Reply With Quote
didn't we have a civil war over here a while back? And wasn't our country better after it?
didn't we have a civil war over here a while back? And wasn't our country better after it?
So did Russia.didn't we have a civil war over here a while back?
And Korea.
And China.
And Yugoslavia.
And Lebanon.
And Nigeria.
And Liberia.
And Spain.
And of course, Vietnam.
A "Civil War" can't take place over there at least not in it's true form.....
The only thing that can really happen is an increase in insurgency.
It takes organizations of people for there to be a civil war... armed units of more than 5 people...
Problem is... you gather in a place with more than 5 people with us there... you are dead, period the end.
Shiites and Sunnis are NEVER going to get along. They have long memories and lots of history. For christ's sake Shiite's still mourn the death of Ali's son to the Suunis on the anniversary of his death by BEATING and CUTTING themselves. (that last sentence was more than a little strange).
We have the leaders of the groups talking. We have people from outside and inside trying to blow the whole thing up.
Will Iraq work?
Dunno.
Is it a grand experiment that took lots of balls to try?
For sure.
If it works will this administration be looked back on in 100 years favorably?
Damned right.
If it fails?
He will still be above the bottom half for leadership after 9/11.
Well, , Lance Armstrong had cancer and then won the Tour de France. So having cancer must be a good thing, right?
^^Typical reply from someone of your persuasion.
Actually we weren't better after our civil war.
Before the Civil war the South was the richest part of the country.
It has never up to the North since and never will.
You must have a thing for me xray, because you have been following me from thread to thread.
^^yep, you are correct. But wrong in the later part of your statement. The
North is dying, rust belt, remember. The south is growing. But South has had
much more political clout through our history than the North.
what is your point?
The point is they are waiting for the Sunday talk shows to tell them why civil war in Iraq is a good and desirable thing.
None really, just joining in the conversation. But the South was the richest part
of the US before the civil war and is growing by leaps and bounds now, while the
North and East is losing population and industry. Those are facts.
No, I just don't think much of you anymore. Disagreeing is one thing, but
cursing or putting ones race down is not my bag. Should I call those that
disagree with me disparaging names. I don't think so. I take it that you are
Hispanic. So should I call you some racist name. Disagree all you want,
but leave the rest of the junk out. Follow you, I don't think so. But I will
post where I want, when I want.
yes, but at what cost was it the richest part of the US?? maybe it was because of all the "FREE LABOR"? The south may have been richer, but it was WRONG.
not that I have any point, I'm just joing the conversation
Where did I make a disparaging remark about someone's race? I called Cuellar a "coconut" (mostly as a joke). You took offense to that and said that I was insulting Anglos by calling Cuellar a coconut.This is from a guy that is always saying that we are too "politically correct." Talk about double standards.
and someone who doesn't want latinos coming from Mexico.
Yeah, you are correct there. Free labor, not quite, but pretty close. Butyes, but at what cost was it the richest part of the US?? maybe it was because of all the "FREE LABOR"? The south may have been richer, but it was WRONG.
not that I have any point, I'm just joing the conversation
remember something. At the time it was an accepted practice. I don't say
I agree with it, because I don't. The US wasn't the only violator of this
practice (slaves). And it still exist to this day. Even in the U.S. There
was a well publicized case of it in Laredo a year or so back and also in
Austin I think it was for the women in cat houses working off so called
debt for being smuggled in from Asia. I am not saying the South was
correct just that they were richer. And by the way Lincoln didn't free
the slaves in the beginning.
Did the civil war in Yugoslavia invalidate the successes achieved by the fall of the iron curtain in Eastern Europe?
So you mean after the south was burnt to a crisp and its people starved and homeless jobless etc etc
you mean after that
the people were happy and realized it was a good thing they had civil WAR on their own country's soil?
brilliant! you should go to a&m with that kinda smarts
And you are the head of what think tank?
I don't think civil war is all that great. No one has to tell me that.
How about you?
You're with me on that one CD.
Par ion may have been an option if only Sunnis and Shiites were involved. Unfortunately we don't need instability spreading to Turkish Kurdistan.
The Par ion of Iraq maybe an inevitability with Turkey taking the Kurd area, the Sunni forming their own autonomous region, and the Shiites aligning with Iran. Either way, civil war in Iraq will only increase the instability in the whole region drawing Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, China, Russia, the U.S. and Israel in an inevitable world war.
Did we send in an occupational army into Yugoslavia after the cold war in order to keep a country there regardless of unatural borders?
Regardless of the legitimacy of our initial invasion there, this is more proof of the lack luster unimaginative stragtegy put in place afterwords was just plain horrible.
Iraq needs to be 3 countries, and thats where its going to head.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
