just can't get the message out.

The Repugs wanted to invade Iraq no matter what, which included silence and complicty from the MSM about the bullshit justifications for invading Iraq. The Repugs should consider the MSM their best and silent ally in starting this phony war.

The Repugs have lost Iraq exclusively by themselves, the MSM is not losing Iraq, but the rabble right is pinning the loss of Iraq on everybody BUT the Repugs. Rabble right are lying motherfuckers, too girly-man to admit the obvious that they and their adored Repugs have created and still support the most disastrous strategic error and US Adminisration in US history.

All this was said by an impartial observer, boutons. :dizzy

[turambar85]

Yes. would you please do that. I am not going to go thru the whole
process for you. You will have to do the work yourself. I have stated
the facts which you will not accept. So sit back and see if I was
correct or not.

But you have given no facts. You have cited no history, at least no history that you will bother to back with said facts.

I would like some proof that the terrorists not only increased their violence after the democratic win, but that the democratic win was the cause of their increase.

I have given you some logical evidence for my opinion that you are mistaken, all I ask is a refutation. You should consider be kind because you are the one who is attempting to make a positive claim about a situation, and in doing so, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders.

I have shown you my kindness in disproving your claim, which, as we see lacked any proof of its own, so respond in like fashion.

Why, pray tell, did the democratic win lead to more terrorist attacks and how can this be proven?

[xrayzebra]

Son, you have not given a "logical" fact in any of your
responses. You have proffered some debating techniques.

Tell you what. How about you tell me what it will take
for you to come to the defense of this country. Ignore
our other conversations. Just tell me simply what would
upset you so much that you would defend our country
and way of life. Can you do that?

Is our President our enemy.

Is the dimm-o-craps plans for peace the answer. What
ever their plan is.

Is Iran having the bomb the correct solution.

Not taking sides in the Palestinian/Israel problem
the solution to our problems.

You tell me. You seem to have all the answers.

You see, there is one problem with yours and many
others on this site's version of things. Your very
critical but never offer any solutions. And put down those that offer support to our country and the
President.
Being critical of things is easy. Coming up with solutions is the big problem.

[clambake]

Ray, Maliki is in Iran right now. How do you feel about that?

Baker has had several high level meetings with Syrians. How do you feel about that?

Bush had no answers that you expect democrats to supply. Bush ran home to dad because he broke something he can't fix. How do you feel about that?

Bush running home is a clear indication that he doesn't know how correct his biggest mistake. How do you feel about that?

[turambar85]

Son, you have not given a "logical" fact in any of your
responses. You have proffered some debating techniques.

Tell you what. How about you tell me what it will take
for you to come to the defense of this country. Ignore
our other conversations. Just tell me simply what would
upset you so much that you would defend our country
and way of life. Can you do that?

Is our President our enemy.

Is the dimm-o-craps plans for peace the answer. What
ever their plan is.

Is Iran having the bomb the correct solution.

Not taking sides in the Palestinian/Israel problem
the solution to our problems.

You tell me. You seem to have all the answers.

You see, there is one problem with yours and many
others on this site's version of things. Your very
critical but never offer any solutions. And put down those that offer support to our country and the
President.
Being critical of things is easy. Coming up with solutions is the big problem.

I would only fight in a war in which we were being attacked, on our own soil, and the lives of civilians were in severe danger. I do not believe in aggressive wars, I do not believe that violence begets anything other than more violence. That is where I stand, take it for what it is.

I believe that Bush is an enemy of the state, but not numero uno. He is a bad president, but not the great satan. There are other politicians, left and right, worse than him in our own country, and there are dozens or worse leaders around the world. However, America is supposed to be the greatest democracy, and a candle in the night...so I hold him to a higher standard. Because of that, I see him as almost as bad as people who are, in essence, much worse because he has every reason, and excuse, to be better.

