Iraq in civil war, says former PM


elevennevele
#1
So what are the opinions here?

Is Iraq degenerating into a full fledged civil war? Will Iraq be able to turn into a peaceful democracy under US and British forces? And what consequence will civil war in Iraq have as to our role in Afghanistan?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4821618.stm

Quote:

Iraq in civil war, says former PM

Iraq is in the middle of civil war, the country's former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has told the BBC.

He said Iraq had not got to the point of no return, but if it fell apart sectarianism would spread abroad.

The UK and US have repeatedly denied Iraq is facing a civil war, but Mr Allawi suggested there was no other way to describe the sectarian violence.

Meanwhile, at least 12 people have been in a series of violent incidents in the north of the country.

Cycle of reprisals

Analysts say Mr Allawi's comments are part of political manoeuvring as talks continue over creation of a government.

Speaking to troops in Basra, UK Defence Secretary John Reid insisted that the terrorists were failing to drive Iraq into civil war.

"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more - if this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
Iyad Allawi
Former Iraq PM

 
Sassylassie
#2
The War on Terror is also a War Making Money Machine. A lot of corporations and big businesses are making pots of money and peace isn't in their best interest.
 
Mogz
Conservative
#3
Nothing a handful of W87 MX Missiles wouldn't fix...
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Sassylassie

The War on Terror is also a War Making Money Machine. A lot of corporations and big businesses are making pots of money and peace isn't in their best interest.

Exactly sassy, all that's in thier interest is death and destruction.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Mogz

Nothing a handful of W87 MX Missiles wouldn't fix...

Mogz, this is not your best, when you report to work at CanCon we expect you to perform up to military standards,you are wasteing my tax dollars, what ever's bothering you today suck it up whimp, I won't have my soldiers using lazy one liners, we have noticed a falling off of your work here, maybe you can't handle the booze and pizza.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#6
I can't believe you want to nuke people Mogz. Nuclear weapons are too brutal to use in anything but desperate, retaliation in kind. What the Iraqis need is for all foreigners to get the hell out of their country. If it becomes a civil war, it will be their civil war, not ours. Trying to impose "democracy" on another country is folly. That should be obvious by now. The cause of this war was the U.S., not Saddam.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#7
Agreed, #juan .

In my opinion, I do not think that a democratic government can survive for an adequate period of time if it is not founded upon democratic principles when the people are prepared for democracy, then it should come about on its own.

If there were a nation with a non-constitutional monarchy in place, but the people were happy, would it be right of us to execute the monarchy and impose a democratic institution?

I am not implying that the Iraqi people were happy with the situation not by any stretch of the word the United States assisted them in removing a dictator, but their role in imposing a new democratic government, in my opinion, is subject to failure simply due to the nature of what they are attempting to do.
 
Kreskin
#8
The Iraq war is not about the removal of Saddam Hussein. It's about the unethical warmongering of a US President in a part of world that has had it up to the eyeballs with Western interference.

When Bush and Blair introduced the regime change policy nearly everyone in the free world said it won't work. That they'll be setting up regime change for Islamic fundamentalist rule. That chaos and likely civil war would ensue.

Remember when Bhagdad fell and the museum was ransacked? Remember Bush and Cheney explaining it? "When your finally free you get kind of giddy..it was overjoyous glee of freedom getting the best of the lontime repressed. And those demonstrations in the streets are signs of democracy. Mission Accomplished."

They have been off base from the get go on every aspect of this war, including the very reason for being there.
 
cortez
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Mogz

Nothing a handful of W87 MX Missiles wouldn't fix...

they come right back to burn you
instant karma

hehe
 
Jersay
#10
American forces are going to be pulling out of Iraq, sooner or later it is only a matter of time as this war changes from an insurgency to a civil-war. Most people at least on this thread see and understand this tobad everyone else in this Content wouldn't.

However, violence will spill over iraq's border's and threaten countries that are U.S supporters for example Jordan and Turkey. It will probably turn into a conflict between the two main sects, the Middle East's religious war compared to Christians 30-year war. And who knows what will happen.

Also, once the rest of American supporters, South Korea, Britain among others begin to withdraw America will withdraw as well. I say American forces will be out by 2008 maybe 2009 at most.
 
aeon
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Mogz

Nothing a handful of W87 MX Missiles wouldn't fix...


