The Iraq "Civil War" -

you must see these pictures -- the USA army vehicles

http://news.webshots.com/album/124599660fVnKRb

 

Your venom is America’s defeat, sir.

 

.

Sam321: SouthAmerica will cry “Civil War” when his momma slaps him across his face. SouthAmerica will cry “Civil War” when his brother gives him a wedgie. People who cry “civil war” every time a handfull of people die in sectarian violence in a country of 26 million people are all PUSSIES.


*****


November 29, 2006

SouthAmerica: Today no one knows for sure how many people have died in Iraq since the US invasion in March of 2003. But there are estimates that between 100,000 to 150,000 Iraqis have died on this conflict so far.

Over 1 million people have moved out from Iraq to another country since January 2003, and among these people are the best educated population of the country including its doctors, professors, engineers, all kinds of professional classes, and so on….

According to the latest data more than 100,000 people are still leaving Iraq on a monthly basis – leaving behind only the very poor, the uneducated, the sick, the old, the people who did not have a place to go, the gangs of outlaws, the criminals, and a mixture of people trying to fight against the United States that include Al Qaeda, a mix of foreign fighters, all kinds of sectarian militias, and insurgents who want their country back from the occupiers.

Today only morons like George, and people bordering being retard such as Sam 321 (people with this kind of mentality reminds me of the movie “Deliverance”) would still deny that there is a major sectarian civil war spinning out of control in Iraq.

By the way, people just like Sam 321 also would deny that this other war that happened in US soil it was a “Civil War”. According to Sam 321 people who cry “civil war” every time a hand full of people die in sectarian violence (Union and confederacy) in a country of 31 million people (such as the United States in 1861) then they were all PUSSIES.

The question is: If Iraq is not in the middle of a nasty sectarian civil war then can Americans still claim that they ever had a civil war in the United States soil?

If the US government it does not want to recognize that there is a sectarian civil war spinning out of control in Iraq today – Then Americans should revise its history books and they should rename the American historical conflict on the period between April 12, 1861 to April 9, 1865 from a civil war to something more appropriated such as “just a minor sectarian violence between two groups.”

Maybe with a little imagination, a little revision, and stretching the truth just a little some US historians can accommodate the Bush administration, and also find a connection and blame Al Qaeda as a source of the conflict in the United States during the period of April 12, 1861 to April 9, 1865.




*********



Today some Americans are questioning if this particular conflict could be considered a real Civil War.


The United States Census of 1860 was the eighth Census conducted in the United States. It estimated the population of the United States at 31,400,000 people.


Date: April 12, 1861 – April 9, 1865

Location of war: Principally in the Southern United States

Result: Union victory



Combatants

1) United States of America (Union)

2) Confederate States of America (Confederacy)



Commanders

1) Abraham Lincoln, President
Ulysses S. Grant, Top General


2) Jefferson Davis, President
Robert E. Lee, Top General




Strength

Union: 2,200,000 soldiers

Confederacy: 1,064,000 soldiers



Casualties

Union: 110,000 killed in action
360,000 total dead
275,200 wounded

Confederacy: 93,000 killed in action
258,000 total dead
137,000+ wounded



****************



The New York Times
Published: November 29, 2006
“Bush Declines to Call Situation in Iraq Civil War”
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG


RIGA, Latvia, Nov. 28 — On the eve of a high-profile trip to Jordan to meet Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq, President Bush on Tuesday dismissed suggestions that Iraq had descended into civil war, blamed Al Qaeda for the latest wave of sectarian violence and vowed not to withdraw troops “until the mission is complete.”

The president’s remarks, during a swing through the Baltics that took him from Tallinn, Estonia, on Tuesday morning to Riga for a NATO summit meeting, were his first on Iraq since a series of bombs killed more than 200 people in a Shiite district of Baghdad on Thursday. It was the deadliest attack since the American invasion in 2003, and it was followed by bloody Shiite reprisals.

At a morning news conference with President Toomas Hendrik Ilves of Estonia, Mr. Bush, making the first visit to Estonia by a sitting United States president, characterized talk of civil war in Iraq as “all kinds of speculation.” Foreshadowing his message to Mr. Maliki, he said he would press the Iraqi prime minister to lay out a strategy for stopping the killings.

“My questions to him will be: ‘What do we need to do to succeed? What is your strategy in dealing with the sectarian violence?’ ” Mr. Bush said. “I will assure him that we will continue to pursue Al Qaeda to make sure that they do not establish a safe haven in Iraq.”

Mr. Bush is in Riga to talk about the other war — Afghanistan — which tops the NATO agenda. The alliance, which was formed to protect Europe, now has 32,000 troops in Afghanistan. But Mr. Bush wants NATO to commit more troops to the southern region of that country, to fend off a resurgence by the Taliban. In a speech at Latvia University, the president warned that terrorists, drug traffickers and warlords “remain active and committed to destroying democracy in Afghanistan.”

Yet Iraq, not Afghanistan, is dominating the president’s time, casting as heavy a shadow here as it does at home.

Democrats, who are about to take control of Congress after midterm elections that were widely viewed as a referendum on the war, are pressing for a phased withdrawal of troops, but Mr. Bush held firm against that.

“We’ll continue to be flexible, and we will make the changes necessary to succeed,” he said in Riga. “But there’s one thing I’m not going to do: I’m not going to pull the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.”

In part, Mr. Bush is laying the foundation to push back against a high-level bipartisan commission, which has been meeting in Washington behind closed doors to review Iraq strategy. Though the panel is reportedly divided on the issue of withdrawal, it is widely expected to recommend greater United States engagement with Iraq’s neighbors, Iran and Syria, two nations the White House has shunned.

Mr. Bush said Tuesday that he intended to leave such talks to Iraq, “a sovereign nation which is conducting its own foreign policy.”

On Wednesday, after lunch with his fellow NATO heads of state, Mr. Bush is scheduled to leave for Amman, Jordan, for two days of meetings with Mr. Maliki. Experts say that the president must walk a fine line, reassuring Mr. Maliki while making clear that American patience may wear thin if the prime minister does not tamp down the violence so Iraqis can assume greater responsibility for securing their country.

“They’re probably a little worried right now that if Maliki and others think maybe it’s only a matter of time before the administration gets out, the last thing they are going to do is go after militias, because the militias are what they need for protection,” said Dennis Ross, a former Middle East envoy for the Clinton and first Bush administrations.

But while Mr. Bush suggested he would lean on Mr. Maliki, White House officials were careful to say the president would not deliver any ultimatums.

“I think Maliki would be the first person to say he has not produced the kind of results he would like to have produced,” Stephen J. Hadley, the president’s national security adviser, told reporters, adding: “There is a lot of discussion about pushing Maliki. Maliki is doing a lot of pushing himself.”

The president and Mr. Maliki appear to be at odds on the cause of the recent bombings. Mr. Maliki has called them “the reflection of political backgrounds” and has said that “the crisis is political.”

But instead of citing Shiite and Sunni militias on Tuesday, Mr. Bush placed blame on Al Qaeda.

“There’s a lot of sectarian violence taking place,” Mr. Bush said, “fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by Al Qaeda causing people to seek reprisal.”

As the cycle of violence continues, officials outside the United States are warning that Iraq is verging on civil war. King Abdullah II of Jordan told ABC News on Tuesday that “something dramatic” must be done, and Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, told reporters on Monday that the region would face civil war “unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation.”

But Mr. Bush, well aware that a label of civil war would make the Iraq mission even more difficult to justify, brushed aside that question on Tuesday.

“There’s all kinds of speculation about what may or may not be happening,” he said in Estonia, adding, “No question, it’s tough.”


.

 

At National Review, James Robbins picks up on Jonathan Chait's possibly-tongue-in-cheek New Republic column about bringing back Saddam Hussein:

"Everyone agrees that radical de-Baathification was a blunder, so why not try radical re-Baathification? You want order? Saddam invented it. A bulwark against Iran? He's your guy. Plus, this time around he'll be grateful and cooperative. If not, we hang him. The people? They will be so shocked and awed by the turn of events they'll meekly reassume their traditional roles. No more random killings in the streets, but focused, systematic and orderly massacres in freshly dug pits. No foreign terrorists coming and going as they please, but only doing so on Saddam's orders. Oil exports up, American troops out. It really would be an ideal solution, if it weren't for all those lives we sacrificed on our journey back to square one.

 

No, it is the defeat of your chimpboy's policies. You had made a mistake a year ago by not accepting the fact the Iraq was in a civil war, and you are a wimp not to accept your mistake and move on. I am not sure if the poster sam123 is same as you, but I am assuming that. Please correct me if I am wrong.

By the way, Colin Powell says Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. Does the word of veteran soldier count?

"In between panels, I ran into Colin Powell and asked him if we are ever going to get out of Iraq. "We are," he told me, "but we're not going to leave behind anything we like because we are in the middle of a civil war."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/powell-on-iraq-couric-on_b_24599.html

 

Yes, it’s me... I don’t call skirmishes representative of a civil war. I said it several months ago and I stand by it now. Three years later. 26 million people. Show me the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by organized sectarian violence. And don’t count heart attacks, domestic violence, family feuds, suicides, random homicides, cancer deaths, car accidents, and what John-Doe Mohammed lies about to the gullible Associated Press.

And I certainly do not count all the 72-virgin ass-wipes recruited to blow themselves up in public squares to make enough people like you yellow.

Don’t you wonder why the violence has ratcheted up since the Party of Defeat took control of Congress? It’s as predictable as the sun and the moon.

By the way, Powel is a politician, like Murtha. And since they both despise what Rumsfield has done to the Pentagon infrastructure, it’s no surprise.

The problem is not policy, but competence. Preserving and enhancing America’s interests and influence is a wise foreign policy to me, but perhaps a threat to you. Our incompetence is the problem: too many people at the top believe this is unwinnable, which means they are in the way. Lincoln fired his generals. Perhaps Bush should do the same.

I don’t know what Baker is trying to do, but cutting and running so Hezbollah takes over Iraq and it’s oil fields as a means to save face is a terrible policy.

 

Let's do the math, because most people are REALLY bad at it here:

If 3000 people died in Iraq last month because of "skirmishes" that is equivalent of 34K Americans dying here.

Woulnd't you call civil war if 34 K Americans were dying a month here because of "skirmishes"??

Edit: I just looked it up, October deadliest month ever:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

3700+ people died in October, so that would be 42 550 Americans here, just to get a grip on the numbers. Skirmishes.....

 

they can't call it a civil war because when "Johnny comes marching home" in a body bag or missing three limbs, people will start to wake up.

it's a tough sell.... tougher than fake WMDs or "they hate our freedoms."

 

chimpboy is worse than sadman saddam?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16035086/