For the next question, I voted democratic for two reasons, social freedoms such as gay marriage, and an end to unnecessary wars, or at least this one. Iraq was a complete failure, and even I, and ignorant college student saw it coming. I have to imagine that those in charge did as well. And, a plan for peace, even if it is misguided, it better and more morally defensible than a plan for war, even if it were considered just. That is my stance, and I will elaborate further if you would like.

Moving along, I believe that our staunch support of Israel is wrong. We do not, and should not, have a horse in this race. We support them for Biblical reasons, which is wrong for two reasons. 1. The Bible does not rule over Constitutions. 2. If it is Biblical, and God has promoted the suffering and exile of Israel before, then God will end their punishment. The instant that God wants Israel to have "their" land back, they will get it. For us to try to promote that end is meddling in God's affairs. That is my take on handling Israel from a religious backing.

I offer no solutions other than to try something different. And I have heard no solutions from you other than "support our troops" "support our President" or "support our country". Those are vague concepts and have no basis in reality. I can support the troops in many different ways...the President is a civil servant and deserves no respect that he hasn't earned, and I respect the country by promoting the principles on which it was founded.

See, I answer questions, X, I wish you would do the same. I will answer in like fashion at any time you choose. Be kind and do the same for my entertainment. Prove me wrong, I happen to enjoy that.

[Nbadan]

Classic!


"Anyone who still remains in doubt of whether this is a civil war or not is suffering from the luxury of distance."

-Michael Ware on Civil War in Iraq (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7yruTD3amk)

[Ya Vez]

Yup it's civil war.. time to leave and follow the clinton and UN rwandan foreign policy examples...

Just let them butcher one another..

[ChumpDumper]

Bushie already followed that policy in the Sudan and Congo.

Nice try.

[Nbadan]

...and the difference in the U.S. staying any longer would be..... they would ....ummm...butcher each other and us?

[Nbadan]

Maybe, the answer is as simple as just changing the mission


"President Bush said today that he will be "flexible" in talks with Iraq's prime minister this week on the war in Iraq, but vowed not to withdraw U.S. troops "before the mission is complete."

Bush also called on countries in the region to contribute to security and stability in Iraq, but took swipes at Syria and Iran for supporting terrorists and extremists."

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-28-bush-nato_x.htm)

I thought the mission was to topple Saddam and find alleged WMDs and destroy them too. How can you 'complete the mission' when the objective keeps changing?

[ChumpDumper]

RE: the original question -- defense contractor General Electric's news arm says it is.

NBC: Iraq in 'civil war'

Posted 11/27/2006 9:30 PM ET

By Peter Johnson, USA TODAY
The politically charged use of the term "civil war" to describe the violence in Iraq came to a head Monday when NBC News said that the conflict fit its description of a civil war and that NBC would call it that.

The politically charged use of the term "civil war" to describe the violence in Iraq came to a head Monday when NBC News said that the conflict fit its description of a civil war and that NBC would call it that.

The announcement by Today's Matt Lauer put the network at odds with the White House — which said Monday that although the conflict in Iraq is serious, it is not a civil war — and prompted renewed discussion among news outlets.

CBS, ABC, CNN and Fox News said that as sectarian violence has risen, their reporters have called the conflict a civil war, and will continue, though they plan no formal change in policy.

On CNN Monday, correspondent Michael Ware said, "If this isn't a civil war, I don't know what is."

Recent dispatches in outlets such as the Los Angeles Times and New York Times also have referred to a civil war. USA TODAY calls the conflict "the war in Iraq" and refers to "sectarian violence or "religious fighting."

Tom McPhail, a journalism professor at the University of Missouri/St. Louis, says NBC's move is "a defining and negative moment" in the war in Iraq, "like when Walter Cronkite said on air that the Vietnam War was lost."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-11-27-nbc-iraq-civil-war_x.htm

[boutons_]

"thought the mission was to topple Saddam"

mission creep and moving the goalposts is what we have had.

Of course, the over-arching mission was to get dubya re-elected in 2003, and if the phony war would stuff a few 10s of $B profits into energyco and MIC pockets, that would be gravy that would flow by the $Ms back into Repug coffers.

[ChumpDumper]

Colin "Can I Have My Reputation Back" Powell is on board.

Colin Powell says Iraq in a 'civil war'
POSTED: 1:13 p.m. EST, November 29, 2006

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (CNN) -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday that Iraq's violence meets the standard of civil war and that if he were heading the State Department now, he might recommend that the administration use that term.

Many news organizations and analysts are calling the Sunni-Shiite sectarian warfare that exploded this year, killing thousands and causing widespread displacement, a civil war.

Powell's comments -- made in the United Arab Emirates at the Leaders in Dubai Business Forum -- are significant because he backed the war and was the top U.S. diplomat when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. (Watch why some call Iraq's violence a civil war Video)

Bush has avoided using the term "civil war" to describe the situation in Iraq.

Tuesday, he called the latest violence in Iraq "part of a pattern" of attacks by al Qaeda in Iraq to divide Shiites and Sunnis and vowed, again, he won't support the removal of U.S. troops "before the mission is complete."

"There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal," he said. (Full story)

White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley also dismissed the notion that civil war has begun in Iraq.

"The Iraqis don't talk of it as a civil war. The unity government doesn't talk of it as a civil war," Hadley said Monday. "You have not yet had a situation also where you have two clearly defined and opposing groups vying not only for power but for territory."

But he added: "We're clearly in a new phase characterized by an increase in sectarian violence that requires us to adapt to that new phase," according to The Associated Press.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday said that he believes Iraq is near civil war. "Unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact we are almost there," he said. (Full story)

A spokesman for the powerful political bloc of Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said Wednesday the group has suspended its participation in Iraq's government. The group had threatened to take such action if Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met with President Bush in Jordan this week. Al-Maliki was in Jordan Wednesday with talks scheduled for Thursday.

A classified memo prepared by President's Bush's national security adviser after a recent trip to Iraq questions whether al-Maliki can rise above Iraq's widening and bloody Sunni-Shiite divide. (Watch why some question whether al-Maliki can hold Iraq together Video)

Powell proposed a two-part solution to the problems in Iraq. First, he said, coalition troops must remain, but their numbers must be reduced. Second, a political solution must emerge among Iraqis themselves and not be imposed on them.

In 2003, Powell set out a lengthy argument at the United Nations that buttressed the eventual invasion, including supposed evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Asked Wednesday whether he regretted those statements, he said he does. He noted he was working with the information that was available to him at the time.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/29/powell.iraq/

[boutons_]

Whatever it's called, the US is no longer in control (were they ever?) of events in Iraq.

The WH is naturally making a bigger issue of the phrase than of the WH losing Iraq.

The Marines have abandonded, "cut and run"?, Anbar province as lost to Sunnis and al-Quaida, and to pull back to Bagdad.

[ChumpDumper]

Would-be President Newt Gingrich just wants to call it a failure.

Gingrich calls Iraq war a 'failure'
In N.H., says Bush must admit that to regain trust

By James W. Pindell, Globe Correspondent | November 29, 2006

BEDFORD, N.H. -- Former House speaker Newt Gingrich told a New Hampshire audience yesterday that unless the Bush administration admits that the war in Iraq is a "failure," it will never develop a strategy to leave the country successfully.

Gingrich, who has been laying the groundwork for a presidential run, said the Bush administration needs to plan a "third stage" in Iraq, following the military takeover stage and the recent democracy-building stage. But he says a third stage can come about only if officials admit they must change course.

"If the military, White House, and State Department continue to avoid the word 'failure,' how can you bring about a third stage?" Gingrich said....

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/11/29/gingrich_calls_iraq_war_a_failure/

[whottt]

So you agree with Newt? GMTA!