Wow i am impress by this kind of behavior, you are sitting confortably in your fat ass, and say stupidity like this, incredible, and you pretend that they are terrorist, bad and evil, imagine, they havent done anything directly to you, and you are ready to do that, you are the perfect defninition of being a retards.
 
Jay
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

The cause of this war was the U.S., not Saddam.

I wish I could just forget all the BS Saddam has done...how did you do it?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

"Salman, who defected after the 1991 Gulf War, said Saddam in 1982 called his top aides to a meeting to discuss a demand from the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini that Saddam step down in exchange for peace. Salman said that when Minister of Health Riyadh Hussein ventured that Saddam should accept the offer "for tactical reasons to test Khomeini's seriousness," the minister was taken to an adjacent room and shot. "
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#13
All kinds of "defectors" had stories about WMD as well. Nobody is saying that Saddam an angel but he was sucked into the first gulf war. If the U.S. had been "up front" with Hussein, the war would never have happened. Remember, Kuwait was once part of Iraq unti it was detatched by Britain. Hussein was exactly what the U.S. and others made him.
 
Jay
#14
I see...were back to the "sucked" into it thing again.

http://www.kuwait-info.org/cphistory.html

"On June 19, 1961 Kuwait gained full independence from Britain. Iraq initially refused to accept Kuwait's independence and threatened to annex its neighbor, falsely alleging that Kuwait had once been part of Iraq. Iraq's military threats resulted in a deployment of British troops, which were soon replaced by an Arab League force, and the crisis subsided. In 1963 Kuwait became a member of the United Nations, and later that year Iraq agreed to abandon its threats and recognize Kuwait's independence and borders in a treaty signed by both governments (although there were border clashes in 1973). "
 
annabattler
#15
You can't have a "civil" war(an oxymoron of the first degree)until you have a nation .Iraq is no longer a nation.
The Americans will not be out any time soon.Resistance to the "war" at home is gaining momentum,yet most Americans realize they cannot and should not flee from the destruction and upheaval they caused in the first place.
 
elevennevele
#16
Jay, that link you provided comes right from the Kuwait Information Office. What would you expect a Kuwait website to say? You need to provide a better source.



Kuwait Information Office
2600 Virginia Ave, NW, Suite 404
Washington, D.C. 20037
Phone: 202-338-0211
Fax: 202-338-0957
Email: questions@kuwait-info.org
2005 | Kuwait Information Office
 
elevennevele
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

I see...were back to the "sucked" into it thing again.

http://www.kuwait-info.org/cphistory.html

"On June 19, 1961 Kuwait gained full independence from Britain. Iraq initially refused to accept Kuwait's independence and threatened to annex its neighbor, falsely alleging that Kuwait had once been part of Iraq. Iraq's military threats resulted in a deployment of British troops, which were soon replaced by an Arab League force, and the crisis subsided. In 1963 Kuwait became a member of the United Nations, and later that year Iraq agreed to abandon its threats and recognize Kuwait's independence and borders in a treaty signed by both governments (although there were border clashes in 1973). "


I really have to start using the quote button with my replies.
 
Jay
#18
Well how much more official does it have to be?

I was under the impression that they would know their history better than I do, or someone else...even better than Saddam himself.
 
elevennevele
#19
Well, it's just like the American Civil War. The history books will probably portray the British differently than the British will portray themselves in their history books and I don't they would describe themselves as bad guys in the conflict.

And I'm sure Pakistan's Office of Information as to their right over Kashmir will be different than India's Office of Information with their rights over the land.

I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

We can only wonder about 50 years into the future how the history books of the United States will portray the Iraq conflict compared with the history books of the rest of the world.
 

Similar Threads

14
Iraq worse than civil war: Annan
by CBC News | Dec 4th, 2006
8
Iraq in middle of Civil War
by Researcher87 | Oct 16th, 2006
4
The Iraq Civil War is underway.
by Freaker | Apr 17th, 2006
10
Who would profit from civil war in Iraq
by darkbeaver | Mar 27th, 2006
1
America will save Iraq from civil-war
by Jersay | Mar 26th, 2006