• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Its not a civil war...

headscratcher4

Philosopher
headscratcher4
Joined
Apr 14, 2002
Messages
7,776
But, if it were one, we have a plan.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, testifying today before the Senate Appropriations Committee: "The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the, from a security standpoint, have the Iraqi security forces deal with it to the extent they're able to."

Given Rummy's visionary record, this should work out just fine for all involved.
 
I wonder why it's all that important to prevent a civil war? Seems they're more or less there already.
 
Not sure you're wrong...however, a civil war doesn't jibe with the brave words the President has spoken of his vision for Iraq and the Middle East.
 
I read on Yahoo yesterday that the Shiites have been underreporting the numbers of the dead and wounded and that they're much higher than what we've been told. That said, I wonder if the civil war has already begun.
 
Zbu said:
I read on Yahoo yesterday that the Shiites have been underreporting the numbers of the dead and wounded and that they're much higher than what we've been told. That said, I wonder if the civil war has already begun.
Click to expand...
Some papers ran that story today although it remains denied and unconfirmed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/08/AR2006030802692.html

Official Says Shiite Party Suppressed Body Count

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, March 9, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD, March 8 -- Days after the bombing of a Shiite shrine unleashed a wave of retaliatory killings of Sunnis, the leading Shiite party in Iraq's governing coalition directed the Health Ministry to stop tabulating execution-style shootings, according to a ministry official familiar with the recording of deaths.

The official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named because he feared for his safety, said a representative of the Shiite party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, ordered that government hospitals and morgues catalogue deaths caused by bombings or clashes with insurgents, but not by execution-style shootings.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks, Freechile. And speaking of the authenticity of this article, isn't it about time the news outlets start...well, being ACCURATE? All this fuss to get the word out is getting way out of hand. *grumble*
 
Yeah. They're really pissed with all the media attack that has taken place around the leaks investigations. But I could of thought of much better headlines for this one.

One thing I found interesting is Rumsfeld's plan to respond to a civil war. Did you read the transcript of the hearing? His plans make me feel all warm and tosty inside. Do these guys know anything about risk management?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/09/AR2006030900280.html

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing on the Supplemental Budget Request for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
CQ Transcriptions
Thursday, March 9, 2006; 2:31 PM

...

BYRD: That is true, Mr. Secretary.

Is there any plan to respond to a civil war in Iraq?

RUMSFELD: The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the -- from a security standpoint, have the Iraqi security forces deal with it to the extent they're able to.

BYRD: Do you feel that there would be a request to respond to a civil war in Iraq?

RUMSFELD: I don't know that I'd characterize it that way.

BYRD: How can we avoid it?

RUMSFELD: The way that it -- the work that is being done today by the ambassador and by the embassy to bring the political parties together to form a government is the principle thing that needs to be accomplished to avoid it.

RUMSFELD: And that is what the ambassador and his team, as well as General Casey and his team, are working very diligently to do.

...
Click to expand...
 
headscratcher4 said:
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, testifying today before the Senate Appropriations Committee: "The plan is to prevent a civil war ...
Click to expand...
That is not a plan that is an aspiration. A plan is a suggested way to achieve an aspiration. Rumsfeld is saying "We hope there isn't a civil war".

...and to the extent ...
Click to expand...
What?
... one were to occur, to have the, from a security standpoint, have the Iraqi security forces deal with it to the extent they're able to."
Click to expand...
This guy is a senior minister in a country that has aspirations to Premier League status. It's laughable.

Given Rummy's visionary record, this should work out just fine for all involved.
Click to expand...
Vapour-ware never crashed a real computer. When it comes to cases, the guys with the guns have strong arguments. They're also the guys with the blood and the guts. The day Condi Rice wants Rummy gone, he's gone.
 
shecky said:
I wonder why it's all that important to prevent a civil war? Seems they're more or less there already.
Click to expand...
You have to wonder where the line is drawn. There are people in the Shia camp and the Shi'ite that are clearly intent on provoking a face-off. In the Shi'ite camp it's being pressed by elements of SCIRI who regard the Sunnis as a defeatable minority. These are elements associated with the government. In the Sunni camp it's being pressed, mostly by foreigners, as a winnable war against heretic oppression.

So far, normal folk aren't falling for it. But I've read reports of minorities moving out of mixed neighbourhoods, with a view to the future ... It's very reminiscent of the process in Yugoslavia.
 
shecky said:
I wonder why it's all that important to prevent a civil war? Seems they're more or less there already.
Click to expand...

because. given accurate predictions of what might happen, bushco said that iraqis would welcome us with open arms, want to have our children, learn to love apple pie, US troops would be able to pull out whenever they wanted, love baseball, and cost the citizens of the US no money

anything less than that is total failure for the USA and all of the other FORCES OF GOOD (and i'm only being half sarcastic, unfortunately).
 
