Civil War?

#juan
No Party Affiliation
#1
For the last couple of years, different people have been warning that if the Americans pulled out of Iraq, civil war would ensue and would result in violence and killing, heretofor unheard of.

It seems there are some who think that civil war has already started. Sectarian violence is increasing and the number of deaths is definitely rising, without the Americans leaving.

Comments?



http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...war030619.html
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#2
Iraq embroiled in 'civil war,' says former PM Allawi
Last Updated Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:30:26 EST
CBC News


Ayad Allawi, the former interim prime minister of Iraq, says the increasing sectarian attacks across his country can only be described as a "civil war."



Ayad Allawi, the former interim prime minister of Iraq, warned that continued 'civil war' in Iraq would have an impact in Europe and the United States. (AP file photo)

"We are losing each day an average of 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," Allawi told BBC television on Sunday, on the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
 
Kreskin
#3
I think both sides are correct in their assessments, to some extent. Pulling out of there now is likely to create more chaos. But to deny things are bad is just blowing political spin. The country has serious problems and it won't be getting better anytime soon.
 
cortez
#4
i think the current situation qualifies as the beginning of a civil war
the US is now stuck with NO viable options
having made the very first BIG mistake of invasion
CRY HAVOC LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR

it can now only make more mistakes

LEAVE- full scale civil war with a potential decisive outcome

STAY- low grade protracted civilwar with no clear outcome
ie STEEPED IN BLOOD SO FAR TISS EASIER TO GO ON THAN TURN BACK

ill think theyll try and stay

listen to shakespeare
 
Jay
#5
"In a Washington Post column published on Sunday, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued that the insurgents "seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq."

So they are stepping it up a little. It's to be expected.

It's a power struggle in the nation, and the "insurgents" don't want Iraq to succeed in its current state.
 
Kreskin
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

"In a Washington Post column published on Sunday, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued that the insurgents "seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq."

So they are stepping it up a little. It's to be expected.

It's a power struggle in the nation, and the "insurgents" don't want Iraq to succeed in its current state.

They must be in the "last throes", as Cheney announced a year or so ago.
 
Jay
#7
These things don't just happen over night....
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#8
Quote:

"In a Washington Post column published on Sunday, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued that the insurgents "seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq."

So they are stepping it up a little. It's to be expected.

Do you have anything not written by a Bush crony? Does Cheney deny the number of people being killed? Does he think it is normal?
 
I think not
#9
"Insurgents" have intentionally been bombing hospitals and markets for quite some time now, I would say a civil war has been going on.
 
Jay
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Quote:

"In a Washington Post column published on Sunday, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued that the insurgents "seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq."

So they are stepping it up a little. It's to be expected.

Do you have anything not written by a Bush crony? Does Cheney deny the number of people being killed? Does he think it is normal?

I pulled that quote from the article you posted.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote:

I pulled that quote from the article you posted.

That was my point. 50 - 60 people a day being killed is not "normal" regardless of what Rumsfeldt might say.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

"Insurgents" have intentionally been bombing hospitals and markets for quite some time now, I would say a civil war has been going on.

The American air force intentionally bombed hospitals and markets, power installations, waterworks, public buildings roads bridges and troop masses, that is uncivil war. It is in Americas best interest to promote civil war, it's a continuation of American policy which is destabilization of the middle east and entrenchment in large military bases which are in fact self contained citys. Divide and conquer, always the tactic of empirialism.
 
Jay
#13
So you think it is in America's best interest to see their plan fail....interesting notion.
 
I think not
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

"Insurgents" have intentionally been bombing hospitals and markets for quite some time now, I would say a civil war has been going on.

The American air force intentionally bombed hospitals and markets, power installations, waterworks, public buildings roads bridges and troop masses, that is uncivil war. It is in Americas best interest to promote civil war, it's a continuation of American policy which is destabilization of the middle east and entrenchment in large military bases which are in fact self contained citys. Divide and conquer, always the tactic of empirialism.

