FACT CHECK: Data Bolsters Notion Of Iraqi Civil War
FACT CHECK: Data Bolsters Notion Of Iraqi Civil War
Conservative Cybercast News published an article today titled “Data Contradicts Notion of Widespread Iraqi Civil War.” It argues that critics are wrong that Iraq has devolved into a civil war since, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week, high levels of violence are concentrated in “Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there’s very little violence or numbers of incidents.” From Cybercast:
A vast majority of Americans say they expect the current sectarian violence in Iraq to become a full-scale civil war, but U.S. military data compiled in Iraq indicates that over a two-month period ending on July 21, most of the violence happened in just four of Iraq’s 18 provinces.
The U.S. military figures cited by Cybercast show the four provinces with the highest levels of violence are Baghdad, Al Anbar, Salah ad Din, and Diyala. Those four provinces are precisely where one would expect violence if a Sunni-Shiite civil war were taking place, since they are the provinces where the vast bulk of Iraq’s Sunnis (who make up just 1/3 of the population) are located.
Baghdad has several large Sunni-dominated neighborhoods from which Shiites have fled in a wave of violent “ethnic cleansing.” Al Anbar, Salah ad Din, and Diyala are the only three Iraqi provinces in which Sunnis are the dominant majority.
Cybercast News has demonstrated the exact opposite of what it intended: the current trends of violence in Iraq all point to civil war.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Its not a civil war !!!!
August 5th, 2006 at 12:43 amIts a conflict !!!
Please the words civil war and ethnic cleansing have been replaced with the term “sectarian conflict”.
Know the propaganda.
-Karl “Turdblossom” Rove
August 5th, 2006 at 12:49 amWhat’s your definition of civil war? Are there organized battles for political power and control of an area? Is this violence and fighting occuring between militias? How does the bombing and murder of innocent civilians fit into your definition of civil war?
August 5th, 2006 at 12:58 amAre Americans blind or just stupid there has been a civil war in Iraq for a long time. Only Saddam could handle all the problems Bush went in for oil and control and all hell broke out. Now Rummy is so old he thinks we’re living during the FDR days and Lieberman wants his job. The GOP has lied to Americans and soldiers. Our kids died based on the lies Bush/Cheney told the American people. The world leaders knew Bush was lying notice one country is helping in the Iraq mess.
August 5th, 2006 at 1:03 amNo government official has denied the fact that 6000 people have died in Iraq in sectarian violence over the past two months. That would be the equivalent of 72500 people being killed in street violence in the US in June and July.
August 5th, 2006 at 1:17 amWE WERE LIED TO ABOUT IRAQ AND WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER INVADED THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT A THREAT TO THE US OF A. STOP THE KILLING OF OUR SOLDIERS AND STOP THE KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS. STOP IT NOW.
I have had enough. I am tired of sitting in the comfort of my home and doing nothing but ranting on my computer about this awful circumstance we find ourselves in. So tired that I am going to pick a street corner this weekend and begin to protest. I will visit this corner every weekend until we are out of Iraq. Won’t you do the same? Do it for your family, your kids, your grandkids and the future.
If we don’t end war, war will end us.
August 5th, 2006 at 1:21 amThe Sunni map link takes me to a CIAO site that requires a username and password…
August 5th, 2006 at 1:37 amIt’s a civil war in Iraq, but the one thing that is starting to unite all Iraqis is what Israel is doing to Lebanon! Iraqis killing each other is going to be replaced, by massive attacks on the Green Zone in Baghdad, so it would be wise to pull US troops out of Iraq immediately! Bush lied to get his war/occupation of Iraq, and his stupidity has destroyed that nation! Arabia is on the verge of all out war on Israel > thanks to Dubya dunce!
August 5th, 2006 at 1:38 am#7: Changed the link. Thanks.
– Nico
August 5th, 2006 at 1:48 amJackie- If you go back and read what President Bush said about going to war you will find he didn’t lie about anything. He was given bad intellegence but even Kerry found it to be true. WMDs were not the main reason given anyway,it the violation of him agreement that stopped the war. “Only Saddam could handle the problems” Only by mass murder. More people died with him” handling it”. Lets compair, During his 20 run at a min. 1.7 million people died as a direct result of his actions(wars,political murders,gas Kurds etc. Divide that by 20 years, 85000 deaths a month under his watch. Iraqibodycount.net puts the total number of deaths (mostly by insurgents) at 43,927 divided by 3 years of war, 14,642 deaths per month. Quite a decline since our intervention. I know that it was not really 85000 per mo. but it wouldn’t have stopped if the U.S. and Co. were not there. There are many more countrys helping than one.
August 5th, 2006 at 2:09 amJackie- If you go back and read what President Bush said about going to war you will find he didn’t lie about anything. He was given bad intellegence but even Kerry found it to be true. WMDs were not the main reason given anyway,it was the violation of his agreement that stopped the war. “Only Saddam could handle the problems” Only by mass murder. More people died with him” handling it”. Lets compair, During his 20 run at a min. 1.7 million people died as a direct result of his actions(wars,political murders,gas Kurds etc. Divide that by 20 years, 85000 deaths a month under his watch. Iraqibodycount.net puts the total number of deaths (mostly by insurgents) at 43,927 divided by 3 years of war, 14,642 deaths per month. Quite a decline since our intervention. I know that it was not really 85000 per mo. but it wouldn’t have stopped if the U.S. and Co. were not there. There are many more countrys helping than one.
August 5th, 2006 at 2:20 am[...] FACT CHECK: Data Bolsters Notion Of Iraqi Civil WarThink Progress, DC - 3 hours agoConservative Cybercast News published an article today titled Data Contradicts Notion of Widespread Iraqi Civil War. It argues that critics are wrong … [...]
August 5th, 2006 at 3:42 amCCN circa April 1861: “There’s no Civil War in the United States! Look, there’s only been violence in, like, seven of the 34 states!” We’re fine!
August 5th, 2006 at 4:41 amIndeed “Data Contradicts Notion of Widespread … Civil War.â€
In 1865 violence was largely confined to a narrow 50 mile wild strip of one state (Georgia).
As you argue, their argument could equally be used to prove that there was no Civil War in the USA in the 1860s. Violence did tend to be confined to the South with one outbreak in Pennsylvania and some trouble in Maryland.
Also didn’t anyone ever tell them that the word “data” is plural so while “data contradicts” is a grammatical error ?
August 5th, 2006 at 4:49 amThe point of which is that under international and U.S. law, invading a country for spurious reasons in order to dismantle it after fomenting a civil war,
• not only violates the law governing wars of aggression (UN Charter, which is U.S. law),
• but also violates the law governing occupations (Geneva and Hague Conventions, which are U.S. law), by failing to protect or provide security for the occupied country,
• and also violates the Warcrimes Act,
§ 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime†means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
Under the theory of FOX News, everything is political. Under OUR LAWS, our laws supercede politics. Looked at concretely, and not fancifully ala FOX, a civil war does not absolve these guys of blame.
It nails them to the cross of their actions.
August 5th, 2006 at 4:54 am“Jackie- If you go back and read what President Bush said about going to war you will find he didn’t lie about anything.”
The list of his lies is enormous, but you will find PLENTY in the Conyers report, with full documentation on the lies. The CIA warned him that the Niger claims were bogus. The Downing Street documents show that the “facts were being bent around the policy,’ which is itself lying. The threat of a nuclear attack had no basis of fact, and was from a known informant that the CIA rated as entirely unreliable. Etc. You are lying if you claim he didn’t. PERIOD.
“He was given bad intellegence but even Kerry found it to be true.”
Kerry was not privy to the intelligence that Bush had, especially including the CIA official view of the supposed intelligence. Bush did not share with the Congress the unreliable nature of his fake evidence.
“WMDs were not the main reason given anyway,it was the violation of his agreement that stopped the war.”
Which the Secretary General of the UN said officially was an abrogation of the UN Charter, otherwise known as a WAR OF AGGRESSION on false premises.