You are in the same circle as both Newt Gingrich and Cindy Sheehan. I think that says everything that needs to be said...Chump.


Congrats :tu

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't see any of them call it a half-assed cluster fuck, but people are catching up to me.

Meanwhile, you're in the same circle as Rumsfeld -- arrogant, wrong and soon to be irrelevant.

Congrats :tu

[whottt]

Oh no, no, no. When you can use Newt to back up your stance? Trust me...you are the one deserving of the congrats....

[ChumpDumper]

So it's a resounding success?

Mission Accomplished?

Exactly as you predicted?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

So you agree with Newt? GMTA!


You are in the same circle as both Newt Gingrich and Cindy Sheehan. I think that says everything that needs to be said...Chump.


Congrats :tucindy sheehan is some lonely cow that all of the bush-haters got a hold of and she's actually stupid enough to think that they actually care about her. i'm sure she isnt the only parent that has lost a child in the war that she doesn't support and i'm sure she isn't the only pareant that has lost a child in the war that they support. that alone should bring down the curtains on her soapbox. i have utmost respect for everyone that has given their lives for this country, but this country is going to go down the tubes quick if everything thing is going to be set to anti-bush mode. anti-bush mode isn't the answer. i'm not saying pro-bush was, but anti-bush mode definitely isnt the lining in the sky.

[ChumpDumper]

The first goal in Iraq, Gingrich said, should be to rebuild the national military, even if it requires spending tantamount to the Marshall Plan effort in the aftermath of World War II, in which the United States spent up to 3 percent of its gross domestic product.

"We have to show we are serious about winning and that we will defeat any person, Sunni or Shi'ite, that hopes to disrupt progress," he said. "But we can only do that if we have Iraqi troops on the ground."



--not the worst idea I've heard. Where's Bushie's?

[whottt]

So it's a resounding success?

It's not over.




Mission Accomplished?

Saddam's been gone for a while...that was the primary objective.


Exactly as you predicted?

I never expected a quick resolution, nor did I expect it to be easy...I expected culture shock and centuries old issues...I did expect the Iraqis to stand up to the terrorists moreso than they have done...that's what's going to have to happen and sooner or later they have to realize that the problem isn't the US, or the Sunnis or the Shias...it's the entire mindset of eternal warfare and an eye for an eye. They are only fucking up their own country. Hopefully the violent ones'll kill each other off...Let them fight.

Let the Israelis and Palestinians fight as well.


I did not expect it to be a quick resolution...and us achieving our goals is an eventuality unless we do one thing...quit. The only way they win is if we quit. The only way we lose is if we quit.





But all that's neither here nor there....the relevant thing here is that you are quoting Newt Gingrich....I think you must be standing to close to the fire and have accidentally inhaled some of the fumes...take a step back, realize you are using Newt Gingrich to claim scoreboard...then try not to die of shame.

[whottt]

No reponse?

Must be out looking for Jerry Falwell quotes to further bolster your stance.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, I'm just posting what folks are saying.

I said it was a civil war and a cluster fuck.

You really do hang on my every word.

Disturbing.

[ChumpDumper]

and us achieving our goals is an eventuality unless we do one thing...quit.What are those goals?

[whottt]

Establishing a Democracy in the Middle East(of the Arab or Muslim variety) to weaken the Islamic Militant Movement and also so the shitty Arab leaders can no longer point the finger at the US for their own shitty governments.

It's really brain surgery Chump...you have a bunch of dictators in power and life is cheap and there's no such thing as civil rights, or an objective education(for those lucky enough to have any kind), this breeds religious fanatacism(and lots of potential fanatics), and an easily manipulated populace, and that fantatacism is easily directed at the US.


I mean you either realize that freedom of speech and of the press are non-existent and the region is ruled by a bunch of tin pot dictators put in place by Europe or who siezed power militarily, or you don't.

If you do realize that then you realize that the only way to permanently kill the weed is to kill the roots.


