| Author |
Message |
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
 Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:35 pm Iraq in Civil War |
|
Colin Powell says Iraq in Civil War
Combined with the fact that we have now been in there for longer than we were in WWII...The situation does not seem to be stabilizing at all. How long will it take for this administration to admit that Iraq is in a civil war?
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:37 pm |
|
As long as it will for them to support Stem Cell Research. read: never. I don't think we get out of Iraq until Bush is out of office.
|
|
|
La Forge
Bajoran Colonel
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 2125
Location: Babylon 5
|
| Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:14 pm |
|
So...We're just now saying Iraq is in the midst of civil war, eh? Okay. I would say that Iraq has been at civil war for some time.
And, yeah, I don't think that we'll be leaving Iraq anytime soon, with Bush in office. Though, if things keep deteriorating at this rate...Bush will have to acknowledge that Iraq isn't going as well as he'd like it to be and start pulling troops out. I hope that he has an ounce of common sense (which I've yet to to see).
Last edited by La Forge on Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
You'll never hear me say this again in my life, but...
Go Red Sox!
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:15 pm |
|
At least a year.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:19 am |
|
I find it hard to take Bush seriously if he doesn't think this is a civil war. Of course I see his reasoning for not, because as soon as he declares it a civil war, he loses any remaining support he had.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:21 am |
|
On the question of, "Is It Civil War in Iraq?", I would take it a step further than him, but I agree with Bill O'Reilly that the situation isn't yet a civil war.
| Quote: | Is It Civil War in Iraq?
NBC News has declared that there is indeed a civil war in Iraq. Now that's not shocking, because NBC is the most aggressive anti-Bush network these days, as they have made a calculated effort to woo left-wing viewers.
The question is: Is NBC wrong about Iraq? The answer is yes � at this point.
Read more here. |
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:44 am |
|
Its a civil war. Sunni's and Shiites are going at each others throats. Death Squads forced people to leave their houses. And active insurgency, which is only getting stronger, is fighting our troops. You don't call that a civil war?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:47 am |
|
| WeAz wrote: | | Its a civil war. Sunni's and Shiites are going at each others throats. Death Squads forced people to leave their houses. And active insurgency, which is only getting stronger, is fighting our troops. You don't call that a civil war? |
Yes, I don't call it a civil war. It's more like great gang warfare. It's sectarian violence, not yet a civil war.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:03 am |
|
It's just as fierce as a civil war. Which it is.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:09 am |
|
| WeAz wrote: | | It's just as fierce as a civil war. Which it is. |
The Iraq conflict involves a minority of people on both sides partaking in the conflict, however. The majority are just innocent bystanders. It isn't a civil war - it's a sectarian conflict being waged by minority factions of both the Sunnis and the Shi'ites.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:09 am |
|
Alright, then lets let what we define a Civil War to be answer this question for us.
| Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote: | civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country |
So by our definition, and the fact that the Sunnis and Shi'ites are at war with each other, Iraq can in fact be correctly defined as being in a civil war.
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:53 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | Alright, then lets let what we define a Civil War to be answer this question for us.
| Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote: | civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country |
So by our definition, and the fact that the Sunnis and Shi'ites are at war with each other, Iraq can in fact be correctly defined as being in a civil war. |
I agree, Iraq has been in a Civil War for a long time. The White House is just trying to keep the spin positive.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:46 pm |
|
| CJ Cregg wrote: | | Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | Alright, then lets let what we define a Civil War to be answer this question for us.
| Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote: | civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country |
So by our definition, and the fact that the Sunnis and Shi'ites are at war with each other, Iraq can in fact be correctly defined as being in a civil war. |
I agree, Iraq has been in a Civil War for a long time. The White House is just trying to keep the spin positive. |
Exactly. As Puck said, the minute they admit Iraq is in Civil War they've lost any remaining control they have of the issue.
Honestly, I don't know how this doesn't constitute a Civil War. I'm pretty sure the only group that hasen't admitted this is the White House.
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:02 pm |
|
They're trying to maintain the Illusion that Iraq is orderly.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:56 pm |
|
| WeAz wrote: | | They're trying to maintain the Illusion that Iraq is orderly. |
I don't think they are trying to maintain that illusion. Everyone realizes there are problems. I think it is more like they are just trying to keep up the illusion that Iraq isn't totally falling apart, but merely "struggling with pockets of sectarian violence". 
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:31 pm |
|
They are still holding on to the fact that we can stabilize Iraq with our current strategy. Which is impossible.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:47 pm |
|
Now, taking the fact that it is civil war (or at least so much violence that even if one refuses to call it a civil war, it is a civil war) into account, what does one do about it?
