Comments on: MSNBC, NBC News Decide To Call Civil War In Iraq ‘A Civil War’ http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:22:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Joseph http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1205954 Joseph Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:56:53 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1205954 We should just nuke the entire fuckin' region. Secretly signal all of our folks to leave first, of course. The arabs need to step into the modern world. We should just nuke the entire fuckin’ region. Secretly signal all of our folks to leave first, of course. The arabs need to step into the modern world.

]]> By: Jon Swift http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1198048 Jon Swift Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:29:22 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1198048 <strong>What's So Civil About the Iraq War?...</strong> I don't think the Iraq War is very civil at all.... What’s So Civil About the Iraq War?…

I don’t think the Iraq War is very civil at all….

]]> By: WaltTheMan http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1196142 WaltTheMan Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:01:11 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1196142 #139 - deathtotheamericandictator, The onset of the decline of the American dream began in 1980. We had a respite from 1993 to 2001, but then the same players came back on the scene. The unfortunate part of the checks and balances built into our Constitution is that the process can be circumvented or ignored without vigilant oversight. The central issue is that the Executive branch is placed in exclusive control of the military, but not its funding. Once forces are committed, the Legislative branch has no choice but to fund them. In addition, when one political ideology controls two or three branches of the Government, checks and balances are attenuated or disappear. This is our present dilemma. #139 – deathtotheamericandictator,
The onset of the decline of the American dream began in 1980. We had a respite from 1993 to 2001, but then the same players came back on the scene. The unfortunate part of the checks and balances built into our Constitution is that the process can be circumvented or ignored without vigilant oversight. The central issue is that the Executive branch is placed in exclusive control of the military, but not its funding. Once forces are committed, the Legislative branch has no choice but to fund them. In addition, when one political ideology controls two or three branches of the Government, checks and balances are attenuated or disappear. This is our present dilemma.

]]> By: deathtotheamericandictator http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1195926 deathtotheamericandictator Wed, 29 Nov 2006 01:58:48 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1195926 The majority of the people on this thread are only proving their ignorance to the situation in iraq, which we started 25 years ago when we started giving saddam tanks and other millitary sell offs. Every last one of you on this post who is an American must ask themselves when was the last time you took a stand out on the steps of your citys government buildings demanding that the American aggression overseas must cease.. Also regarding humanists posts: your right on in demanding that the american people get off their collective asses and DO SOMETHING TO STOP OUR FUROR that we may or may not have elected.. The majority of the people on this thread are only proving their ignorance to the situation in iraq, which we started 25 years ago when we started giving saddam tanks and other millitary sell offs. Every last one of you on this post who is an American must ask themselves when was the last time you took a stand out on the steps of your citys government buildings demanding that the American aggression overseas must cease..

Also regarding humanists posts:
your right on in demanding that the american people get off their collective asses and DO SOMETHING TO STOP OUR FUROR that we may or may not have elected..

]]> By: Phil http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1193832 Phil Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:07:21 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1193832 Hatred? How is the guy spouting hatred? You mean by speaking out against American atrocities he is just being hateful? That's ridiculous. The minute we as a country take responsibility and acknowledge our horrible mistakes is the minute we begin to repair our damaged credibility and moral standing in the world. Humanist continues to eloquently state valid opinions in the face of misplaced patriotism. Just because he's an outsider and apparently Muslim, doesn't invalidate the facts of his statements. We can't continue to dismiss the truth just because we don't like to hear it. That's what Bush does. Hatred? How is the guy spouting hatred? You mean by speaking out against American atrocities he is just being hateful? That’s ridiculous. The minute we as a country take responsibility and acknowledge our horrible mistakes is the minute we begin to repair our damaged credibility and moral standing in the world. Humanist continues to eloquently state valid opinions in the face of misplaced patriotism. Just because he’s an outsider and apparently Muslim, doesn’t invalidate the facts of his statements. We can’t continue to dismiss the truth just because we don’t like to hear it. That’s what Bush does.

]]> By: BizzyBlog » The Latest on the Crumbling Credibility of Iraq War Coverage http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1193772 BizzyBlog » The Latest on the Crumbling Credibility of Iraq War Coverage Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:52:04 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1193772 [...] Meanwhile, we’re supposed to just buy in to NBC and MSNBC’s “big decision” to begin calling the situation in Iraq a “civil war.” There’s only one problem — see if you can tell what it is from their first announcement (I bolded the hint; video at link): The news from Iraq is becoming grimmer every day. Over the long holiday weekend bombings killed more than 200 people in a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad. And six Sunni men were doused with kerosene and burned alive. Shiite muslims are the majority, but Sunnis like Saddam Hussein ruled that country until the war. Now, the battle between Shiites and Sunnis has created a civil war in Iraq. Beginning this morning, MSNBC will refer to the fighting in Iraq as a civil war — a phrase the White House continues to resist. But after careful thought, MSNBC and NBC News decided over the weekend, the terminology is appropriate, as armed militarized factions fight for their own political agendas. We’ll have a lots more on the situation in Iraq and the decision to use the phrase, civil war. [...] [...] Meanwhile, we’re supposed to just buy in to NBC and MSNBC’s “big decision” to begin calling the situation in Iraq a “civil war.” There’s only one problem — see if you can tell what it is from their first announcement (I bolded the hint; video at link): The news from Iraq is becoming grimmer every day. Over the long holiday weekend bombings killed more than 200 people in a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad. And six Sunni men were doused with kerosene and burned alive. Shiite muslims are the majority, but Sunnis like Saddam Hussein ruled that country until the war. Now, the battle between Shiites and Sunnis has created a civil war in Iraq. Beginning this morning, MSNBC will refer to the fighting in Iraq as a civil war — a phrase the White House continues to resist. But after careful thought, MSNBC and NBC News decided over the weekend, the terminology is appropriate, as armed militarized factions fight for their own political agendas. We’ll have a lots more on the situation in Iraq and the decision to use the phrase, civil war. [...]

]]> By: Phil http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1193716 Phil Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:28:21 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1193716 Although many of my fellow Americans undoubtedly take offense at being lumped together and castigated for our government's policies in Iraq and the Mid-East, the comments by Humanist are entirely valid. World opinion is based on our actions and does not differentiate between the varying opinions of the masses. America voted this criminal president in for a second term, and although I didn't vote for the weasel and strongly condemn his policies, I am not ignorant enough to think that I am above taking criticism for my country's criminal and horrific actions. The US's transgressions and Iraq are so great and so ill-advised, how can anyone disagree with anything Humanist is saying. Is it difficult to hear that your country is morally bankrupt? Yes, but the truth hurts, and to deny it is foolish and arrogant. Although many of my fellow Americans undoubtedly take offense at being lumped together and castigated for our government’s policies in Iraq and the Mid-East, the comments by Humanist are entirely valid. World opinion is based on our actions and does not differentiate between the varying opinions of the masses. America voted this criminal president in for a second term, and although I didn’t vote for the weasel and strongly condemn his policies, I am not ignorant enough to think that I am above taking criticism for my country’s criminal and horrific actions. The US’s transgressions and Iraq are so great and so ill-advised, how can anyone disagree with anything Humanist is saying. Is it difficult to hear that your country is morally bankrupt? Yes, but the truth hurts, and to deny it is foolish and arrogant.