Yeah it might be worse right now, but if strong representative Democracy can be put in place somewhere anywhere, only then can the root causes start to change. Only then do you truly reveal the shitty leaders for what they are and reduce their ability to mistreat their populations. And if it doesn't work, if they can't be drug into the 21st century yet they have 21st century means to wage destruction...you fucking eliminate them using the superior technology that your way of life and enelightened culture has produced.

[ChumpDumper]

Wasn't there a muslim democracy in Pakistan?

And Iran?

What happened to those?

[whottt]

Wasn't there a muslim democracy in Pakistan?

And Iran?

What happened to those?


Ahh there were contitutional pseudo Democracies all over the place in the Middle-East once upon a time, in Iraq even...and the quality of life and human rights were much better there then.

Unfortunatley that region was caught in the power struggles of the coldwar and a lot of those Democracies were undermined by Socialist movements...that we either opposed(in Iran) or that did manage to sieze power(in Iraq). But the Militant Islam movement first begat in the 20th century with the PLO was backed by the Soviet Union....as was Iran's so called attempt at Democracy.

Afghanistan once was a constitutional monarchy as well...and you know?

Those countries weren't shitholes to the degree they are now. And there was no powerful Islamic movement.


What's changed is that

The Soviet Union isn't around to back things anymore and to be the divider...now the only dividers backing the terrorists are Europeans worried about Oil Development rights, and useful idiots, like yourself and most of the rest of the Democratic Party/libs.


I fully expect this to last another 10 years if things go well.

[whottt]

Yeah Pakistan actually once had a female PM...of course it was still more the European type Democracy which isn't truly populis and is still more akin to royalty than what we have here in the states.

[ChumpDumper]

The Soviet Union isn't around to back things anymore and to be the divider.it's called Russia and it's still there, just depends on Putin's mood.
now the only dividers backing the terrorists are Europeans worried about Oil Development rights, and useful idiots like yourself and most of the rest of the Democratic Party.And Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia and all those dictators you say are there and the inhabitants of Iraq themselves. You underestimated all of these and saw the invasion simply in military terms, and still do (it'll be a cakewalk -- they'll love us and be forever grateful and if they aren't, we just kill em all!).

[ChumpDumper]

I fully expect this to last another 10 years if things go well.Great, what if we had done things right in the first place?

[whottt]

Ahh some of those leaders are just as afraid of the monster they created as we are...like the Saudis.

While others, like Syria don't know who to be more afraid of...

[whottt]

Great, what if we had done things right in the first place?


Right as in what?

The hatred that is being tapped into now was already in place...I don't know how you expected it to not.


Leaving Saddam's army in place?

That would have been real good, they'd have seized power back immediately and it's very likely we would not have captured Saddam.

This shit has to run it's course.

[ChumpDumper]

Right as in what? Oh that's right -- you think we didn't do anything wrong at all.

Just as you predicted.

Utter perfection.

Cakewalk.

[whottt]

I didn't expect perfection...and why would you expect that in a war?



You act like we can control everything....it's a fight.


The cheapest and easiest solution was nukes....would you prefer that?

[turambar85]

I didn't expect perfection...and why would you expect that in a war?



You act like we can control everything....it's a fight.


The cheapest and easiest solution was nukes....would you prefer that?

Because, if the result of your war is a worse situation than what existed beforehand then you have failed, utterly and completely.

[xrayzebra]

^^You lose this argument. Because you have displayed you true feelings about
any rational argument by the the statement: "Your War". Obviously you do not
consider yourself part of this nation. Therefore you have no say in how we conduct
our affairs.

[George Gervin's Afro]

^^You lose this argument. Because you have displayed you true feelings about
any rational argument by the the statement: "Your War". Obviously you do not
consider yourself part of this nation. Therefore you have no say in how we conduct
our affairs.

Well ray count me in with the majority of this 'nation' who sees this war as a war of choice and unecessary...