“Onlly Saddam could handle the problems†Only by mass murder. More people died with him†handling itâ€. Lets compair, During his 20 run at a min. 1.7 million people died as a direct result of his actions(wars,political murders,gas Kurds etc. — phishwhisperer
Then explain why Bush has Hussein on trial for the deaths of less than 600 people. We have eighteen TONS of Hussein’s government records, including shoot-to-kill orders and long lists of depopulated Kurd villages, as well as strong evidence of Hussein’s use of mustard gas and VX on Hallabja. So why is this genocidist on trial for petty murder of a few hundred people suspected of being involved in a plot on his life?
What a slap in the face of those hundreds of thousands he murdered, to try him on such a petty charge.
And OBL is still out walking around. “Dead or alive” meant if Bush’s vacation time doesn’t interrupt. “I don’t really think about him any more at all.” — GFH Bush, of Bin Forgotten.
August 5th, 2006 at 5:07 amThe US Civil War was mostly fought in the south, so that whole concentration argument carries no merit to begin with.
August 5th, 2006 at 7:45 amMom, I’m with you……..What state do you live in?…..I think my next stop will be in Everett, Wash. There is regular picketing going on there…One side of the street for the libs one side for the reps…..They have had a few minor incidents but nothing big…..See you on the picket line, maybe…….Blessings, the world needs them…….. Peace, demand it now…
August 5th, 2006 at 7:55 amDuring the first 3 years of the american civil war, the conflict was restricted to 7-8 states out of 43 states and territories. The conflict was generally restricted to the DC/Richmond area and western border states. In fact the only major battle fought in Union territory was Gettysburg.
August 5th, 2006 at 8:16 amYou can protest the war in Iraq all day and all night. It won’t change the minds of the powers that were. The new US embassy, the agricultural and industrial development that is now ongoing in Iraq along with the oil extraction by the corporate structure will move forward.
The presence of the US military to protect it all will be there.
The lies and propanganda won’t cease eiher.
Iraq is the 51st state, zip codes and all.
A few loud voices in protest is tolerated. Cindy Sheehan bought land in Crawford to continue her ongoing protest.
It is an anschluss of Iraq at the expense of the sacrifice of American sons and daughters and many Iraqi lives.
The American empire will fall without it. Anything else, ncluding anti-war protesting, is a non-starter.
Oil comes first. The peace and prosperity of the American people can wait.
Anyhow, that is the mindset of the power structure that exists in the globalist world. These folks play for keeps.
August 5th, 2006 at 8:51 amWildfire, it would appear you are correct in all your statements.. If we all live through this, it will be interesting to see the end results….”if” is the key word since the present leaders seem so hell bent on bringing on the end times….
Interesting info John Riley……What state do you live in.? The only reason I am asking is because 2 of my ancestors had your name. Of course there were 2500 other’s with that name also…..Just wondering if we might be related…….Blessings all…..Peace, demand it.
August 5th, 2006 at 9:13 amSeriously though, is there any way Nico wouldn’t say that things are pointing to a civil war? Even if a Sunni just sneezed on a Shiite, Nico would say that things were going towards civil war. In a civil war you have two (or more) parts that organize themselves to fight the others, and you know, declare war on each other.
What Nico is essentially saying here is that during the American Civil War, you’d expect all the fighting to happen in Maryland, the Virginias, Kentuck and Missouri. Yet as anyone who can do about 30 seconds worth of research can see, the American Civil War spanned all across the US with battles all over the place. There are Sunnis living all over Iraq, although most in central Iraq, yet if there truly was a civil war, you’d see the Sunnis attacking the Shiites all over the place and vice versa.
That’s not happening. We have small factions of Sunnis and Shiites slaying each other in a very unorganized manner within certain zones in Iraq that also includes attacking Coalition forces. It’s a majority government being attacked by a small number of insurgents from the minority parties while fighting back against them to try and maintain control.
As usual, those against the war will exaggerate things to no end to make things worse than they really are. Things are not going that well in central Iraq right now, thus there’s really no need to exaggerate things unless you are a rabid partisan simply looking to score political points. Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a hearing that things are pretty bad right now in central Iraq.
Meanwhile, the death rate for Coalition soldiers has gone down 3 months in a row. Let’s hope that continues for August.
