civil war in iraq
 

the fucking white house keeps denying this administration's fuckups

i hope this link works. you know when the mainstream media is finally saying it, it's already too obvious for people who know

http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/f...b&f=00&fg=copy

if it doesn't work i'll fix it

yeah its been reported in the news for months here. what a mess.

what good will come out of iraq?

let me look into my cristal ball:

a) Kurdistan is created, then invaded by Turkey.
b) A landlocked Sunni state is formed around Baghdad, and a 20-year civil war ensues splintering into bantustans.
c) An oil-rich Shiite caliphate in the south, under the influence of Iran, eats up the bantustans one by one.

Something like that?

nuclear testing ground?

sadly it seems likely. stupid fucking bush fuck. aggh!!!! the fucking stupidity!!!!

This seems about right, perhaps its easier to say a bigger Syria, and larger, more powerful Iran, and the Kurds (the true normal ones out of the bunch) are just as well screwed.

Yeah right! First invade a country, and then when the shit hits the fan, find a reason to get the fuck out, by stating that it's a civil war that has nothing to do with the US invasion. The problem is that they're so deep in the shite that leaving is no option. :)
The US involvement in this war, is now officially longer than in WWII.

true. its such a mess now that no matter what the u.s. does now they will come out of it worse. many more will die before any kind of peace (does that really sound possible) can happen in iraq.

U.S. duration in Iraq war tops WWII
Tom Raum
Associated Press
Nov. 26, 2006 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - The war in Iraq has lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in the war in which President Bush's father fought: World War II.

As of Sunday, the conflict in Iraq has raged for three years and just over eight months.

Only the Vietnam War (eight years, five months), the Revolutionary War (six years, nine months), and the Civil War (four years), have engaged America longer.

Fighting in Afghanistan, which may or may not be a full-fledged war depending on who is keeping track, has gone on for five years, one month. It continues as the ousted Taliban resurges and the central government is challenged.

Bush said he still is undecided whether to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq or add to the 140,000 there.

He is awaiting the conclusions of several studies, including a military review by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Expected soon, too, are recommendations from an outside commission headed by former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican close to the Bush family, and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat who was one of the leaders of the Sept. 11 Commission.

The Iraq war began on March 19, 2003, with the U.S. bombing of Baghdad. On May 1, 2003, in a speech aboard an aircraft carrier emblazoned with a "Mission Accomplished" banner, Bush declared major combat operations over.

Yet the fighting has dragged on, and most of the 2,800-plus U.S. military deaths have occurred after Bush suggested an end to what he called the Iraq front in the global fight against terrorism.

Politicians in both parties blame the increasingly unpopular war for GOP losses on Capitol Hill in this month's elections that handed control of the House and Senate to Democrats.

Twice before in the past half-century have presidents - Truman in Korea and Johnson in Vietnam - been crippled politically by prolonged and unpopular wars.

Bush last week visited Vietnam for the first time, attending a summit of Asian and Pacific Rim nations. Asked if the Vietnam War held any messages for U.S. policy in Iraq, Bush said it showed that "we'll succeed unless we quit."

John Mueller, an Ohio State University political scientist who wrote the book War, Presidents and Public Opinion, said Americans soured on Iraq after "doing a rough cost-benefit analysis. They say, 'What's it worth to us and how much is it costing us?' "

By that standard, Americans were willing to abandon the Iraq war long before they turned against the war in Vietnam, Mueller suggested. "So that, for example, when more than 2,000 Americans had died in Iraq, support lowered. It took 20,000 deaths in Vietnam to lower support for that war to the same level," he said.

In the casualty count, the Civil War was the most lethal, with military deaths of the North and South combined totaling at least 620,000.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., outgoing chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a World War II veteran and a former Navy secretary, noted at a recent hearing of his committee that today would mark the day when U.S. was involved longer in the Iraq war than it had been in World War II.

Yet the October 2002 congressional resolution that authorized the Iraq war "addressed the Iraq of Saddam Hussein, which is now gone, and no more a threat to us," Warner said.

While the United States is helping Iraq's government assume the full reins of sovereignty, "we need to revise (our) strategy to achieve that goal," Warner said.

U.S. involvement in the Iraq war has outlasted that of the Korean War (three years, one month); the War of 1812 (two years, six months); the Mexican War (one year, 10 months); World War I (one year, seven months); the Spanish American War (eight months); and the Persian Gulf War (1 1/2 months).

Democrats and Republicans are divided about what to do next in Iraq.

Many Democrats and some Republicans have called for a phased withdrawal. Some lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a 2008 presidential hopeful, are urging that more troops be sent to help stabilize Iraq.

Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who will be the next chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argues for beginning to bring troops home soon.

"We should put the responsibility for Iraq's future squarely where it belongs, on the Iraqis," Levin said. "We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves."

Experts of various political stripes have suggested that the options are few.

"No mix of options for U.S. action can provide a convincing plan for victory in Iraq," said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The initiative has passed into Iraqi hands."

I really can't read all this.

Would someone translate this so that an idiot like me can possibly understand?

What good does it do to discuss politics on the internet?

You all must secretly love all the misery!

SOUND FAMILIAR?????????????

Protracted conflict recipe to make $$$ blood money#987:
Go in, invade Iraq, cause a civil war as the tribes scrap for resources and power, and then declare that your objective is to have Iraq be stable enough to be able to govern itself (something only a dictator can do, by the way) and that you are not leaving until this is accomplished.

ha ha

you cracker

some new shtuff

Marines' Outlook in Iraq

Anbar Picture Grows Clearer, and Bleaker

By Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, November 28, 2006; Page A01

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.

etc.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112701287.html

:rolleyes: I'm supposed to click on all those ^^^links?

Can someone just give me the gist of this?

I have no attention span. Mere sight of the newspaper comic strip "Cathy" makes me light-headed and have to take a rest.:rolleyes:

---

I find it amusing that Mr. vehemently anti-television, !@#$%!, makes this topic "civil war in iraq" on the very day that the NBC Nightly news made their announcement that they would now refer to the conflict in Iraq as a "civil war."

This is the reason the story is even in the headlines today. Along with the news, all the milquetoasts out there can feel "cozy and safe" referring to it this way now, thus this topic.

Back in '03, when a friend first informed me we were invading, I instantly remarked that it would cause a civil war and that it may last as long or longer than Vietnam. Being wholly brainwashed, he was quick to disagree, tell me that I was nuts, and that it would end quickly. When the topic was first broached (at the old board, of course) the fuckers here at this forum also wasted no time in making the same faulty assumption.

oh, please do tell us, how many calories a day do you spend harboring petty resentments against everyone who ever made you feel slighted? and the endless laundry lists of micro-offenses? is that like your aerobics?

Karma's a bitch.

I bent her over a couch once when she was drunk.

thus spake intellivision...

if karma was real, you would have hordes of lunatics obsessed with your every word and twitch and quoting what you said to them 4 months ago. sort of like a crazy girlfriend with perpetual grudges (borderline perhaps). maybe you'll harvest that in your next life; but in any case, i don't subscribe to hinduism, so i wouldn't bet on it.

anyway, theology aside, i have learned that the best way to deal with internet crazies is to ignore them. i guess it's time to put that knowledge into practice...