[xrayzebra]

^^20 percent is your majority? Wow!

[Ya Vez]

are the democrats the new isolationist..?

[turambar85]

^^You lose this argument. Because you have displayed you true feelings about
any rational argument by the the statement: "Your War". Obviously you do not
consider yourself part of this nation. Therefore you have no say in how we conduct
our affairs.

Hmm...ok. I guess that since I prefer to call something that I had no say in, and about which I have actually voiced my complaints both publicly and privately, my own then I have no part in the country that elected the President that decided to do this...logical X.

Lets see where this logic takes us. CLinton was elected with a majority of the popular vote. Clinton got a blow-job in office. Thus, it was not his blow-job, but the blowjob of about 100 million people.

Actually, it is even worse, since you believe that for me to be an American citizen it must be "my war" then it must have been every American citizens blowjob. I'm sure a lot of people wish that they had known about that one X.

It is not my war just as it is not my gay marriage ban. I fight each of those two, they are not something that can be attributed to myself.

It is your war. I take no claim of any unjust war of terror.

[sandman]

Hmm...ok. I guess that since I prefer to call something that I had no say in, and about which I have actually voiced my complaints both publicly and privately, my own then I have no part in the country that elected the President that decided to do this...logical X.

Lets see where this logic takes us. CLinton was elected with a majority of the popular vote. Clinton got a blow-job in office. Thus, it was not his blow-job, but the blowjob of about 100 million people.

Actually, it is even worse, since you believe that for me to be an American citizen it must be "my war" then it must have been every American citizens blowjob. I'm sure a lot of people wish that they had known about that one X.

It is not my war just as it is not my gay marriage ban. I fight each of those two, they are not something that can be attributed to myself.

It is your war. I take no claim of any unjust war of terror.

Great. Now we've ALL had Monica! It just doesn't feel special anymore.

[xrayzebra]

Hmm...ok. I guess that since I prefer to call something that I had no say in, and about which I have actually voiced my complaints both publicly and privately, my own then I have no part in the country that elected the President that decided to do this...logical X.

Lets see where this logic takes us. CLinton was elected with a majority of the popular vote. Clinton got a blow-job in office. Thus, it was not his blow-job, but the blowjob of about 100 million people.

Actually, it is even worse, since you believe that for me to be an American citizen it must be "my war" then it must have been every American citizens blowjob. I'm sure a lot of people wish that they had known about that one X.

It is not my war just as it is not my gay marriage ban. I fight each of those two, they are not something that can be attributed to myself.

It is your war. I take no claim of any unjust war of terror.

But you see, Clinton was my President, whether
I liked it or not. I never said "your" president,
although I did write him and said if he worked
for me, he would have been fired. But then
again, that was my word direct to him.

But you stated it was: "my war" and you did
again in the above post.

I must therefore assume that My Family is my
family and none of your business. So butt out
of my war since you concede it has nothing to
do with you.

[ChumpDumper]

Doesn't work that way X. Our money is being spent on Iraq. If you can cover the $300,000,000 a day then give us back our share.

[ChumpDumper]

And if it's a question of whether our strategy in Iraq is working or not, let's go to the source:

Rumsfeld Memo Proposed ‘Major Adjustment’ in Iraq

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID S. CLOUD
Published: December 3, 2006

WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 — Two days before he resigned as defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged that the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction.

“In my view it is time for a major adjustment,” wrote Mr. Rumsfeld, who has been a symbol of a dogged stay-the-course policy. “Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.”

Nor did Mr. Rumsfeld seem confident that the administration would readily develop an effective alternative. To limit the political fallout from shifting course he suggested the administration consider a campaign to lower public expectations.

“Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis,” he wrote. “This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not ‘lose.’ ”.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/world/middleeast/03military.html?hp&ex=1165122000&en=c81ca1ad895daf65&ei=5094&partner=homepage