Iraq in a Civil War? Yes or no?

How would you best describe the primary warring in Iraq, now??

  • Yes, the fighting and warring in Iraq is primarily Civil War between the Sunni and the Shiite.

    Votes: 8 66.7%

  • No, the war in Iraq is primarily with the terrorists that killed Americans on 9/11 &/or alqaeda.

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • Total voters
    12
uscitizen said:
What happened to the Dixie that said democracy was going to fix Iraq ?
Click to expand...


Maybe you misunderstood something I said? Democracies take time to develop and flourish, and they don't always work out for the best. They stand a much better chance, when they are based on a constitution, like our representative republic's democracy is, but there is no guarantees, even with this. Much has to do with the character of the people, if they are immoral and corrupt, so will be their democracy.

I know this much, the people of Iraq are vastly better off in a system where they get a voice, than under rule of an oppressive tyrant sicko, like Saddam, and to dare think otherwise, is ridiculous. They may very well need to have a Civil War to settle it all, we did! It might take them 200 years to right the injustices within their laws, and correct their constitution, it took us that long! These things do not happen in the course of a couple of years, they never have. You are attempting to pass historical judgement on something history hasn't digested.
 
Dixie said:
We are there, we've been there, we've defeated Saddam, we've replaced his tyrant regime with the first Arab democracy... now what? You want to give it up and admit we were stupid and wrong? What? You want to re-install Saddam? Please??? Tell me what you want to do here?
Click to expand...

If the shiite dominated government is, in fact, a democracy, why not let them settle their internal problems themselves? The sunnis make up only about 20% of the population. It shouldn't take them too long to subdue them... and then they can get on with the business of creating a nice theocratic regional alliance with their good friends the Iranians. Don't tell me that you didn't contemplate that sort of outcome from day one. This insurgency is not made up of a bunch of foreigners.... it did not wither away and die after Zarqawi was killed (as Dixie so confidently predicted) simply because the folks in Iraq that answer to Zarqawi are not the meat of the insurgency... and never were. THis is primarily an indigenous Iraqi problem between sunnis who HAD power for a long time and were nasty to the shiites who had none and those selfsame shiites who NOW have all the power and are intent on a little payback. Our presence in the midst of this civil sectarian conflict between Iraqis does no good for America and only serves to strain our military resources at a time when we need them to be ready for other conflicts.

It never ceases to amaze me how no one seems to connect the rise of Iranian hegemony in the region (as evidenced by the recent Hezbollah issues in Lebanon) and the unanswered slap on the face from North Korea launching missiles on the fourth of july to the fact that the ability of our military to respond to those sorts of threats is severely limited by our entanglement in Iraq, and by our diminished stature in the world caused by the invasion that led to that entanglement.
 
I know this much, the people of Iraq are vastly better off in a system where they get a voice, than under rule of an oppressive tyrant sicko, like Saddam, and to dare think otherwise, is ridiculous. They may very well need to have a Civil War to settle it all, we did! It might take them 200 years to right the injustices within their laws, and correct their constitution, it took us that long!


OMG! THIS is what you spent half a trillion taxpayer dollars on, and sacrificed thousands of americans for?

That was niether prudent, nor wise.
 
I dunno if some of the Iraqi would agree with Dixie. In bagdad no electricity all summer for some. Waiting all night to get some gasoline, a lot of other infrastructure still not repaired, etc....
OHHH silly me reporting that kind of news is just aiding the enemy isn't it ;)
 
Dixie said:
alQaeda was in Iraq long before we invaded. Stop lying about it! 'The Insurgency' is comprised of several elements, mostly radical Muslim jihadists, whether they are "alQaeda" or not, the former Baath party loyalists, who were like the "mob bosses" under Saddam, and no longer have any power in Iraq, and the few disaffected brainwashed youth they can rustle out of the rafters of the general population of Iraq. The vast majority of Iraq, is not supportive of this group, and will eventually reduce them to a menace. I doubt they will ever be completely rid of them.

We are not technically fighting a war at this time. There are two armies in the country, and they are on the same side. In effect, this is the aftermath of a war, but since it's not completely over, you can't call it that right now.
Click to expand...



There were Al Queda in Iraq before we invaded, just like there is AlQueda in Chad, The Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Great Britton....

WE are fighting a war against two enemies in Iraq at this time. 1) AlQueda and its forces and 2) the civil war against the government we are trying to install in Iraq.

To think otherwise is silly semantics. Sure there is not a declared war in Iraq, but there was never a declared war in Vietnam, does that mean there was no war?
 
alQaeda was in Iraq long before we invaded. perhaps in the kurdish north, but not in any area controlled by Saddam. Stop lying about it!youare the one who needs to stop lyingThe Insurgency' is comprised of several elements, mostly radical Muslim jihadists, whether they are "alQaeda" or not, the former Baath party loyalists, who were like the "mob bosses" under Saddam, and no longer have any power in Iraq, and the few disaffected brainwashed youth they can rustle out of the rafters of the general population of Iraq. you may have identified the elements of the insurgency, but you have their order reversed. radical muslim jihadists are a small minority of it.... mostly it is indigenous sunnis and shiites in a turf war The vast majority of Iraq, is not supportive of this group, and will eventually reduce them to a menace. I doubt they will ever be completely rid of them. the vast majority of Iran is shiite and they are backing that side of the insurgent effort... and when they win, and they will, then the government will quickly align itself with its good friend and spiritual soulmate, Iran

We are not technically fighting a war at this time. There are two armies in the country, and they are on the same side. In effect, this is the aftermath of a war, but since it's not completely over, you can't call it that right now. We are in the middle of a civil war at this time... and the sectarian violence is growing stronger all the time. as reported by our own Pentagon, or are they just a bunch of liberal pinheads too?
 
Dixie said:
Well, you can say this all you want to, it doesn't answer the question, does it?

"We should have never gone!" is NOT a solution!

I think you are wrong about that, I totally disagree with you on that, I have stated hundreds of times, exactly why I feel that way... you have done the same with me... this is not answering the question and solving the problem, this is not finding a solution or acting rationally, it's just rehashing an argument that is no longer relevant. We disagree on Iraq, we alway will! Now... what do we do about our current situation in Iraq? Either you have answers and solutions, or you don't! Present them, or shut the fuck up! Not going into Iraq, is no longer an option! We are there, we've been there, we've defeated Saddam, we've replaced his tyrant regime with the first Arab democracy... now what? You want to give it up and admit we were stupid and wrong? What? You want to re-install Saddam? Please??? Tell me what you want to do here?

The problem is, you don't have an answer! You just have that stupid look on your face, like you don't have a clue! You'll go back into your bag of insults, to throw some more shit at Bush or Rumsfeld, or me or neocons, because all you have is hatred and vile. You damn sure don't have solutions!
Click to expand...

The problem is, you don't have an answer!


Democratic Solutions for Iraq:


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/16/us.iraqresolution/

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...0/democrats_may_unite_on_plan_to_pull_troops/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5013535

http://fullpolitics.com/viewthread.php?tid=14465#pid338142

http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/003914.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12062280/
 
Dixie said:
Maybe you misunderstood something I said? Democracies take time to develop and flourish, and they don't always work out for the best. They stand a much better chance, when they are based on a constitution, like our representative republic's democracy is, but there is no guarantees, even with this. Much has to do with the character of the people, if they are immoral and corrupt, so will be their democracy.

I know this much, the people of Iraq are vastly better off in a system where they get a voice, than under rule of an oppressive tyrant sicko, like Saddam, and to dare think otherwise, is ridiculous. They may very well need to have a Civil War to settle it all, we did! It might take them 200 years to right the injustices within their laws, and correct their constitution, it took us that long! These things do not happen in the course of a couple of years, they never have. You are attempting to pass historical judgement on something history hasn't digested.
Click to expand...



The comparison with the early United States is a flawed analogy. In the first place, the United States didn't have a working government and then have an invasionary Army invade and destroy both our country and our government and occupy our country and then begin building permanent bases as they made first one and then another excuse for having done with they did. Indeed, the United States was formed by overthrowing an what was seen as an oppressive situation and then working through our problems without any outside aid or interference by any other nation. And there was no occupation after the Revolutionary War.

In addition, the American Civil War wasn't between two sectarian religious groups conducted under cover of a greater and more volatile insurgency trying to throw the occupiers out (see paragraph 1 above). The American Civil War was fought over whether or not the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence would be applicable to people who weren't white and male and who would be able to decide when and where areas of the nation could or couldn't secede from the Union when they didn't agree with the outcome of an election... None of this seems to be applicable to Iraq. Unless of course it turns out that they do have cotton plantations and several hundred thousand black slaves hiding somewhere. Get a grip Dixie, Iraq is not the United States of 1776, 1789, 1861 or 2006. Iraq is Iraq.

And where did you learn American history, boy???
 
"We are not technically fighting a war at this time." - Dixie 09-05-06

Good. Then we can bring all our combat troops home, and simply leave military police, civil affairs officers, and army engineers behind for reconstruction operations.

Right?
 
Okay, who keeps editing their post(s) in this thread? It keeps popping up as having new, unread posts but there's never anything new! And I don't have anyone on my Ignore list, so that's not it.

Whoever it is, please leave your prose as is. It's deathless. Trust me.
 
It's because people vote in the poll. I have it set so that new votes in a poll bring it back up...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top