Its not a civil war...

The Central Scrutinizer said:
But why would a civil war be a bad thing? You have two tribes of savages. Let them kill each other. And we can watch from the sidelines.
Click to expand...
Um... because we just saved them from the thumb of Saddam's oppression. It would be a shame to save them only to have them die anyway.

...or did I overlook a smiley?
 
Z:

Considering the situation...it isn't quite clear that the insurgency has "failed." Though, perhaps the better picture is that the invation and occupation has been squandered.
 
Tricky said:
Um... because we just saved them from the thumb of Saddam's oppression. It would be a shame to save them only to have them die anyway.

...or did I overlook a smiley?
Click to expand...

No, you didn't miss a smiley, and maybe it's just wishful thinking. But I think the only thing that kept them from killing each other before was Saddam's thumb.

The best plan might be to split the country in three pieces. That's what they all want anyhow.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
No, you didn't miss a smiley, and maybe it's just wishful thinking. But I think the only thing that kept them from killing each other before was Saddam's thumb.

The best plan might be to split the country in three pieces. That's what they all want anyhow.
Click to expand...


According to your avatar, which gets ...

Oh never mind.

Balkanization doesn't work well, we have proof of that in what used to be Yugoslavia.
 
Why does the denial that Iraq is in a civil war right now remind me so much of John Belushi, "It's not a gang, it's a car club!" :)
 
Um... because we just saved them from the thumb of Saddam's oppression. It would be a shame to save them only to have them die anyway.
Click to expand...

lets not forget about the women and children
 
Cleon said:
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.
Click to expand...

186 so far this week have been found strangled or shot execution style. :(
 
Mephisto said:
186 so far this week have been found strangled or shot execution style. :(
Click to expand...

If that doesn't say "last throes" I don't know what does...maybe the standard is that if they kill enough people in the last throes, they'll just go away exhausted.
 
rikzilla said:
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.
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.''
Click to expand...
So, who's telling the truth, the Iraqi or the Bush-licker?
 
Unfortunately to point that this would happen three years ago would get you called "pro-Saddam" and "anti-American", but a three-way Bosnian style civil war is only a matter of time.
 
Diamond said:
Unfortunately to point that this would happen three years ago would get you called "pro-Saddam" and "anti-American", but a three-way Bosnian style civil war is only a matter of time.
Click to expand...
If it makes you feel better, some people on this forum will still call you anti-American or pro-Saddam.
 
Cleon said:
Oddly enough, in this case the Iraqi is also a Bush-licker. ;)
Click to expand...

But this Bush-licker is the Bush-licker that has to suffer through everything the other Bush-lickers need only enthusiastically deny. He is also the Bush-licker with the big bullseye painted on his forehead - maybe that helps him see a little clearer than others...
 
I wish someone would have asked the President at his news conference today to define "Civil War" so we could understand the distinction that he thinks he is trying to make.

Indeed, it may not be a "civil war" but that shouldn't get Bush or the Administration off the hook for a pretty messed up situation. I was reading some pundit the other day -- can't recall which -- and he wrote that potentially one of the worse things this Administration has done is leave the US without good options. It is increasingly clear that events are moving beyond the ability of the Bush Administration to control, little less understand.

If we stay we're screwed, if we leave we're screwed.
 
Well they're the Pentagon... of course they have PLANS for every contingency. Of course the PLAN is not likely to work.
 
Crazytree said:
Well they're the Pentagon... of course they have PLANS for every contingency. Of course the PLAN is not likely to work.
Click to expand...
A useful adage : no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Another : a piss-poor plan is better than no plan at all. (It's still a piss-poor plan, of course.)

After first contact, the competence of the commanders involved is crucial, and so is the abilility of higher commanders to trust their input and adjust the plan. From what I've been reading about the Iraq invasion, commanders on the ground recognised early on that the guerilla threat was greater than envisaged, and wanted to stamp it out before it got rooted. They had a tactical encyclopedia to call on, and very professional soldiers. Instead the plan took precedence - drive on to Baghdad where they'll stand and fight and be destroyed. Any input suggesting that the plan be modified was regarded as hostile. The partisans had time to get rooted, and here we are.
 
CapelDodger said:
A useful adage : no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Another : a piss-poor plan is better than no plan at all. (It's still a piss-poor plan, of course.)

After first contact, the competence of the commanders involved is crucial, and so is the abilility of higher commanders to trust their input and adjust the plan. From what I've been reading about the Iraq invasion, commanders on the ground recognised early on that the guerilla threat was greater than envisaged, and wanted to stamp it out before it got rooted. They had a tactical encyclopedia to call on, and very professional soldiers. Instead the plan took precedence - drive on to Baghdad where they'll stand and fight and be destroyed. Any input suggesting that the plan be modified was regarded as hostile. The partisans had time to get rooted, and here we are.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is the problem. This administration has promoted stubborness as Churchillian vision. No ability to adjust to realities other than the ones in their minds. They've left us with few to no options. They've left the military with few to no options. Rummy, as the presidnet said, has done a "fine job".

An army without options, an inflexible policy, a President unable to think outside of the box of his own limited imagination is a recipie for disaster...
 
headscratcher4 said:
An army without options, an inflexible policy, a President unable to think outside of the box of his own limited imagination is a recipie for disaster...
Click to expand...
That's what they were saying in 1863, of course ... Just thought I'd get that in first.:)

This administration has promoted stubborness as Churchillian vision. No ability to adjust to realities other than the ones in their minds. They've left us with few to no options. They've left the military with few to no options. Rummy, as the presidnet said, has done a "fine job".
Click to expand...

I came across the concept of Group Think many years ago, and I found it most illuminating, both of history and my experience of business. I'd previously tended towards the "What's in it for him?" approach, I hadn't seen the wood for the trees. Obviously a blend of both, with other spices, is the recipe but there's something very human about Group Think.

Then there's the lawyers. How many of these guys have studied Law? A large majority, I suspect. The US is hag-ridden by lawyers just as the UK is hag-ridden by accountants. Studying Law is the best way to ruin a good mind, drugs included. Then there are PR people, who share the attitude that reality isn't fixed, it has a lot of play.

These people are extremely vulnerable to Group Think. Tony Blair's a lawyer, of course, and Group Think is very evident this side of the Pond.

Condi Rice ... If anything's going to prick the bubble, her presence will be it. There, I've said it.
 
Dr Adequate said:
So, who's telling the truth, the Iraqi or the Bush-licker?
Click to expand...

Dr. Adequate. Your puerile dependency on name calling marks you as the troll you are. You are a dispicable (rule8).

As for Mr. Allawi? He can say what he likes. His opinon does not make one shred of difference in regard to my post. There simply is no civil war if the factions that make up the recognised govenment do not splinter and begin fighting each other. Since this has not yet happened Mr. Allawi's opinion is not bolstered by facts whereas mine is.

If you folks wish to have childish name-calling or bumper-sticker logic instead of actual debate you should really go find another forum. This place is for the grown-ups.

-z
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom