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

I hope that they do better than they did with Vietnam in 1975.

 

Yep. That and greatly increased domestic spending by the federal government.

 

Sounds familiar.

 

As I understand it, if it wasn't a civil war it was because the Confederacy seceded from the union before the war began, so, according to some rebels, it was a war between two separate countries rather than a civil war (ie. one country at war with itself, region against region, faction against faction).

How's about War of the Northern Aggression for spin?

 

Originally Posted by EE
//The War of the Rebellion
The War Between the States
The Civil War//

Daisy: //How's about War of the Northern Aggression for spin?//

TeeHee
Winners get to name the war.
War is played for keeps.

Even yet, in Iraq, it is not to late for us to
snatch defeat from the very jaws of VICTORY.

 

You have used this cute saying in the past concerning the war in Iraq. Do you really believe we are at the point of victory in this war?

 

That doesn't matter. Any time you have different factions in the same country fighting each other for whatever reason it's a civil war by definition.

Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil war

 

I would agree that it was primarily the Democrats (Lyndon Johnson starting a major esculation in 1964 and continued through 1968) who made the mistakes in Viet Nam. Of course Nixon, who basically ran against the war in 68, didn't help matters at all by stretching it out to 1974 when Nixon resigned. Come to think about it I'd have to call it fairly close, maybe 55 to 45 Dem. responsibility or closer. The war ended in 1974. I don't know what you're referring to wrt 1975.

 

The CSA was a sovereign nation and had legally seceded from the USA. Thus, it was not a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country, but a war between citizens of two separate nations.

 

That's when the Democratic Congress cut off support and sat on its hands while our South Vietnamese friends were taken over by the North Vietnamese.

 

In 2005 we celebrated the 60th year in Germany;
the 60the year in Japan. In 2063, if we celebrate the 60th year in
IRAQ - that is VICTORY. We are only 57 years away from victory. :saint:

BTW, the news tonight is that it is about as safe to go to a
Bagdad Muslim worship service as it is to go to a
New York City wedding party

 

Come on now, even the most radical Bush supporter cannot compare the success or goal in WW2 to Iraq.

 

Easy answer is C, which stands for constructive chaos.


The term “New Middle East” was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the “Greater Middle East.”



This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the “New Middle East,” was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon.


This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli “military roadmap” in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.


The “New Middle East” project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” --which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region-- would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives.




SOURCE


Victory is a "new middle east" that will welcome the new world order with open arms and submit themselves to the wishes of international central bankers and corporations. You know become real fascists like us, our own government has been controlled by the corporate elite since 1913. Now it's "their" turn. That's victory! One world, one government and one bank of international settlements for everyone! The nerve of those silly middle easterners, still wanting to print their own money and use gold instead of letting private global interests create it out of nothing for them like we do.

 

Was it legal? That is what the dispute was all about.

 

Was it legal? Before or after the laws were changed?

 

That was a new york city porno party . . . not a wedding party . . . unless ya'll do things different where ya'll come from.

 

Is there a source for this?

 

I believe the CSA had the legal right to secede. Freely the states entered into the union and freely they should have been allowed to leave. I believe the below write up makes a good argument for how the War of Northern Aggresion was illegal.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski31.html

 

NBC to use 'civil war' to describe Iraq