August 5th, 2006 at 9:14 ami’m always baffled how so much commentary on whether Iraq is in a civil war or not usually makes no attempt to define what a civil war is. how can you possibly say whether it would or not without a definition. seems most people just have in their head some idea of what a civil war looks like and thats good enough. James Woolsey made references to the battle of Antietam to argue Iraq wasnt in a civil war. i laugh.
In fact, organizations like the world bank have a fairly standard definition of civil war that is used often by academics and researchers in conflict and post-conflict studies (paul collier is the guy who writes most of it for the bank, and he uses Singer and Small’s definition from 1994). The basics are 1,000 combat-related deaths a year (Baghdad alone gets that much a month!), identifiable combatants (the US-backed government vs. disparate but identifiable insurgent groups), and that each side in the conflict each suffer 5% of casualties, to rule out wholesale civilan slaughter.
is it a civil war? well, duh…as many important academics have argued. not only is iraq in a civil war, its in the most violent civil war on the planet save Sudan.
again this is the definition of civil war that people who live to study civil war use. if you want to argue whether or not iraq is in a civil war, you need to start here. but its not suprising people who say its not a civil war have no intention of doing so.
August 5th, 2006 at 10:29 amFAJR-5
Hizbullah has fired more than
a dozen FAJR-5s into Israel
Jerusalem Post: Picture of FAJR-5
World Tribune
WIKI:FAJR-5
August 5th, 2006 at 10:33 amKerry was not privy to the intelligence that Bush had, especially including the CIA official view of the supposed intelligence. Bush did not share with the Congress the unreliable nature of his fake evidence.
August 5th, 2006 at 10:53 amSaxon, Just as rumsfeld discounts minor battles in Basra and Kurdistan when he gives the 4/18 province argument, I too, discount such glorious battles as the battles of Corydon and Iron Mountain, in my 8/43 state argument.
“the American Civil War spanned all across the US with battles all over the place”
I would be interested in seeing the battles that were fought in Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, New York, Ill, RI,etc..
I stand by my position, until Sherman broke into Georgia the core of the fighting took place in the border states.
My greater argument is that a civil war is not defined by the geographic scope of the struggle, but rather in its social, ethnic, religious, and economic underpinnings. Rummy is just attempting to construct a straw man based on misconceptions.
August 5th, 2006 at 10:53 amBy Seixon’s logic, WW I was not a world war because not all countries had battlefields.
August 5th, 2006 at 11:02 amHi Sharon,
This mom lives in Dallas, TX and am prepping signs for my protest starting this weekend. I hope to see you and many others on our street corners speaking out to stop the killing of our soldiers and innocent civilians in Iraq.
And Seixon, you can’t exaggerate death.
August 5th, 2006 at 11:09 amhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/03/iraq/main1861448.shtml
Iraq likely to split up
August 5th, 2006 at 11:14 amBush lied even if you still want to believe he didn’t. #25 explained it well. We went to Iraq looking for WMD as Powell has apologized for then Bush changed it to Iraq Freedom. As for Saddam and the people he murdered. Let’s look at American history. Who many slaves were murdered and who was charged. We were a country growing. So many countries have leaders that kill or bad human rights. Look at the US policy of spying on Americans and holding people forever without trials. Some countries Bush calls friends do what Saddam has done. As for the help of other countries I know you know better. When Powell lied to the UN the countries didn’t join. Only smaller countries which we gave them something to join. It took Bush three years to say he made a mistake with all the information coming out now we learn Bush knew nothing about the religious groups in Iraq. If you want to support a liar that’s ok if you want to find excuses for Bush that’s ok But Bush has done what Nixon did sent the criminals out and said just do I don’t want to know the details so I can say to the American people I didn’t know. Tell the dead soldiers that Bush calls nothing but numbers that Bush didn’t lie even they knew it. Americans have to deal with the truth and it hurts just as before that a President lied to the people Bush isn’t the first President that lied and he wont be the last.
August 5th, 2006 at 11:16 amThere are organized battles between Shia and the Sunni? Or are they just acts of violence, mostly against innocent civilians? Why aren’t these acts of violence happening as an ongoing combat in other mixed areas of the country? Is this just a civil war in Baghdad?
Do tp libs have an honest answer?
August 5th, 2006 at 11:26 amIf we don’t end war, war will end us.
Comment by Mom
And Seixon, you can’t exaggerate death.
Comment by Mom
Simple and to the point, Mom. Well said.
August 5th, 2006 at 11:46 amJohn Riley,
According to a source I just looked at, there were civil war battles in 26/43 American states. Compare that to the 4/18 of Iraq. Not to mention that each side in the conflict had their own flag, their own organized army, their own uniforms, their own coordinated agenda…
My greater argument is that a civil war is not defined by the geographic scope of the struggle, but rather in its social, ethnic, religious, and economic underpinnings.
It’s defined by all of those things, but most of all, that there is some organized militia on two or more sides fighting each other, declaring war on each other, etc, etc.
All this is silly anyways, there is no need to label what is happening in Iraq. Hundreds and thousands of people are dying due to sectarian violence. That’s what it is. Slapping CIVIL WAR on it is only for the partisans that wish to associate what’s happening with loaded words to brainwash the masses. Same thing as TORTURE, DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE, and all the other buzz words that the anti-Bush forces toss out there to rile people up, completely devoid of perspective and context.
Walt,
By Seixon’s logic, WW I was not a world war because not all countries had battlefields.
Where did I say that all the provinces had to have battles? I said “all over”, which is not synonymous with having to be within each place. What a worthless semantic bunch of piffle. The first and second “world war” are also called the 30 years war, or something like that, from what I remember from high school 20th century history class.
Mom,
And Seixon, you can’t exaggerate death.
Um, yes you can.
August 5th, 2006 at 11:47 amSeixon – WW II was called “The Great Patriotic War” in the Soviet Union (In any of the 20 or so primary languages spoken in that union. WW I was comfined to Europe, the Northeast Atlantic and, to a lesser extent, North Africa. Russia withdrew from WW I when it experienced a change in government.
August 5th, 2006 at 12:12 pm“According to a source I just looked at, there were civil war battles in 26/43 American states”
I’m not refuting that. But Rumsfeld qualifies the 4/18 with the term major violence, so I took the same liberty. Again, the major battles and the major armies were concentrated in the border states, with the northern and western states escaping major conflict. The south also was mostly spared until late 1864 and 1865 thanks to Sherman,et al. In fact, that was the reason for Sherman’s march. He wanted the southerners to understand that they had been defeated by showing them he could march unopposed through an area unscarred by warfare.
The military leaders seemed to be closer to my position than Rummies on thursday.
August 5th, 2006 at 12:38 pmSince these guys are so quick to point to stats to back up their feeble argument, try this one out: 4 of 18 is 22%. During the first year of the American Civil War, only 7 of the 34 states saw any military action, or 21%. Therefore, what would they choose to call the beginning of our bloodiest war?
August 5th, 2006 at 12:52 pmRiley,
The military leaders seemed to be closer to my position than Rummies on thursday.
What you meant to say is that the military leaders said there is every possibility of this escalating into civil war, and you take this to mean that there is a civil war there.
Chard,
Since these guys are so quick to point to stats to back up their feeble argument, try this one out: 4 of 18 is 22%. During the first year of the American Civil War, only 7 of the 34 states saw any military action, or 21%. Therefore, what would they choose to call the beginning of our bloodiest war?
Again, stop with the absolutes here. We had two organized sides declaring war on each other for stated purposes, they even had two separate governments going. Is that happening in Iraq? No.
It seems like it would be more apt to call what’s going on for a clan war or gang war. We have “gangs” of Sunnis and Shiites killing each other without much organization or coordination. That doesn’t make a civil war. A civil war entails a lot more than that. Sectarian violence is just about the best description you can put on it.
August 5th, 2006 at 12:57 pmI said closer to my position, not in line with my position.
We can take the civil war number’s further. Your own numbers show conflict in 26/43 states or territories. Too date, there has been violence in 18/18 iraqui provinces. So using real logic or rummy logic, we still come out civil war.
Oh my goodness
August 5th, 2006 at 1:03 pm#37 – Seixon,
August 5th, 2006 at 1:13 pmPerhaps w should call it a gang bang, after all, it is a royal f**k-up.
Paul in LA
“The point of which is that under international and U.S. law…”
You have said you are a “marxist”.
Doesn’t marxism despise the Law?
What are you doing talking about Law in that case anyway?
Flip-flopping? What do you truly believe in?
August 5th, 2006 at 1:49 pmWaltTheMan
“it is a royal f**k-up”
Your name well relates to your comment
- looks like you never done anything except cartoons.
Do not get upset. What I am saying – you are a consistent fella. It’s a complement.
August 5th, 2006 at 1:52 pm#41 – One Jew,
August 5th, 2006 at 2:11 pmI have issued some short essays. I try to formulate comments that are short and to the point. Those are the ones read in their entirety during the initial rewiew process.
Thanks for the compliment?
Nico – You forgot to add the special effects:
A STANDING OVATION by TP’ers accompanied by THUNDEROUS applause, applause, applause. …. (insert copy here)
FACT CHECK: Data Bolsters Notion Of Iraqi Civil War….blah, blah,,,,blah. (HOORAY!!)
-Nico
******If rational, moderate Iraqi’s outnumber the Sunni and Shiite extremists, my confidence in humanity will be underscored. The Iraqi family who wants to educate their children and contribute to society will triumph over radicals offering up their children for sacrifice – with suicide vests or weapons cache placement. If I am wrong and the term “moderate Iraqi” is an OXYMORON – I may alter my position to stepping aside while they, Praise Allah, gleefully kill each other.
August 5th, 2006 at 2:12 pm#42 – me,
August 5th, 2006 at 2:13 pmI am also a poor typist.
The semantic debate over what constitutes civil war is interesting, but irrelevant.
August 5th, 2006 at 2:21 pmSince the occupation of Iraq, there has been a concerted effort by Al-Qaeda operatives and Sunni insurgents to disrupt the lives of the Iraqis. I would think that this constitutes at least a rebellion against the US puppet government.
The Al Qaeda operatives were not an issue until after the invasion, so whose fault is it that they are now a factor?
The Sunni rebellion could and should have been very predictable by any student of ME history. The neocon blinders have prevented those in our government from seeing reality. Their “march to freedom” vision of spreading democracy is well documented, with Condi being one of the foremost proponents. We’re screwed. Get out quick, as no amount of troop levels short of a million is going to pacify this rebellion.
What differrence does it make, whether it’s a civil war or not? Are we going to poll the families of the multiple thousands of dead or horribly wounded civilians there and ask them, “Excuse me, but do you believe your loved one died in a civil war, or just incredible chaos?” The fact is undeniable, that there is absolute destruction and bloodshed and the blame can be placed on the doorsteps of this White House. The fact is, this administration could not care less about what you call it, They could not care less about it in any way. This IS EXACTLY what they wanted. I wish I could believe otherwise, but they never stop defending their actions, and they never admit any guilt. They truly believe things are going great over there.
August 5th, 2006 at 2:36 pm“What, me worry?”—Alfred E. Bush
August 5th, 2006 at 3:09 pmphishwhisperer – don’t go making excuses for Bush like “everyone else had the same info” – Remember, no one else invaded Iraq.
August 5th, 2006 at 3:09 pmThis was supposed to be a 6-day, 6-week or no more than 6-month project!
The WH is privy to intel that no one else has and we belatedly learned that they chose to ignore any intel that contradicted their pre-planned war. Curveball was a known unreliable yet his was the only intel they used. Experts in the area had serious doubts — the inspectors were not finding anything – Bush told them to go home.
As for Saddam’s reign – no doubt he was a nasty guy, but WE supplied the weapons he used against the Kurds. WE supported him when we needed him in the area.
Much like WE supported the Taliban and OBL when they fought the Russians.
Don’t fall back on a “convenient memory” regarding this fiasco – that’s FOX news tactic and BUSHCO uses the public’s short attention span to spin the facts their way.
Bush poked a stick in the hornet’s nest in the middle East – this is his fault and people like you should face up to the fact that he is a failure, a dangerous leader, and the worst president in history.
“Remember, no one else invaded Iraq.
This was supposed to be a 6-day, 6-week or no more than 6-month project!”
I bet you had to hunt like the dickens to find that that rosey colored statement.
My Goodness
August 5th, 2006 at 4:15 pmMarie – If you didn’t appear senile from time to time – I would be forced to think you are as adroit a LIAR as TP has ever had. President Bush NEVER claimed this would be a quick engagement with our enemy. If anything, he said repeatedly, FROM the beginning – this would not be a quick engagement.
Your convenient memory with regards to Saddam and the Taliban would be laughable when one considers your complete lack of context – except you appear to believe the Progressive Dems of America talking points you spew. You relish the clarity of 20/20 hindsight. For the umpteenth time:
Saddam was battling our mortal enemy of the day, Iran. (You remember them? The Persians who gave “our worst President in history” Jimmeh Carter MORE than a run for his money.)
The Afghan mujahadeen (they were NOT referred to as the Taliban during the Afghan/Soviet War were fighting our #1 enemy, the soviet Union. I know this is a difficult concept for the progressive “pinks” of America – but ***NEWS FLASH*** THE Soviet Union was an official antagonist of the USA.
The “fault” you so cavalierly assign to GWB re: the Middle East, lies squarely on the the shoulders of extremist Islamo-wacks. but I have an idea, why don’t you volunteer to go “reason” with them – you seem empathetic enough for the job. One question before you get fitted for that comfy burka, How fond are you of having your head attached to your neck?
August 5th, 2006 at 7:23 pmIsnt 60% of the Iraq population in those four proviances ?
August 5th, 2006 at 8:33 pm[...] Much has been written  concerning whether or not Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. This includes not only reporters, pundits, academics, and those writing in comments sections of blogs, but also public officials. [...]
August 5th, 2006 at 10:17 pm[...] But conservative Cybercast News would like you to think things are fine; there’s no civil war, because the violence is occurring almost entirely in four of eighteen provinces. But, as ThinkProgress notes, these are the four provinces where Sunnis and Shiites are concentrated near one another. So Cybercast says it’s not civil war, because it’s just Sunnis fighting Shiites? Good luck convincing anyone of that. [...]
August 5th, 2006 at 10:25 pmCall it what you will, ’sectarian violence’ or ‘civil war”, are the ones doing the fighting the same ones that we expect to ’stand up’, so that we can ’stand down’? Because if they are, I think we might have a long wait ahead of us. Perhaps BushCo is working on an alternative plan? Nah. probably not, given their “stay the course” mentality. Splendid.
August 5th, 2006 at 11:03 pmCyra Brown
“…are the ones doing the fighting the same ones that we expect to ’stand up’, so that we can ’stand down’? Because if they are,…”
Outsmarted your own self and then got lost? “Splendid.”
I sense you should be able to count to “whole bunch”. Could you?
cos, I t’ink there is more then “whole bunch” of people in Iraq.
August 6th, 2006 at 12:42 amWaltTheMan
“…some short essays…”
Yeah, right. Now I rem’umb’uh!!!!!
The “short essays” “to the point” perfectly qualifies you for strategic global military analysis.
Yes, indeed!!! Sorry, I overlooked this criteria. My bad.
August 6th, 2006 at 12:50 amCyra Brown
Oh, yeah!!! Another “Splend”or: “…given their “stay the course†mentality…”
as oppose to your favorite victorious “flop-flop” mentality. That’s it!
August 6th, 2006 at 12:54 am#55- O. J. Where are you getting the “whole bunch” thing from? I never said it. And as usual your posts make no sense, except to you, that is. Details. But hey, ramble on, O.J.
August 6th, 2006 at 9:27 am[...] Nico at Think Progress does an excellent job of debunking this ignorant article from the conservative Cybercast News Service. According to the Cybercast article, data on recent violence in Iraq “contradicts [the] notion of widespread Iraqi civil war.” That data shows “that over a two-month period ending on July 21, most of the violence happened in just four of Iraq’s 18 provinces.” [...]
August 6th, 2006 at 3:42 pm[...] Evidence: Here’s a quote from General John Abizaid about the impending civil war, and some more facts that highlight that it’s already happening. [...]
August 8th, 2006 at 9:44 pm