And your rhetoric negates suicide bombers blowing up markets and hospitals how?!?!?!
 
mabudon
#15
I think the concept is more that the "plan" simply MUST have been "failure"- failure for the "savages" to be able to "keep THEM from blowing each other up like THESE PEOPLE ALWAYS DO" so that the US can magnanimously build jails and massive bases to "keep the peace" that for some reason Iraqis in general do not want...

That's what I get from the headlines...

The US would have gotten rid of Saddam and his followers while leaving most other stuff largely intact if thay had no interest beyond "regime change"
See the invasion or Kuwait- the Iraqi army didn't smash the crap out of that country cos they wanted to take it for themselves, and generating bogus "restructuring" projects would not have lined anyones pockets, they just wanted to re-annex that territory...

If they HAD smashed it into a million pieces so as to insure that they could NEVER leave (and leave they did after Desert Storm 1 ) one would have to believe that it wasn't the territory OR the resources but something very different that was the central focus.. thsu, the way the US Iraq operation has been carried out, a stable country could NOT have been their true aim (I do believe that incompetence has played a role in the current "outcome" but even I do not believe that ANYONE could screw that much stuff up THAT consistently)
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

"Insurgents" have intentionally been bombing hospitals and markets for quite some time now, I would say a civil war has been going on.

The American air force intentionally bombed hospitals and markets, power installations, waterworks, public buildings roads bridges and troop masses, that is uncivil war. It is in Americas best interest to promote civil war, it's a continuation of American policy which is destabilization of the middle east and entrenchment in large military bases which are in fact self contained citys. Divide and conquer, always the tactic of empirialism.

And your rhetoric negates suicide bombers blowing up markets and hospitals how?!?!?!

If we consider the product or service delivered as being terrorism
these amateur bombings and small scale attacks represent a tiny fraction of the actual delivered terrorism, I would respectfully suggest that large scale terrorism requires high tech machines and
mass systems of delivery, conditions and equipment that the insurgents do not have. The most effective terror machine in the arena belongs to Uncle Sam.
 
I think not
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

If we consider the product or service delivered as being terrorism these amateur bombings and small scale attacks represent a tiny fraction of the actual delivered terrorism, I would respectfully suggest that large scale terrorism requires high tech machines and mass systems of delivery, conditions and equipment that the insurgents do not have. The most effective terror machine in the arena belongs to Uncle Sam.

Tell that to the victims of the insurgent attacks. Tell them how it is Uncle Sam that is the real terrorist because they use advanced technology. Tell them the insurgents are amatuer terrorists and the deaths of their families caused by Iraqi citizens loyal to Saddam Huseein doesn't mean a thing, because you say so. Tell them that.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#18
You are intentionally missing the point ITN, I'll try again, when the results are the same the equations are the same, you think that the product delivered by high tech aircraft are actually freedom and democracy and not bombs,do you actually think the uniform and the brass bands somehow justify the deaths and destruction.
 
Jersay
#19
ITN tell that to the Iraqi families who are missing family members who have been killed by American forces. Either discriminately or indiscriminately as well as the thousands of people killed by its Iraqi counterparts.
 
I think not
#20
Darkbeaver and Jersay, I raised the points that suicide bombers have been attacking Iraqi civilians thereby creating a civil war. Turning the subject around doesn't help stay on topic. Americans bombing Iraqi's DOESN'T constitute a CIVIL WAR. Try and focus, can you? I think not.
 

Similar Threads

0
We had a civil war?
by Blackleaf | Dec 21st, 2008
20
The American Civil War
by TomZart | Jan 20th, 2007
0
The American Civil War
by TomZart | Dec 29th, 2006
14
The Civil War and the Fenians
by sanctus | Dec 5th, 2006
18
Iraq in civil war, says former PM
by elevennevele | Mar 20th, 2006