]]> By: Swordsbane http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1193335 Swordsbane Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:24:06 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1193335 <em>#116Excuse me? How do you get ‘crybaby” from that? How about you answer his questions and let those answers determine who knows what they’re talking about and who’s ignorant? Comment by Swordsbane — November 27, 2006 @ 7:11 pm WTF? Who are you to tell me to answer someone else’s questions? And just what questions am I supposed to answer? Humanist’s posts are filled with accusations and brimming with straw men. Are you actually reading them? Read 114, for example, where I am told the party line I and all other Americans have supposedly bought into. I never said these things. Not only that, I have never seen a post at this site claiming this party line. Comment by RealScientist — November 27, 2006 @ 7:25 pm Humanist, your post #119 doesn’t make much sense on any level. I suppose you imagine your boldfaced comments to somehow paraphrase the quotes in italics, but they miss the mark wide, to the point of being non-sequitors. You claim to know what everyone else thinks, but obviously you don’t. You relentlessly misrepresent what people say, build silly straw men, and view the world in false dichotomies that are as ridiculous as Bush’s stay the course vs. cut and run. You are a tedious, uninteresting bore, full of yourself with nothing to say. I suspect that you don’t get enough attention at home or at work, so you come here to prance about and annoy others. Bad attention is better than no attention for the bored and lonely child. Comment by RealScientist — November 28, 2006 @ 12:15 am</em> A) You shouldn't need to have anyone tell you to answer someone else. If I bring it to your attention and you jump on me for it, then that doesn't speak very well of you. You can call them questions, challenges, accusations all you want, but if all you're going to do is respond with insults, then you're not very convincing. Regarding Humanist #119 post. If any of those quotes were wrong or out of context, please explain. On the one hand, I do not agree with his implication of the WHOLE of the American people is at fault for the deaths in Iraq. Some of us were against the war from the beginning. The problem is all the converts. The majority of the population is against the war, yet we're still there, and it looks like we're likely to be there for some time to come. I wouldn't be surprised if we were still there when Bush leaves office. After all this, they're talking eighteen months at least, when they bother to actually talk dates. Someone please explain why it will take that long. But... most of the people are against the war, so I guess everything's all right. Soldiers and civilians will keep dying, but the majority has spoken. On the other hand..... you know who's fault it's going to be from now on? The Democrats. They've got the majority. What they say goes unless it's vetoe'd by the prez, so all you that voted Democrat, every moment we're still in Iraq after January is your fault. You voted for them. The whole idea of a representative government is not freedom to vote, but responsibility for government. If the people you vote for don't do the right thing, who's fault is that? #116Excuse me? How do you get ‘crybaby” from that? How about you answer his questions and let those answers determine who knows what they’re talking about and who’s ignorant?

Comment by Swordsbane — November 27, 2006 @ 7:11 pm

WTF? Who are you to tell me to answer someone else’s questions? And just what questions am I supposed to answer? Humanist’s posts are filled with accusations and brimming with straw men. Are you actually reading them? Read 114, for example, where I am told the party line I and all other Americans have supposedly bought into. I never said these things. Not only that, I have never seen a post at this site claiming this party line.

Comment by RealScientist — November 27, 2006 @ 7:25 pm

Humanist, your post #119 doesn’t make much sense on any level. I suppose you imagine your boldfaced comments to somehow paraphrase the quotes in italics, but they miss the mark wide, to the point of being non-sequitors. You claim to know what everyone else thinks, but obviously you don’t. You relentlessly misrepresent what people say, build silly straw men, and view the world in false dichotomies that are as ridiculous as Bush’s stay the course vs. cut and run. You are a tedious, uninteresting bore, full of yourself with nothing to say. I suspect that you don’t get enough attention at home or at work, so you come here to prance about and annoy others. Bad attention is better than no attention for the bored and lonely child.

Comment by RealScientist — November 28, 2006 @ 12:15 am

A) You shouldn’t need to have anyone tell you to answer someone else. If I bring it to your attention and you jump on me for it, then that doesn’t speak very well of you. You can call them questions, challenges, accusations all you want, but if all you’re going to do is respond with insults, then you’re not very convincing.

Regarding Humanist #119 post. If any of those quotes were wrong or out of context, please explain.

On the one hand, I do not agree with his implication of the WHOLE of the American people is at fault for the deaths in Iraq. Some of us were against the war from the beginning. The problem is all the converts. The majority of the population is against the war, yet we’re still there, and it looks like we’re likely to be there for some time to come. I wouldn’t be surprised if we were still there when Bush leaves office. After all this, they’re talking eighteen months at least, when they bother to actually talk dates. Someone please explain why it will take that long. But… most of the people are against the war, so I guess everything’s all right. Soldiers and civilians will keep dying, but the majority has spoken.

On the other hand….. you know who’s fault it’s going to be from now on? The Democrats. They’ve got the majority. What they say goes unless it’s vetoe’d by the prez, so all you that voted Democrat, every moment we’re still in Iraq after January is your fault. You voted for them. The whole idea of a representative government is not freedom to vote, but responsibility for government. If the people you vote for don’t do the right thing, who’s fault is that?

]]> By: Ego Sum http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1193008 Ego Sum Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:05:07 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1193008 <em>#13 OT: MSNBC just had a “news pop” (a little factoid in the lower left hand corner of the screen) that said: “NATO stands for North American Treaty Organization.” Comment by bklyndemocrat — November 27, 2006 @ 12:02 pm</em> Great, so we, the countries that are NOT from North America can leave our duties in Afghanistan and training the Iraqi Armi, without hesitation, because isn't our Treaty? Fine for us, the USA paying all the whole bill of both wars. #13 OT:

MSNBC just had a “news pop” (a little factoid in the lower left hand corner of the screen) that said:

“NATO stands for North American Treaty Organization.”

Comment by bklyndemocrat — November 27, 2006 @ 12:02 pm

Great, so we, the countries that are NOT from North America can leave our duties in Afghanistan and training the Iraqi Armi, without hesitation, because isn’t our Treaty? Fine for us, the USA paying all the whole bill of both wars.

]]> By: Emboldened » Blog Archive » A Challenge to President Bush http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1192987 Emboldened » Blog Archive » A Challenge to President Bush Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:50:02 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1192987 [...] An article in today’s New York Times carries the headline, “Bush Blames Al Qaeda for Rising Iraq Violence.” Surely this is a sign of how far we have yet to go for this administration to wrap its feeble collection of minds around the problem of the Iraqi civil war. Mislabeling the civil war in Iraq sectarian violence is not the same error as crediting it to foreign terrorists who represent a miniscule portion of the combatants in Iraq. The problem Bush and his marketing gurus qua government staffers surely recognize is that an Iraqi civil war can no longer be the central front in the war on terror[ism]. Bush’s answer? Deny the civil war and blame Al Qaeda for Iraq’s warring factions. President Bush today blamed al Qaeda for the rising wave of sectarian violence in Iraq, and refused to label the recent surge in killings there a civil war. [...] [...] An article in today’s New York Times carries the headline, “Bush Blames Al Qaeda for Rising Iraq Violence.” Surely this is a sign of how far we have yet to go for this administration to wrap its feeble collection of minds around the problem of the Iraqi civil war. Mislabeling the civil war in Iraq sectarian violence is not the same error as crediting it to foreign terrorists who represent a miniscule portion of the combatants in Iraq. The problem Bush and his marketing gurus qua government staffers surely recognize is that an Iraqi civil war can no longer be the central front in the war on terror[ism]. Bush’s answer? Deny the civil war and blame Al Qaeda for Iraq’s warring factions. President Bush today blamed al Qaeda for the rising wave of sectarian violence in Iraq, and refused to label the recent surge in killings there a civil war. [...]

]]> By: 3. Weltkrieg 2011 ?! - Seite 4 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1192167 3. Weltkrieg 2011 ?! - Seite 4 Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:52:25 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1192167 [...] AW: 3. Weltkrieg 2011 ?! Zitat: [...] [...] AW: 3. Weltkrieg 2011 ?! Zitat: [...]

]]> By: Juan C http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1192076 Juan C Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:35:12 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1192076 <em>Somehow I doubt it. That line of reasoning is absurd. Yet you have no problem doing it towards Americans. Why? Comment by Gregor Samsa</em> Sorry for the delay. Please, dont get offended. People, like you and me are very sensitive when it comes to nationalism, I guess thats why propaganda works so much. I am pretty much the same as anyone here, if somebody says something bad about my country I would jump right to defend it. Anyway. Your line of reasoning is bad. I blame us for the government we have and had, for being ignorant, for being racists, for being lazy, idiots consuming I world garbage. If those countries/examples you gave me had the whole population convinced that the only way to overcome tiranny, dictatorship or other internal/external impositions, there hadnt happened. Nobody can stop the people when they are organized; thats why americans defeated the english, thats why soviets defeated the germans. Not even US touches Cuba because cubans are organized. One example: there was a terrible earthquake here in Mexico in 9/19/1985. Thousands of dead people and hundreds of buildings down. Due to the inability of the government to provide the urgent measures to rescue people, organize brigades, etc., the people began organizing by themselves logistics, health services, communication networks and so on. If that same week the people would have realized that they could do whatever the hell they wanted in terms of achieving political or economical goals, I think they wouldnt have done it, because it must be so damn exhausting to get involved in everything. So, we the people are guilty for the governments we have. Somehow I doubt it. That line of reasoning is absurd. Yet you have no problem doing it towards Americans. Why?
Comment by Gregor Samsa

Sorry for the delay. Please, dont get offended. People, like you and me are very sensitive when it comes to nationalism, I guess thats why propaganda works so much. I am pretty much the same as anyone here, if somebody says something bad about my country I would jump right to defend it.

Anyway. Your line of reasoning is bad. I blame us for the government we have and had, for being ignorant, for being racists, for being lazy, idiots consuming I world garbage. If those countries/examples you gave me had the whole population convinced that the only way to overcome tiranny, dictatorship or other internal/external impositions, there hadnt happened. Nobody can stop the people when they are organized; thats why americans defeated the english, thats why soviets defeated the germans. Not even US touches Cuba because cubans are organized. One example: there was a terrible earthquake here in Mexico in 9/19/1985. Thousands of dead people and hundreds of buildings down. Due to the inability of the government to provide the urgent measures to rescue people, organize brigades, etc., the people began organizing by themselves logistics, health services, communication networks and so on. If that same week the people would have realized that they could do whatever the hell they wanted in terms of achieving political or economical goals, I think they wouldnt have done it, because it must be so damn exhausting to get involved in everything.

So, we the people are guilty for the governments we have.

]]> By: RealScientist http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1191853 RealScientist Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:15:20 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1191853 Humanist, your post #119 doesn't make much sense on any level. I suppose you imagine your boldfaced comments to somehow paraphrase the quotes in italics, but they miss the mark wide, to the point of being non-sequitors. You claim to know what everyone else thinks, but obviously you don't. You relentlessly misrepresent what people say, build silly straw men, and view the world in false dichotomies that are as ridiculous as Bush's stay the course vs. cut and run. You are a tedious, uninteresting bore, full of yourself with nothing to say. I suspect that you don't get enough attention at home or at work, so you come here to prance about and annoy others. Bad attention is better than no attention for the bored and lonely child. Humanist, your post #119 doesn’t make much sense on any level. I suppose you imagine your boldfaced comments to somehow paraphrase the quotes in italics, but they miss the mark wide, to the point of being non-sequitors. You claim to know what everyone else thinks, but obviously you don’t. You relentlessly misrepresent what people say, build silly straw men, and view the world in false dichotomies that are as ridiculous as Bush’s stay the course vs. cut and run. You are a tedious, uninteresting bore, full of yourself with nothing to say. I suspect that you don’t get enough attention at home or at work, so you come here to prance about and annoy others. Bad attention is better than no attention for the bored and lonely child.

]]> By: disgrunt » Most News Organizations Buckling To White House Pressure, Won’t Call Civil War In Iraq A ‘Civil War’ http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1191836 disgrunt » Most News Organizations Buckling To White House Pressure, Won’t Call Civil War In Iraq A ‘Civil War’ Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:02:06 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1191836 [...] Today, MSNBC and NBC News announced their decision to call Iraq a “civil war.” The Los Angeles Times has consistently used that term to describe the violence, and the Christian Science Monitor started to do the same today. [...] [...] Today, MSNBC and NBC News announced their decision to call Iraq a “civil war.” The Los Angeles Times has consistently used that term to describe the violence, and the Christian Science Monitor started to do the same today. [...]

