IRAQ: It's just NOT a civil war, I tell you...

This reminds me of the Viet Cong in South Vietnam.

Also, the Iraqi people didn't fight for their freedom like we did in the Revolutinary War. Our troops gave them their freedom. Bascially, other than voting the Iraqis have not invested in their new freedom. If they continue to fail to do so, then they will lose it - regardless of how many troops we put in Iraq and regardless of the great efforts by our troops.

 

The UN said this morning that the death toll
in Iraq during Oct 2006 was 3,709. This was the
most since this 'war' began 44 months ago.
The population of Iraq is about 25 Million folks.

Cambodia had a Civil War in the later 1970s
1 Million of 3 Million Cambodians were killed.

The USofA had a Civil War that lasted 1461 days
and killed some 430,000 military personnel.
That is 294 per day, on the average.

For the past 15 years (at least) the USofA has
slain 4,000 innocent babies per month.

1. The reign of terror in Iraq is NOT a war.
The reign of terror in Iraq is NOT civil.
QED, the reign of terror in Iraq is
NOT a civil war.

An some of us more hartless folks are going to
say that it it better for 3700 a month to die in Iraq
than the same number to fall to terrorists around
the world.

 

Iraq has nothing to do with reducing world terrorism. As Bush himself admitted it is increasing world terrorism.

 

How do you define 'reign of terror' and 'civil war'. When does one group of peoples fighting be classified as civil war and the other group is considered to be engaging in a 'reign of terror'?

 

'War' is where party A trys to kill party B cause party A has a dispute with party B.

'Terror' is where party A trys to kill party C cause party A
has a dispute with party B.

The difference between the two statements has been
bolded for easier identification.


The TERRORISM situation:
The enemy of the Sunni is the USofA so they kill Shiites.
The enemy of the Shiite is the USofA so they kill Sunni.

The WAR situation:
the enemy of the Sunni is the Shiites so they kill Shiites.
The enemy of the Shiites is the Sunni so they kill Sunni.

Really simple, unless you are a Robin Hood Democrat.

 

Who decides for each of the sects who their enemies are? Isn't the fact that they are killing each other indicative of a people that are at war with each other?

What do Democrats have to do with this question?

 

Who would have known that a democracy in this country would have failed?

Who wuld have known that Saddam Husein would have been as equally as evil as these people are to themselves?

Bush's dream of Nation Building was badly flawed, let these people desroy themselves if they must it will do us no good to try to build as they are destroying.
It will be a whole lot easier to pick up the pieces when they are through killing each other.

 

Oh, I thought you were going to say
The TERRORISM situation:
The enemy of the USofA is the Taliban in Afghanistan so we kill the Ba'athists in Iraq.
The enemy of the USofA is Osama bin Laden so we hunt down and capture Saddam Hussein.

The WAR situation:
The enemy of the USofA is the Taliban in Afghanistan so we kill the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The enemy of the USofA is Osama bin Laden so we hunt down and capture Osama bin Laden.

Oh well, my bad. I didn't see where the 'Robin Hood Democrat' fit in, anyhow.

We should restore civil order before we leave altogether, since we were the ones who disbanded the government, army and civil police.

 

It's rapidly turning into a civil war. The Shiites and the Sunnis keep blowing up each other's mosques and attack predominantly Sunni and Shiite areas. The government we installed is unable to do anything about it. The militias from both sides have infiltrated the military and the police departments. :tear: :BangHead:

 

But this isn't the way the war began. The war began with a U.S. invasion of Iraq. As I and many other people forecast, it has degenerated into a civil war. BTW civil war is a war between different factions in the same country. This is now a civil war. Do they have to wear blue and grey for you to understand that?

 

Ours was not a civil war as the CSA was not attempting to take over the government of the USA. It was a revolutionary war like the one that started in 1776.

 

Do you have a link where you predicted this before we invaded Iraq?

 

Thank you Sister Daisy, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Ed: //Really simple, unless you are a Robin Hood Democrat.//

What I said is that 'Robin Hood Democrats' have a hard
time understainding simple logic. Two people so far have
supported my veiw BY EXAMPLE (non-Robin Hood Democrats
evidently are ignoring me). I am NOT talking about
Democrats, I'm Talking about 'Robin Hood Democrats'.
I'm not even really talking about 'Robin Hood Democrats',
I'm talking about their ability to understand. :BangHead:

 

Sorry, I used to work in a Library filing USgovernment
documents. The USGovernment won the war and the USGovernment
defines what the war/police action is about. Over time the USGovernment
has called the war:

The War of the Rebellion
The War Between the States
The Civil War

 

No but I said this to my former pastor. Maybe I told him that in an email. I'll check that out.

 

Well, S&N, if you predicted this would happen before the war started, then you need to go to Washington, D.C. immediately. They need you there - seriously.

 

I think the new Democratic majority in Congress will do just fine. I don't have any political power but they do. Actually, I don't think the prediction that Iraq would degenerate into a civil war was that uncommon before the war started, I'll investigate that. Of course the Neo-Cons weren't listening. They wanted to fulfill their dream of American world supremacy. That's well documented.