Would splitting Iraq up into three nations work? That sounds like it would create more chaos and unrest down the road, because it adds three new volatile powers to the Middle East entrenched in their own cultural agendas, three new powers that would have to compete with the existing powers of the same cultures.
If splitting Iraq up won't work, and just sitting in Iraq trying to rebuild its shattered infrastructure won't work . . . we need a better plan. I sure wish I had one--it would be neat to solve all Iraq's problems.  Unfortunately, I am very ignorant concerning the real situation in Iraq and have next to no idea what is actually going on there, so I'm sure there are far more qualified people than me who can work out a situation. Or not.
I do know that the first step to evading a trap is knowing that one exists, just as surely as the first step to solving a problem is acknowledging its existence. Constantly declaring "victory" and "mission accomplished" may bolster morale but it does little to change the strategies applied to the area.
And that is part of the problem, of course. Too much time and money is being wasted blaming "the other guy" instead of working together to solve the problem. I'm pretty sure that everyone wants to bring the troops home--some just sooner than others. If people stopped fighting--I mean those sitting in their comfy chairs back here in North America, not those in Iraq--for a little and looked at the problem more objectively, maybe we'd make some progress.
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:34 am |
|
My opinion is, help them establish a good and secure government and military, and then get out of there, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
Keep frequent comm channels between their government and ours. Now that sounds too treky 
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:12 pm |
|
| PrankishSmart wrote: | | My opinion is, help them establish a good and secure government and military, and then get out of there, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. |
That's the "Stay the Course" way. Which is not going to work.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:45 pm |
|
| WeAz wrote: | | PrankishSmart wrote: | | My opinion is, help them establish a good and secure government and military, and then get out of there, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. |
That's the "Stay the Course" way. Which is not going to work. |
We can't just abandon Iraq, though. Look what happened in Vietnam.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:41 pm |
|
What other choices do we have? Stay there, and keep feeding troops into the meat-grinder?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:47 pm |
|
| WeAz wrote: | | What other choices do we have? Stay there, and keep feeding troops into the meat-grinder? |
Stay there and try to stabilize the situation, at least once more. We should soon perhaps redeploy our troops there.
I think one redeployment possibility is that the US forces continue to train the Iraqis and work to secure Baghdad. Baghdad's security is essential. Without that, no stable government can exist.
Their non-training and non-Baghdad efforts should be centered around maintaining the peace in those areas that are pretty stable. The non-Baghdad areas in which the sectarian violence is significant might just need to see limited US troop activity, seeing as the success of those missions is limited at best.
Pulling out would have catestrophic consequences, however, and would only serve to strengthen the moral of the terrorists. We need to stay the course but change our tactics and perhaps redeploy our troops to be as effective as possible. We also need to wage a strong political campaign there as well and try to get the Iraqis to take the essential step of, well, stepping up.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:03 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | WeAz wrote: | | What other choices do we have? Stay there, and keep feeding troops into the meat-grinder? |
Stay there and try to stabilize the situation, at least once more. We should soon perhaps redeploy our troops there.
Put MORE troops there? We don't even know it would work, and supporting it would be close to Political Suicide
I think one redeployment possibility is that the US forces continue to train the Iraqis and work to secure Baghdad. Baghdad's security is essential. Without that, no stable government can exist.
Agree with the training of Iraqi's, but I doubt that its a very popular job, it would be hard to find recruits. And we'd need to dedicate a lot more equipment and troops to them. If we focus on securing Baghdad, we get a US occupied, and controlled capitol, besieged by Insurgents. I doubt the government could control the control from there.
Their non-training and non-Baghdad efforts should be centered around maintaining the peace in those areas that are pretty stable. The non-Baghdad areas in which the sectarian violence is significant might just need to see limited US troop activity, seeing as the success of those missions is limited at best. So what your proposing is focus on securing the areas that are already half-secure, and leave the rest?
Pulling out would have catestrophic consequences, however, and would only serve to strengthen the moral of the terrorists.
Their morale couldn't be stronger. They have our country divided along Party lines, and we are really fighting over whether to stay or leave.
I don't think we can do anything more to strengthen their morale.
We need to stay the course but change our tactics and perhaps redeploy our troops to be as effective as possible. We also need to wage a strong political campaign there as well and try to get the Iraqis to take the essential step of, well, stepping up.
Most of the Iraqi's are too of bombs to go out, step up, and become active targets of the militants.
For every crack we get at changing an Iraqi's mind, the enemy gets two.
|
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:15 am |
|
I'm afraid all I have time to respond to tonight is this:
| Quote: | | Put MORE troops there? |
That's not what I said. Redeployment isn't the same as deploying more troops. It's redeploying those that are already there into different locations within the country.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
