rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
If you want to make a point that there exist news articles which refute my position on this then YOU really should post links to said articles.
-z
If you want to make a point that there exist news articles which refute my position on this then YOU really should post links to said articles.
-z
daredelvis
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2002
- Messages
- 2,217
Yes, that is it. Criticism of the administration and pointing out how bad things are going is the equivalent of a rooting for things to go bad. It is statements like your most recent insulting straw man that make you such a tedious person.
A leftist wet dream is that these idiots (the administration) never took this course of action in the first place. Barring that a leftist wet dream may be that people begin to wake up and see the complete mess they have made and kick them (the administration) out (remove all popular support) before they take their next monumentally stupid step.
What is you wet dream? Stay the course? More time at Prairie Chapel? Go on some more hunting trips? It has all worked so well so far.
How much time off have you taken from your job in the last year? Don’t you think if you were responsible for this mess you would spend a little more time on the job?
Daredelvis
daredelvis
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2002
- Messages
- 2,217
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR2006031201415.html?sub=new
Sectarian Fighting Changes Face of Conflict for Iraqis
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, March 13, 2006; Page A01
"The past two weeks have changed the war in Iraq, shifting its focus from a U.S.-driven fight against Sunni insurgents to a direct battle for power and survival between Iraq's empowered Shiite majority and disempowered Sunni minority. On Sunday, three car bombings in Baghdad's Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City killed about 50 people, the deadliest string of sectarian attacks since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra touched off a wave of retaliatory killings.
The bombing, which blew the gold-plated dome of the Askariya mosque into naked gray concrete, did not set off the battle between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite blocs. Their enmity stretches back centuries, and ever since U.S. troops overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003, the two sides have been grappling to find their new footing.
But the bloodshed that has followed the shrine bombing, as Shiite religious parties unleashed their militias on a large scale in Baghdad for the first time, laid bare the sectarian rift -- and worsened it. Some Iraqis and international figures have expressed worry whether Iraq, having come to the brink of civil war, can keep itself from sliding in."
Same ol insurgency
Daredelvis
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Your issue appears to be that a Civil War, if it is happening, is going to please the people who were against the war. You would have to ask them if that was the case, not say it is their 'wet dream' without evidence.
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
Its quite apparent you are out of your league. Try reading up on insurgency. We are already fighting multiple enemy sources.
Did you not even bother reading that vanilla overview of the insurgent or militant groups I linked from wikipedia?
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
If it walks like a duck...etc...etc...etc... If I'm so tedious why don't you ignore my posts?
Reality is a bitch huh?
Well guess what? The voting public was offered a really rank choice by the Dems on Nov 2nd 2004. They held their noses a voted for dubya. Illustrating the point that a poor choice is the same as no choice at all.
An adhominum non-sequitur...how original. :yawn:
A POTUS...any POTUS...is merely the head of a very large team. The team doesn't cease work because the POTUS is at the end of a phone line in Crawford instead of a phone line at the White House. We're in a modern era in case you haven't noticed.
-z
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Thank you, yes, I'm well aware. Which is why Rik's statement that "none of which is happening" indicates his lack of knowledge about what's going on in Iraq.
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
C'mon Cleon. Your overarching premise was that; "Washington would have to decide which faction, if any, to back."; which is correct...and as I said has not happened. Washington is still firmly standing behind the formation of the Iraqi representative government as elected by the people of Iraq. There is no confusion about "which faction" they should back simply because there is no civil war which has split the Iraqi government into warring factions in the first place.
Not saying it won't happen...just that it hasn't happened yet. And also pointing out that saying that it has happened already is dishonest and unhelpful to the effort.
-z
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Are you sure about that? I seem to recall Washington picking a side fairly early on.
Whatever, Rik. Nice attempt at backpedalling.
Oh, and please, keep calling people dishonest who don't agree with your defition of what constitutes a "civil war." I'm sure you really get your POV across, and I'm sure it lands you a lot of friends.
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
Chalabi? I seriously doubt he was anything more than a useful face of opposition to Saddam. After his WMD info proved false the he was hardly an admin favorite.
Touche Mr. Pedant.
Friends? I'm an Army veteran. Anyone working hard to re-define this conflict so that it becomes both more difficult and deadly to my brothers in the Army is no friend. In fact they would be the opposite thing.
-z
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Enjoy the final word, Rik. Think whatever you like, wear whatever rose-colored glasses suits your fancy. I'm done.
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
How does someone here putting a label on the conflict make it more difficult and deadly for your "brothers?" It must be homeopathy or some other crazy woo that explains that. Oh, and you don't have a monopoly on caring about what happens to our soldiers...Friends? I'm an Army veteran. Anyone working hard to re-define this conflict so that it becomes both more difficult and deadly to my brothers in the Army is no friend. In fact they would be the opposite thing.
Renfield
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,055
You may say it and say it again, but that doesn't make it true.
Dictionary.com:
civil war
n.
1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
Websters:
Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country
Damn, sounds kind of like Iraq, doesn't it?
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
It also sounds like Columbia, Spain, Peru, Palestine, Lebanon, and East LA. The term itself: "Civil War" carries special negative connotations for Americans...and when one hears this term it inevitably conjures up images of death and chaos on a massive scale.
The American Civil War involved the breakdown into factions of the US Government. Elements of the US Government formed a new government. Other elements of the old government fought them. This my friends is what most Americans regard as "Civil War".
Using such a loaded term to describe Iraq (a place where the government is not split and warring on itself) is indeed a dishonest repackaging of the insurgency. The only possible benefit of which is to the terrorist enemy.
Now if you guys are interested in aiding Zarqawi, et al through your loaded rhetoric go ahead, but don't expect to get a free pass. We get it that most of you guys hate GWB...it's just weird that you'd let such hatred lead you into useful-idiothood in behalf of dangerous religious nuts who'd just as soon cut off your head as look at you.
-z
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
Not a monopoly...but better credentials than someone who jaw-jaws while others put on a uniform and actually do stuff. Evidence you see. If your evidence for caring about the troops consists of nothing more than political dissent then I'd say that's pretty poor...as evidence goes.
As for labels? Unchallenged they can change attitudes. Making a label such as "Civil War" actually stick to the effort there would erode support, embolden the enemy, and yes...these effects could easily make a dangerous situation worse for the guy walking patrol in Iraq.
If you are truly caring of the troops then you would not want to craft a label which so undermines the mission of said troops. However; if you cared more about making GWB look bad by making the Iraq situation look untenable than you did for "the troops" then indeed one could expect you to push this label.
Simply put, that's the only real reason one would try to call Iraq a civil war. It's simply a good way to discredit the effort of a POTUS you despise. If the troops are put in a worse situation that's too damned bad eh?
This kind of "support" they can surely do without.
-z
And here is some other relevant reading from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence_in_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_civil_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
My point was that the lack of a civil war means there isn't a civil war. Nice try though. I asked for evidence of a civil war and nobody seems to be able to provide any. I even gave easy templates for providing such by using other acknowledged civil wars as a comparison. I even provided a list of the insurgent groups in Iraq to help these military analysts here on the thread identify who is at war.
Your attempt to take my skeptical and intellectual position and harp on one point that you extrapolated incorrectly doesn't diminish my position but I guess thats the best try you had in you.
I'm a reasonable person:
1. Compared to other internationally recognized civil wars Iraq doesn't appear to be at war.
2. Statement one doesn't mean I don't acknowledge high casualty sectarian/factional violence or the possibility that a civil war could occur.
Wait no, you're right. My laying the context for Iraqi sectarian violence was actually me saying "since its gone on a long time its not a war now". You caught me. I feel naked. Next time you think about getting snarky and saying "your logic (and I use that term loosely)" I suggest you hit the edit key and instead ask if the way you understood my post was really what I meant. As much as I like spanking the plebians and humanoids on this forum, the implied insults on my logical facilities don't move the thread.
Last edited:
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
This weekends violence is due to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mahdi_Army
vs
Sunni Insurgents (no news source I've seen has said which group, with any luck, its the Al Ikwan branch of islamofascists).
Can't say I feel too bad about these two groups killing each other. I just hope they manage to do so before bringing the populace at large into a civil war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mahdi_Army
vs
Sunni Insurgents (no news source I've seen has said which group, with any luck, its the Al Ikwan branch of islamofascists).
Can't say I feel too bad about these two groups killing each other. I just hope they manage to do so before bringing the populace at large into a civil war.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
I would add as a criterion "Is it for a political purpose?" If so, it's certainly in the running for civil war status. That cuts out turf-wars in LA or domestic violence.
That post-Baathist part of the insurgency has a political objective, to prevent a Sunni-dominated central power crystalising. The Badrist party, acting partly from within the government forces, have the political obective of breaking the Sunni economic dominance. They also want to disrupt Sunni political structures.
It's a conflict over the nature of the state. It doesn't seem unreasonable to describe it as a civil war. Not that such definition matters much, of course, it is what it is.