Rumsfeld is a complete moron. He's basically covering so he can medically retire when the **** really hits the fan.
 
Zbu said:
Rumsfeld is a complete moron. He's basically covering so he can medically retire when the **** really hits the fan.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the impression I got. Like he was beginning to wipe the ***t off his *ss using the hands of the Iraqi Security forces.
 
Bush Says He Remains Confident in Iraq Strategy

President George W. Bush, speaking as the conflict in Iraq enters its fourth year, said the terrorists who destroyed a Shiite shrine last month won't succeed in sparking a civil war or thwarting democracy there.
Click to expand...

Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who heads the secular Iraqi National List party that took 25 seats in the December elections for the 275-seat parliament, said yesterday that the sectarian violence is threatening to spin out of control.

"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more,'' Allawi said on the BBC's "Sunday AM'' program. "If this isn't civil war, then God knows what civil war is.''

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on ABC's "This Week'' program yesterday that he agreed with Allawi and that Iraq has been in the midst of "a low-grade civil war'' for at least six months. "Our own generals have told me that.''
Click to expand...

American heritage Dictionary:

civil war
n.
A war between factions or regions of the same country.
Click to expand...

Legal Encyclopedia:

Civil war exists when two or more opposing parties within a country resort to arms to settle a conflict or when a substantial portion of the population takes up arms against the legitimate government of a country. Within international law distinctions are drawn between minor conflicts like riots, where order is restored promptly, and full-scale insurrections finding opposing parties in political as well as military control over different areas. When an internal conflict reaches sufficient proportions that the interests of other countries are affected, outside states may recognize a state of insurgency. A recognition of insurgency, whether formal or de facto, indicates that the recognizing state regards the insurgents as proper contestants for legitimate power. Although the precise status of insurgents under international law is not well-defined, recognized insurgents traditionally gain the protection afforded soldiers under international rules of law pertaining to war. A state may also decide to recognize the contending group as a belligerent, a status that invokes more well-defined rights and responsibilities. Once recognized as a belligerent party, that party obtains the rights of a belligerent party in a public war, or war between opposing states. The belligerents stand on a par with the parent state in the conduct and settlement of the conflict. In addition, states recognizing the insurgents as belligerents must assume the duties of neutrality toward the conflict.
Click to expand...
 
headscratcher4 said:
Its not a civil war.. .Cheney says so. Stop reading the news. It only confuses you.
Click to expand...

Well in reality it won't be a civil war until the Iraqi government splinters and elements of the Iraqi police and army start fighting each other. As it is right now the leaders of the Iraqi government are working together to head off sectarian fighting. When they give up on a unity government and start stoking the violence...well there's your civil war.

Until that happens you're merely trying to repackage the failed insurgency against the US military, coalition, and Iraqi forces as a "civil war".

Here's a hint; until it really is....it really isn't.

-z
 
rikzilla said:
Well in reality it won't be a civil war until the Iraqi government splinters and elements of the Iraqi police and army start fighting each other. As it is right now the leaders of the Iraqi government are working together to head off sectarian fighting. When they give up on a unity government and start stoking the violence...well there's your civil war.
Click to expand...

Rik...You're neglecting one little factor. There is no Iraqi government. Really. They haven't formed one yet. There's a parliament that met for a whopping 30 minutes and called it a day.

Until that happens you're merely trying to repackage the failed insurgency against the US military, coalition, and Iraqi forces as a "civil war".
Click to expand...

Rik, I understand your desire to constantly paint the invasion as some shining success, but at a certain point "optimism" transforms into "delusion."

Cheney's claim that the insurgency was in its "last throes" was a good long while ago now, and people are still being killed every day. Lots of people.

And unless you're only getting your news from Rush Limbaugh, you're well aware that it's way more complicated than "insurgency vs. US military + Remains of Coalition + Iraqi forces." Namely, you have numerous different insurgent forces that A) are growing in size and number of attacks, B) have supporters/members in both the "government" and "Iraqi forces," and C) don't seem to be going anywhere soon.

If this isn't a civil war, it's damned close.
 
shecky said:
I wonder why it's all that important to prevent a civil war? Seems they're more or less there already.
Click to expand...

More or less?

Let's see, we have 3 factions, all armed and fighting with each other. How is this not a civil war?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom