Is there anyone left who still argues this is not a civil war?

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Is there anyone left who still argues this is not a civil war?
eu4ea 11/26/2006 1:49:22 AM

Just curious - is anyone still holding that position? (darth, whiteb, anyone?) The inmediate piece of news that prompted that question is the recent coordinated bombings that left 215 shiites dead, along with the inevitable revenge killings, al-Sadr taking over a TV station, Maliki's government staggering, and the British openly talking about withdrawing next year. On a larger scale, I would also be curious to find out whether; 1- Folks still believe that "stay the course" in Iraq is a practical strategy 2- Folks still believe that our involvement in the war in Iraqs helps us win the war on terror 3- Folks still argue that we've achieved anything other than furthering Iran's strategic interests in the region 4- Folks still folks who argue that Iraq bears no resemblance to Vietnam I imagine that in most cases this would be a mixed bag - "yes" to some questions and "no" to others, but I'd be curious to see where where people fall in each case and, more importantly, what the reasoning is in each case. Heart, eu4ea

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Ashley-the-man 11/26/2006 3:01:26 AM

1. Stay the course means building up Iraqi military and police units to deal with al-Qaeda and Baathist gangsters till the run out of money, cannon fodder or the shia can push them out to Syria and Saudi Arabia. I believe.

2. Does our involvement help win the war on terror? With al-Qaeda waging such an intense war against the U.S. in Iraq and with their take over of several towns in western Iraq and areas in Baghdad it seems that the departure of U.S. troops would give their movement a strong base. I believe.

3. Are we furthering Iran strategic interest in the region? Iran would most like to have an Iraqi neighbor that does not have designs on its oil fields and ports. With Saddam gone this would constitute a partial achievement of Iran’s strategic goals. Iran is having its own problems implementing an Islamic revolution. Attempting to maintain control of the Shia in Iraq will be much more difficult than they have found in Iran. I believe.

4. Iraq bears no resemblance to Vietnam? Do the liberals and democrats want to surrender and retreat leaving the region to blow up with hundreds of thousands of deaths? Then yes if we leave, but no if we stay. There is no country that looks like it will be able to successfully invade Iraq if we leave so I don’t see a strong similarity. I believe.

Quote Reply

eu4ea 11/26/2006 10:22:01 AM

Some questions below, Ashley. I'm not being argumentative here - just curious to know the thought process is, what series of logical steps lead people to this set of counclusions.

Heart,

eu4ea

1- Is this not a civil war? - From the other responses, I'm guessing the answer is "no" - is that correct? and if so, what then is goign on - is it "civil unrest" "regime die-hards", a "minor insurgency"?

1. Stay the course means building up Iraqi military and police units to deal with al-Qaeda and Baathist gangsters till the run out of money, cannon fodder or the shia can push them out to Syria and Saudi Arabia. I believe.

================
Is there reason to think that what we are doing is not training and paying salaries for the private militias of anti-western leaders, including Moqtada?

It appears to me that Iraqui police is still unwilling/unableable to keep the peace, that they're systematically running death squads, and that many of the most spectacular recent activities (kidnaping 200+ people out of the health ministry in broad daylight, running fake checkpoints, etc) were the work of Iraqi "police".
===================

=====================
It seems to me that AQ now has bases, training camps, recruting centers, towns/fighters under it's control, and a beehive of activity in places where they formerly had none. Further, it seems to me that the location (next door to Saudia and to most of the world's oil) is ideal for their purposes, and that is has succesfully relieved pressure from their home bases in Pakistan/Afganistan.

How does this weaken them? Is the reasoning that this is consuming resources (money, possibly also talent) that they would not otherswise have available to them?
===========================

3. Are we furthering Iran strategic interest in the region? Iran would most like to have an Iraqi neighbor that does not have designs on its oil fields and ports. With Saddam gone this would constitute a partial achievement of Iran’s strategic goals. Iran is having its own problems implementing an Islamic revolution. Attempting to maintain control of the Shia in Iraq will be much more difficult than they have found in Iran. I believe.

==========================
Is "having a peacefull neighbourhood" all Iran has gained from this? It seems to me it's quite a lot more than that - for one, Iraq has not been a credible threat to Iran for the last 15+ years, and for another they have quite a bit more than a kindly neigbour in Iraq.

For instance, the main party in the Iraqi governemnt is the "Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq" (SCIRI) which formently used to be based in Iran. The second largest party is Moqtada al-Sadr's organization, who also formerly used to be based out of Iran. In paralell, the Iraq war has prevented the US from presenting a credible challenge to Iran's nuclear program, and it's even likely that the Bush administration, desperate for a way out of Iraq, will start direct talks with Iran.
=========================

4. Iraq bears no resemblance to Vietnam? Do the liberals and democrats want to surrender and retreat leaving the region to blow up

Quote Reply

Ashley-the-man 11/26/2006 12:26:38 PM

"Some questions below, Ashley. I'm not being argumentative here - just curious to know the thought process is, what series of logical steps lead people to this set of counclusions."

I'm tied up for a couple of days so I will debate when I get back. Also have to grab a bag of Tostitos and shop for a travel package to Glendale Arizona for a football game on Jan 1, 2007. It is rumored that some team from the Big 12 conference will be playing v Boise State. Be glad to hook up with any Husker/Sooner fan.

The eu4ea take follows the liberal Democratic playbook. It has more to do with the type of defense an attorney puts up for his client. Johnny Cockran comes to mind. Pick a bunch of plausible but dubious issues and defenses, and elevate them to prominence.

Most of your points have been refuted ad nauseam but with a spike in attacks between Shia and Sunni and the fact that there has been an up tick in U.S. soldiers killed as a result of raids on al-Qaeda and Sunni thugs, it appears that the situation in Iraq is dire and irreversible. A man who is terminally ill will often rally in the last hours before suddenly dying. He may rise from his bed and walk around as if in full recovery. It takes a great deal of energy for the body to die. The poison that is infecting Iraq is not out of the body yet. There are no quick and easy solutions. A “strategy” that suggests the U.S. pulls out is palliative. It may feel good but may prove fatal in the end. There are circumstances where the U.S. will be ready to leave, but as Dunnigan, Bay, and Hutchinson write frequently, al-Qaeda is attempting to take over cities as a base for continued attacks. The fact that the Iraqis in these towns are bullied hardly indicates an acceptance of the al-Qaeda presence even if they are attacking the Americans.

The U.S. waged a cold war for 45 years and it drained huge resources that could have been devoted to stabilizing many countries. The fight in Iraq is still a minor blip compared to the conflict the U.S. has waged over the past 65 years.

Quote Reply

American Kafir 11/26/2006 1:12:55 PM

Just curious - is anyone still holding that position? (darth, whiteb, anyone?)

The inmediate piece of news that prompted that question is the recent coordinated bombings that left 215 shiites dead, along with the inevitable revenge killings, al-Sadr taking over a TV station, Maliki's government staggering, and the British openly talking about withdrawing next year.

On a larger scale, I would also be curious to find out whether;

1- Folks still believe that "stay the course" in Iraq is a practical strategy
2- Folks still believe that our involvement in the war in Iraqs helps us win the war on terror
3- Folks still argue that we've achieved anything other than furthering Iran's strategic interests in the region
4- Folks still folks who argue that Iraq bears no resemblance to Vietnam

I imagine that in most cases this would be a mixed bag - "yes" to some questions and "no" to others, but I'd be curious to see where where people fall in each case and, more importantly, what the reasoning is in each case.

Heart,

eu4ea

1. "Stay the course" is a bumper sticker slogan. If you mean we should change the strategy of training an Iraqi army to shoulder the responsibility of securing Iraq from terrorist and sectarian violence because their (and our) failures to reduce said violence have resulted in the deaths of a mere 0.04% of Iraq's population, I'd have to disagree and call you a wuss with Rumsfeldian indignation. Or at least ask why you haven't demanded that the St. Louis Police Department begin withdrawing patrols from the north side of downtown.

