IRAQ: It's not a civil war, I tell you #2

Why would you say that LE?

 

c. Contain, Destabilize, and Roll Back Regional Challengers

The Israeli motivated plan to “destabilize” and “redraw the map of the Middle East” may be remembered by future generations as the spark that fell into the tinder box of World War III. While the United States is clearly interested in the reform of governments and institutions across the Middle East, a slower and more gradual approach with lower amounts of bloodshed was clearly the preferable path.
By accelerating conflict and casting aside both international law and alliances in the name of “regime change”, the U.S. is increasingly perceived as a rogue state and every bit as much a U.N. pariah as Israel.

By picking fights with ethnicities and tribes about which it knows or chooses to know comparatively little, the Bush Administration is only beginning to harvest the consequences of ill-advised and ideologically motivated extremism.

Is there a Connection between Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Eurasian Balkans” and the “New Middle East” Project?
The following are important excerpts and passages from former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives. Brzezinski also states that both Turkey and Iran, the two most powerful states of the “Eurasian Balkans,” located on its southern tier, are “potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts [balkanization],” and that, “If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable.”10

It seems that a divided and balkanized Iraq would be the best means of accomplishing this. Taking what we know from the White House's own admissions; there is a belief that “creative destruction and chaos” in the Middle East are beneficial assets to reshaping the Middle East, creating the “New Middle East,” and furthering the Anglo-American roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia:




Mission Accomplished!

 

6 dead here, 4 dead the other day, 50 more here and there, maybe 100.

What is your definition of war?

If you are going to call what is going on a civil war then we have had civil war in Detroit, DC, Los Angeles for decades.

487 homicides in Los Angles in 2005, 359 homicides in "Murder City" Detroit (lowest # in 30 years), 195 In DC (lowest in 10 years).

St. Louis was rated the most dangerous city 2005 with a homicide rate that increased %16 in 2005 over an already high homicide rate in 2004. How come nobody says that the cities I listed are in civil war?

 

Try 4,000 a month (linkie).

 

Still looks like it's along religious lines to me.

The real reason for the clamoring to call it a "civil war" is to delegitimize our efforts. The next line will be something along the lines of what are we doing in the middle of a "civil war"?

It just appears to me that muslims love to kill each other for religious sepremacy. Maybe that is "civil war", maybe not.

Bottom line is: What does it really matter? It changes nothing.

 

It means that we need to leave.

We need to transition, as quickly as possible, into using Iraqi troops in daily operations, such as patrolling their neighborhoods and tracking down known terrorists.

We also need to increase our training efforts that will allow Iraqi forces to handle their own security.

 

Large numbers ofSunnis and Shiites are not participating in the killing. Only a small number are participating or the numbers of dead would be much higher.

Bloods and Crips are killing each other over sections of this country. They are fighting over who gets what street and what city. Why is that not civil war?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro

The real reason for the clamoring to call it a "civil war" is to delegitimize our efforts. The next line will be something along the lines of what are we doing in the middle of a "civil war"?

WOW!

I was so on target that it's a little scary.:tonofbricks: