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
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...


OMG... American style Constitutional Democracy? YES, that is what we spent the money on, and it will eventually pay off in spades, if it works. If it doesn't work, it will cost us trillions more and thousands more in lives, in the years to come. Whether your simple mind thinks it was prudent and wise, is not a factor at this point. We are there, we are not leaving until the job is finished, and there isn't a damn thing you or alQaeda can do about that. You can rant and rave, and act like you give a shit about the money, all day long, it doesn't change reality. The bottom line is this... Does the American public want to flush a half trillion dollars down the toilet and turn Iraq into Vietnam II or does the American public want to finish what was started and hope for some results, some dividends on the investment?
 
Prakosh said:
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???
Click to expand...


Apparently, you think I was making some sort of direct comparative analysis of Iraq and the Revolution, and the sectarian violence and the Civil War. I do not contend that either event is the same as the other, or that you can compare them to one another historically. However, if that is the criteria you wish to assign to what I have said, I will modestly ask you to give a more suitable relative comparative example for us? For instance, tell me which event in history, liberal appeasement worked? Tell me, which war was won by liberal diplomacy? What great liberal idea, solved a major conflict in the world? Maybe if you give me better exact comparisons, I can understand your point of view?

You did say one thing correctly, Iraq is Iraq. It's not Vietnam, it's not Korea. There is no direct comparative example of Iraq, it's the first time in human history, an Arab country has formed a democracy. We are in uncharted waters here, and there simply is no "exact" comparative example. My only point, is your short-sighted, narrow-minded view of the historical context here. Because everything is not peaches and cream in Iraq, three years after freeing them from a 30-year reign of brutal tyranny, you are ready to declare this a historical mistake and admit we are a bunch of fucktards to the world! It's indicative of the spineless liberal crybabies you all are! Give Iraq some time, come back to me in 20 years, and tell me that it was a mistake to liberate them and establish an Arab democracy in the heart of Islamic radicalism! Let's see if this works? Nothing else has, so far... and you don't seem to have a fucking clue of an idea, so why not give good ol' democracy a shot here? It's better than sticking your head in the sand, or acting like Chicken Little about it.
 
I would like to see an Iraqi source that though they were in full Civil War. All the sites I'm seeing are saying it's for external consumption. They wish things were better, but are glad where things are going.
 
Runyon said:
I would like to see an Iraqi source that though they were in full Civil War. All the sites I'm seeing are saying it's for external consumption. They wish things were better, but are glad where things are going.
Click to expand...


I would like to see an Iraqi source that though they were in full Civil War.


"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not a civil war, then God knows what a civil war is."

--former Iraqi Prime Minister, Iayd Allawi


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4821618.stm
 
Cypress said:
I would like to see an Iraqi source that though they were in full Civil War.


"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not a civil war, then God knows what a civil war is."

--former Iraqi Prime Minister, Iayd Allawi


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4821618.stm
Click to expand...

Ok, I meant an 'everyday' Iraqi. Not one of the 'privileged'. Then again, I guess I do, since I mean someone with regular internet access. :confused:
 
Runyon said:
Ok, I meant an 'everyday' Iraqi. Not one of the 'privileged'. Then again, I guess I do, since I mean someone with regular internet access. :confused:
Click to expand...


Ok, I meant an 'everyday' Iraqi. Not one of the 'privileged'.

OK, here's an iraqi soldier:

"Iraqi civil war has already begun, U.S. troops say"
McClatchy Newspapers

"This is a civil war," said a senior adviser to the commander of the Iraqi Army's 6th Division, which oversees much of Baghdad.[

"The problem between Sunnis and Shiites is a religious one, and it gets worse every time they attack each other's mosques," said the adviser, who gave only his rank and first name, Col. Ahmed, because of security concerns. "Iraq is now caught in hell."


BAGHDAD, Iraq - While American politicians and generals in Washington debate the possibility of civil war in Iraq, U.S. officers and enlisted men who patrol Baghdad daily say it has already begun.

Army troops in and around Baghdad interviewed in the last week cite a long list of evidence that the center of the nation is coming undone: Villages have been abandoned by Sunni and Shiite Muslims; Sunni insurgents have killed thousands of Shiites in car bombings and assassinations; Shiite militia death squads have tortured and killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Sunnis; and when night falls, neighborhoods become open battlegrounds.

"There's one street that's the dividing line. They shoot mortars across the line and abduct people back and forth," said 1st Lt. Brian Johnson, a 4th Infantry Division platoon leader from Houston, describing the nightly battleground that pits Sunni gunmen from the Ghazaliyah neighborhood against Shiite gunmen from the Shula district.

As he spoke, the sights and sounds of battle grew: first, the rat-a-tat-tat of fire from AK-47 assault rifles, then the heavier bursts of PKC machine guns, and finally the booms of mortar rounds crisscrossing the night sky and crashing down onto houses and roads.

The bodies of captured Sunni and Shiite fighters will turn up in the morning, dropped in canals and left on the side of the road.

"We've seen some that have been executed on site, with bullet holes in the ground; the rest were tortured and executed somewhere else and dumped," Johnson said.

The recent assertion by U.S. soldiers here that Iraq is in a civil war is a stunning indication that American efforts to bring peace and democracy to Iraq are failing, more than three years after the toppling of dictator Saddam Hussein's regime.

Some Iraqi troops, too, share that assessment.

"This is a civil war," said a senior adviser to the commander of the Iraqi Army's 6th Division, which oversees much of Baghdad.

"The problem between Sunnis and Shiites is a religious one, and it gets worse every time they attack each other's mosques," said the adviser, who gave only his rank and first name, Col. Ahmed, because of security concerns. "Iraq is now caught in hell."

...........


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/15201432.htm
 
Cypress said:
Ok, I meant an 'everyday' Iraqi. Not one of the 'privileged'.

OK, here's an iraqi soldier:

"Iraqi civil war has already begun, U.S. troops say"
McClatchy Newspapers

"This is a civil war," said a senior adviser to the commander of the Iraqi Army's 6th Division, which oversees much of Baghdad.[

"The problem between Sunnis and Shiites is a religious one, and it gets worse every time they attack each other's mosques," said the adviser, who gave only his rank and first name, Col. Ahmed, because of security concerns. "Iraq is now caught in hell."


BAGHDAD, Iraq - While American politicians and generals in Washington debate the possibility of civil war in Iraq, U.S. officers and enlisted men who patrol Baghdad daily say it has already begun.

Army troops in and around Baghdad interviewed in the last week cite a long list of evidence that the center of the nation is coming undone: Villages have been abandoned by Sunni and Shiite Muslims; Sunni insurgents have killed thousands of Shiites in car bombings and assassinations; Shiite militia death squads have tortured and killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Sunnis; and when night falls, neighborhoods become open battlegrounds.

"There's one street that's the dividing line. They shoot mortars across the line and abduct people back and forth," said 1st Lt. Brian Johnson, a 4th Infantry Division platoon leader from Houston, describing the nightly battleground that pits Sunni gunmen from the Ghazaliyah neighborhood against Shiite gunmen from the Shula district.

As he spoke, the sights and sounds of battle grew: first, the rat-a-tat-tat of fire from AK-47 assault rifles, then the heavier bursts of PKC machine guns, and finally the booms of mortar rounds crisscrossing the night sky and crashing down onto houses and roads.

The bodies of captured Sunni and Shiite fighters will turn up in the morning, dropped in canals and left on the side of the road.

"We've seen some that have been executed on site, with bullet holes in the ground; the rest were tortured and executed somewhere else and dumped," Johnson said.

The recent assertion by U.S. soldiers here that Iraq is in a civil war is a stunning indication that American efforts to bring peace and democracy to Iraq are failing, more than three years after the toppling of dictator Saddam Hussein's regime.

Some Iraqi troops, too, share that assessment.

"This is a civil war," said a senior adviser to the commander of the Iraqi Army's 6th Division, which oversees much of Baghdad.

"The problem between Sunnis and Shiites is a religious one, and it gets worse every time they attack each other's mosques," said the adviser, who gave only his rank and first name, Col. Ahmed, because of security concerns. "Iraq is now caught in hell."

...........


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/15201432.htm
Click to expand...

Again, a US soldier is hardly an everyday Iraqi. Anyhow, it's late, I'll check back with you tomorrow.
 
Okay Prissy... here are some people who say Iraq is NOT in a Civil War....


“In my judgment, we are not in a situation of civil war,” said British Royal Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Fry, deputy commander of Multi-National Force - Iraq
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2326&Itemid=18

“I believe there is a danger of civil war in Iraq, but only a danger,” Gen. John Abizaid, the top US commander in the Middle East
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060825/a_iraqnews25.art.htm

BAGHDAD - Britain's new ambassador to Baghdad has said Iraq is not in the civil war that his predecessor warned was a strong possibility.
http://article.wn.com/view/2006/08/27/Iraq_not_in_civil_war_new_British_envoy_says/

Tribal and religious violence is increasing in Iraq but has not become a civil war, according to a Pentagon quarterly report to Congress made public yesterday.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060901-112704-8516r.htm

"Our commanders and diplomats on the ground believe that Iraq has not descended into a civil war," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060902/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

"The violence is not increasing. We're not in a civil war. Iraq will never be in a civil war. The violence is in decrease and our security ability is increasing."- Iraqi Prime Minister Nour al-Malik
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/28/iraq/main1938038.shtml

==========================================


So, now we have your former Iraqi PM Allawi, and some Iraqi Colonel, claiming there is a Civil War, and we have my list of people.... The President, The Pentagon, the British Envoy, the Cent Comm Generals in charge, the current Iraq PM. What this means is, at best, you have demonstrated that some people think Iraq is in a Civil War, and some people don't. Continued false claims that Iraq is, indeed, in a Civil War, are based on ignorance of fact.

But why all this bluster over a Civil War? Is it because you see a political advantage to Iraq breaking out in Civil War? Is that why you are so insistent on calling it one? Do you understand this is the exact same position as alQaeda is taking? Does that not bother you? Are you planning for the day when you can throw it back in our face and say... SEE! I told you it WAS a Civil War all along!...yet another thing you were WRONG about! I think that is what it is... this is a little liberal minutia trap... get the neocons defending Iraq, on record saying it's not a Civil War, then when the Civil War happens, you can claim some sort of moral victory in being right.

Let me be completely clear... As of now, Iraq is NOT in a Civil War. This could change at a moment's notice, and there is no guarantee they will not slip into a Civil War... let us ALL hope that doesn't happen! Indeed, it is exactly what the insurgents hope for, it's Abu Zarqawi's death wish, and apparently some liberal Democrats, as well. If there IS a Civil War at some point, it will be regretful, but it will not be the end of the world. It will not mean that removing Saddam was a mistake, or introducing the Arab world to democracy was in error. These are the myths you are trying to construct, and they just aren't so.
 
Dixie said:
Okay Prissy... here are some people who say Iraq is NOT in a Civil War....


“In my judgment, we are not in a situation of civil war,” said British Royal Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Fry, deputy commander of Multi-National Force - Iraq
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2326&Itemid=18

“I believe there is a danger of civil war in Iraq, but only a danger,” Gen. John Abizaid, the top US commander in the Middle East
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060825/a_iraqnews25.art.htm

BAGHDAD - Britain's new ambassador to Baghdad has said Iraq is not in the civil war that his predecessor warned was a strong possibility.
http://article.wn.com/view/2006/08/27/Iraq_not_in_civil_war_new_British_envoy_says/

Tribal and religious violence is increasing in Iraq but has not become a civil war, according to a Pentagon quarterly report to Congress made public yesterday.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060901-112704-8516r.htm

"Our commanders and diplomats on the ground believe that Iraq has not descended into a civil war," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060902/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

"The violence is not increasing. We're not in a civil war. Iraq will never be in a civil war. The violence is in decrease and our security ability is increasing."- Iraqi Prime Minister Nour al-Malik
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/28/iraq/main1938038.shtml

==========================================


So, now we have your former Iraqi PM Allawi, and some Iraqi Colonel, claiming there is a Civil War, and we have my list of people.... The President, The Pentagon, the British Envoy, the Cent Comm Generals in charge, the current Iraq PM. What this means is, at best, you have demonstrated that some people think Iraq is in a Civil War, and some people don't. Continued false claims that Iraq is, indeed, in a Civil War, are based on ignorance of fact.

But why all this bluster over a Civil War? Is it because you see a political advantage to Iraq breaking out in Civil War? Is that why you are so insistent on calling it one? Do you understand this is the exact same position as alQaeda is taking? Does that not bother you? Are you planning for the day when you can throw it back in our face and say... SEE! I told you it WAS a Civil War all along!...yet another thing you were WRONG about! I think that is what it is... this is a little liberal minutia trap... get the neocons defending Iraq, on record saying it's not a Civil War, then when the Civil War happens, you can claim some sort of moral victory in being right.

Let me be completely clear... As of now, Iraq is NOT in a Civil War. This could change at a moment's notice, and there is no guarantee they will not slip into a Civil War... let us ALL hope that doesn't happen! Indeed, it is exactly what the insurgents hope for, it's Abu Zarqawi's death wish, and apparently some liberal Democrats, as well. If there IS a Civil War at some point, it will be regretful, but it will not be the end of the world. It will not mean that removing Saddam was a mistake, or introducing the Arab world to democracy was in error. These are the myths you are trying to construct, and they just aren't so.
Click to expand...



Of corse you dont think Iraq is a civil war... you dont even think we are in a war at all....!
 
Dixie said:
No, I am the one articulating that it's complicated. So far, Republicans seem to be the only ones with a viable solution, I am still waiting to hear one from Democrats.
Click to expand...

What is the viable solution of the Republicans Dixie, spell it out, how do we win in Iraq, and when do you think this will take place?

let's here it...

care
 
care....you know that Dixie will tell you to "stay the course"...and that anything else will be "cut and run".

The Bush philosophy: rule by fear... communicate with platitudes
 
maineman said:
care....you know that Dixie will tell you to "stay the course"...and that anything else will be "cut and run".

The Bush philosophy: rule by fear... communicate with platitudes
Click to expand...

But what are their GOALS, wHAT exactly IS A WIN and what is the STRATEGY to accomplish those goals?
 
a "win" will be a multi-cultural vibrant, participatory democracy that shines like a beacon of freedom casting a light into all the dark shadowy corners of the world of Islam....at least that is what they told us going in.

They realize now that such a "win" is absolutely impossible and therefore "stay the course" is really what a near term victory looks like.
 
from Dixie's link:

victory in Iraq defined:

Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces. obviously a failure in the short term definition... the place is getting worse, not better
Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential. Iraq, as a nation state, will have little to no interest in defeating islamic extremist terrorists...they will be, when the bloodletting is finally over, a theocratic shiite state with close ties to Iran.... they will hardly be as high on AQ's hit list as they were when Saddam was in power.... so... medium term.... a failure as well
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
hahahahahahaha. They will not give a shit about our problems with Islamic terrorism.... they will be no more or less integrated into the world community than Iran will be.... a shiite theocracy will hardly be a "partner" with America on ANYTHING...so....long term failure....

in summary...the white house plan is a failure. Why am I not surprised?
 
Care4all said:
How would you best describe the situation in Iraq?


Yes, the Shiite and Sunni are in a civil war with eachother in Iraq.

No, they are not in a Civil War and this war is with Alqaeda.
Click to expand...

To properly ask this question you need to ask. Is there a civil war between the sunnis and shites or not. How polls are asked is very important. wording is everything.

we are not at war with alqaeda, we are at war with islamic-facism of which alqaeda is a part. And iraq has a secular war ongoing, not a civil war.
 
Are we at war with Islamic Fascism?

For that matter what is Islamic Fascism.

The common perception is a dictatorial regime that uses Islamic law as its basis.

If you ascribe to such an idea should we war with the entire Islamic world. Most Islamic nations use Islamic law as at least part of their legal code. Also most are dictatorial.

If you do not agree with that interpretation to what degree does a nation need to follow such guidelines to be Islamo-Fasicst?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top