]]> By: WaltTheMan http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1191644 WaltTheMan Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:29:46 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1191644 #126 should read: #124 - Humanist, I have read every work of man since Hammurabi. Limited education, but rewarding. Sorry - Walt #126 should read:
#124 – Humanist,
I have read every work of man since Hammurabi. Limited education, but rewarding.
Sorry – Walt

]]> By: Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » The Associated Press gets used by the enemy http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1191600 Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » The Associated Press gets used by the enemy Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:16:59 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1191600 [...] Curt also tracked down the decision by NBC and MSNBC to use the phrase “civil war” to describe the problems in Iraq, which he cited from the liberal site Think Progress: The news from Iraq is becoming grimmer every day. Over the long holiday weekend bombings killed more than 200 people in a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad. And six Sunni men were doused with kerosene and burned alive. Shiite muslims are the majority, but Sunnis like Saddam Hussein ruled that country until the war. Now, the battle between Shiites and Sunnis has created a civil war in Iraq. Beginning this morning, MSNBC will refer to the fighting in Iraq as a civil war — a phrase the White House continues to resist. But after careful thought, MSNBC and NBC News decided over the weekend, the terminology is appropriate, as armed militarized factions fight for their own political agendas. We’ll have a lots more on the situation in Iraq and the decision to use the phrase, civil war. [...] [...] Curt also tracked down the decision by NBC and MSNBC to use the phrase “civil war” to describe the problems in Iraq, which he cited from the liberal site Think Progress: The news from Iraq is becoming grimmer every day. Over the long holiday weekend bombings killed more than 200 people in a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad. And six Sunni men were doused with kerosene and burned alive. Shiite muslims are the majority, but Sunnis like Saddam Hussein ruled that country until the war. Now, the battle between Shiites and Sunnis has created a civil war in Iraq. Beginning this morning, MSNBC will refer to the fighting in Iraq as a civil war — a phrase the White House continues to resist. But after careful thought, MSNBC and NBC News decided over the weekend, the terminology is appropriate, as armed militarized factions fight for their own political agendas. We’ll have a lots more on the situation in Iraq and the decision to use the phrase, civil war. [...]

]]> By: WaltTheMan http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1191413 WaltTheMan Tue, 28 Nov 2006 03:54:09 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1191413 #124 - Humanist, I have every work of man since Hammurabi. Limited education, but rewarding. #124 – Humanist,
I have every work of man since Hammurabi. Limited education, but rewarding.

]]> By: Humanist http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1190437 Humanist Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:39:57 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1190437 #122-WaltTheMan, Thank you for the link. And though at times my thoughts swirl like a tornado, my mind does not feel like "mush". Although, when I imbibe in too much drink, I do get somewhat the sensation of which you speak. But I would think that "stewed" would be a more appropriate description. Now, I have actually read Gulliver's Travels, but it has been quite some time. For me it was the 60's (early 70's). Did they have books back in the 50's or were they still stone tablets? Which may explain why homework was much more taxing then. I will attempt to read "A modest Proposal" as soon as possible. Any satirist that would write about eating babies definitely warrants further review. Thanks for the tip. Peace. #122-WaltTheMan,
Thank you for the link. And though at times my thoughts swirl like a tornado, my mind does not feel like “mush”. Although, when I imbibe in too much drink, I do get somewhat the sensation of which you speak. But I would think that “stewed” would be a more appropriate description.

Now, I have actually read Gulliver’s Travels, but it has been quite some time. For me it was the 60’s (early 70’s). Did they have books back in the 50’s or were they still stone tablets? Which may explain why homework was much more taxing then.

I will attempt to read “A modest Proposal” as soon as possible. Any satirist that would write about eating babies definitely warrants further review. Thanks for the tip.

Peace.

]]> By: impeachcheneythenbush http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1190292 impeachcheneythenbush Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:48:42 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1190292 Oh well, no answer in 30 minutes. So I'll just post the below as examples of Dancer's debating skills. Looks like a troll to me! Iraqi "moonbeams?" # Humanist, why don’t you leave off with the “Peace” thing? You clearly don’t mean it - your hatred shows through very clearly. Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 5:16 pm # Oh dear, Humanist, looks like my comment really got to you there. I like to think I do my bit to strive for peace and unity, but in your comments I sense the hatred of one who fuels divisions that lead to strife. Peace does not offend me, your hatred offends me. Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 5:42 pm # Funny how Muhammad always seems to go to the mountain. Just for the sake of interest, do the Sunni insurgents who have tried so hard to foment this “civil war” bear any responsibility for the mayhem in your equation? Or do Americans alone shoulder that one? Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 6:07 pm # If a radical Islamist troll were posting, he/she might scan very much like “Humanist”. Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 6:16 pm # Islam offers 3 choices: convert, submit and pay jizya, fight. Trotsky may have said it best: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you”. Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 6:29 pm # I can’t see that you’ve offered any facts at all, just a lot of snarky venom, self-hating opinion and a burning desire to blame it all on America. If and when America pulls out, who will you blame for the Iraqi moonbeams killing each other then? Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 6:48 pm # “Peace” is never achieved by war, peace always overcomes war. That’s really priceless, Humanist. You have definitely made my day with that one. Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 6:56 pm # Which will you choose, Humanist, when the Islamists come calling? Convert, submit or fight? Perhaps you’ve chosen already. Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 7:07 pm # impeachcheneythenbush: My friend, you simply do not know what you are talking about. Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 8:02 pm Oh well, no answer in 30 minutes. So I’ll just post the below as examples of Dancer’s debating skills. Looks like a troll to me! Iraqi “moonbeams?”

#

Humanist, why don’t you leave off with the “Peace” thing? You clearly don’t mean it – your hatred shows through very clearly.

Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 5:16 pm

#

Oh dear, Humanist, looks like my comment really got to you there.
I like to think I do my bit to strive for peace and unity, but in your comments I sense the hatred of one who fuels divisions that lead to strife. Peace does not offend me, your hatred offends me.

Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 5:42 pm

#

Funny how Muhammad always seems to go to the mountain.
Just for the sake of interest, do the Sunni insurgents who have tried so hard to foment this “civil war” bear any responsibility for the mayhem in your equation? Or do Americans alone shoulder that one?

Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 6:07 pm

#

If a radical Islamist troll were posting, he/she might scan very much like “Humanist”.

Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 6:16 pm

#

Islam offers 3 choices: convert, submit and pay jizya, fight. Trotsky may have said it best: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you”.

Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 6:29 pm

#

I can’t see that you’ve offered any facts at all, just a lot of snarky venom, self-hating opinion and a burning desire to blame it all on America. If and when America pulls out, who will you blame for the Iraqi moonbeams killing each other then?

Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 6:48 pm

#

“Peace” is never achieved by war, peace always overcomes war.
That’s really priceless, Humanist. You have definitely made my day with that one.

Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 6:56 pm

#

Which will you choose, Humanist, when the Islamists come calling? Convert, submit or fight?
Perhaps you’ve chosen already.

Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 7:07 pm

#

impeachcheneythenbush:
My friend, you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Comment by Dancer — November 27, 2006 @ 8:02 pm

]]> By: WaltTheMan http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/comment-page-3/#comment-1190192 WaltTheMan Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:25:39 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/msnbc-civil-war/#comment-1190192 #115 - Humanist, I can not imagine anyone who has failed to read Johathan Swift's essays. Your mind must be pure mush. Here's a <a href="http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>pointer</strong></a> to a copy - it describes a method of controlling population growth in Ireland. I first read it in the 7th or 8th grade. I would guess that education was a bit more rigorous in the 1950's. #115 – Humanist,
I can not imagine anyone who has failed to read Johathan Swift’s essays. Your mind must be pure mush. Here’s a pointer to a copy – it describes a method of controlling population growth in Ireland. I first read it in the 7th or 8th grade. I would guess that education was a bit more rigorous in the 1950’s.

]]>