2- The war in Iraq is a part of the GWOT just as the war in Tunisia was a part of World War II.

3. I thought Iran was held at bay by imaginary WMDs? View it from a more realistic standpoint. There's more pro-Iraqi forces in Iraq than there are pro-Iranian forces. The Qom-ites in Tehran (and Shia Muslims everywhere) are going to have to deal with the fact that the things to see and do on the Shiite list are in Iraq and those that say otherwise are infidels.

4. Iraq does not resemble Vietnam. Iraq resembles a chess match between a stoner and a drunk.

Quote Reply

eu4ea 11/26/2006 2:01:35 PM

Just curious - is anyone still holding that position? (darth, whiteb, anyone?)

================
0.04%. Oky-doky. That's not merely unrealistic, it's actually humorous.

Like the good citizens of Czecoslovakia pouring out to welcome the liberating tanks of the Red Army. Not realistic, not fact driven; simply fun and refreshing. Whatever argument you build on top of that is pretty much irrelevant, just like whatever Pravda said after describing the joyfull Czech citizens welcoming the liberating Red Army tanks is irrelevant.
======================

2- The war in Iraq is a part of the GWOT just as the war in Tunisia was a part of World War II.

=======================

Actually, if you look at the $400 billion & 140,000 troops we have in Iraq and compare it to what we've spend/deployed elsewhere on the war on terror, the Iraq invasion is more like the Europen and Pacific theaters, combined. The rest (you know, catching Osama, securing our ports, operation in every other country combined) is the North African campaign, if that.
=======================

==================
Iran held at bay by imaginary WMDs? I'm not sure what you mean by that - do you mean our WMDs, or are you arguing that Iran was a threat to Iraq, not the other way around?

Be that as it may, the fact is that Iran created and controlled parties are running the Iraqi government is a fact. US created and controlled parties are nowhere to be found.
===================

4. Iraq does not resemble Vietnam. Iraq resembles a chess match between a stoner and a drunk.

===================
Which one are we, then - the stoner or the drunk?

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 11/26/2006 3:07:03 PM

Just curious - is anyone still holding that position? (darth, whiteb, anyone?)

The inmediate piece of news that prompted that question is the recent coordinated bombings that left 215 shiites dead, along with the inevitable revenge killings, al-Sadr taking over a TV station, Maliki's government staggering, and the British openly talking about withdrawing next year.

On a larger scale, I would also be curious to find out whether;

1- Folks still believe that "stay the course" in Iraq is a practical strategy
2- Folks still believe that our involvement in the war in Iraqs helps us win the war on terror
3- Folks still argue that we've achieved anything other than furthering Iran's strategic interests in the region
4- Folks still folks who argue that Iraq bears no resemblance to Vietnam

I imagine that in most cases this would be a mixed bag - "yes" to some questions and "no" to others, but I'd be curious to see where where people fall in each case and, more importantly, what the reasoning is in each case.

Heart,

eu4ea

I think these threads are simple to make when you have the help of the MSM. Every headline shows bodies with absolutely no context or explanation then you and others copy and paste the talking points to suit your needs. The blind leading the blind. First things first though. Lets put some context. You started off by suggesting an Iraqi Civil war and the logos for this was the recent 215 bombing deaths. What you forgot to add was that it was most likely the work of a foreign islamic terrorist organization better known as AQ. Its clear that AQ is doing all it can to inflame the tensions in Iraq and this is the latest stunt. So yes I believe that we should stay the course, yes I believe this is helping us to win the WOT as well as regional objectives and no this isnt like Viet Nam.

Quote Reply

eu4ea 11/26/2006 4:26:46 PM

Just curious - is anyone still holding that position? (darth, whiteb, anyone?)

The inmediate piece of news that prompted that question is the recent coordinated bombings that left 215 shiites dead, along with the inevitable revenge killings, al-Sadr taking over a TV station, Maliki's government staggering, and the British openly talking about withdrawing next year.

On a larger scale, I would also be curious to find out whether;

1- Folks still believe that "stay the course" in Iraq is a practical strategy

2- Folks still believe that our involvement in the war in Iraqs helps us win the war on terror

3- Folks still argue that we've achieved anything other than furthering Iran's strategic interests in the region

4- Folks still folks who argue that Iraq bears no resemblance to Vietnam

I imagine that in most cases this would be a mixed bag - "yes" to some questions and "no" to others, but I'd be curious to see where where people fall in each case and, more importantly, what the reasoning is in each case.

Heart,

eu4ea

I honestly cant see how the very *existence* of a free press and mass media prevents us from sucesfully discussing foreign policy -that has to be one of the more extraordinary claims I have heard recently- but if it's so, please help us.

Re: the fact that I asked wether there are still people who dont believe this is a civil war - well, that was a question, to be answered yes or no.

My own perspective is no secret; I've personaly believed this to be a civil war for some time now. I also believe that the sooner we stop talking about 'insurgents', 'regime die-hards', 'foreign agitators' and instead face up to the harsh reality that we're involved in an Arab civil war, the better off we'll be.

Heart,

eu4ea

Quote Reply

American Kafir 11/26/2006 4:35:06 PM

================
0.04%. Oky-doky. That's not merely unrealistic, it's actually humorous.
================
0.04% of 25,000,000 Iraqis is roughly 10,000 killed by terrorist and sectarian violence directed specifically against Iraqi civilians, whom the Iraqi army is being trained to protect. Figures much higher than that will require evidence in the form of corpses.

================
Like the good citizens of Czecoslovakia pouring out to welcome the liberating tanks of the Red Army. Not realistic, not fact driven; simply fun and refreshing. Whatever argument you build on top of that is pretty much irrelevant, just like whatever Pravda said after describing the joyfull Czech citizens welcoming the liberating Red Army tanks is irrelevant.
======================

Because you say so? Don't you think you're being a little hard on that straw man?

==================
Iran held at bay by imaginary WMDs? I'm not sure what you mean by that - do you mean our WMDs, or are you arguing that Iran was a threat to Iraq, not the other way around?

Be that as it may, the fact is that Iran created and controlled parties are running the Iraqi government is a fact. US created and controlled parties are nowhere to be found.
===================

4. Iraq does not resemble Vietnam. Iraq resembles a chess match between a stoner and a drunk.

===================
Which one are we, then - the stoner or the drunk?

Quote Reply

American Kafir 11/26/2006 4:54:10 PM

Because you say so? Don't you think you're being a little hard on that straw man?

=======================
=======================
2- The war in Iraq is a part of the GWOT just as the war in Tunisia was a part of World War II.
=======================
Actually, if you look at the $400 billion & 140,000 troops we have in Iraq and compare it to what we've spend/deployed elsewhere on the war on terror, the Iraq invasion is more like the Europen and Pacific theaters, combined. The rest (you know, catching Osama, securing our ports, operation in every other country combined) is the North African campaign, if that.
=======================
I thought American casualty figures were the measure of success? Will you leftists make up your minds? If we spent less and died more while killing even more, often indiscriminately, blazing through the War on Terror on a World War 2 time scale, where did we need to drop an atomic bomb on May 11th, 2005?
=======================
=======================
3. I thought Iran was held at bay by imaginary WMDs? View it from a more realistic standpoint. There's more pro-Iraqi forces in Iraq than there are pro-Iranian forces. The Qom-ites in Tehran (and Shia Muslims everywhere) are going to have to deal with the fact that the things to see and do on the Shiite list are in Iraq and those that say otherwise are infidels.

==================
Iran held at bay by imaginary WMDs? I'm not sure what you mean by that - do you mean our WMDs, or are you arguing that Iran was a threat to Iraq, not the other way around?
==================
The argument that toppling Saddam Hussein strengthened Iranian power in the region presumes Iran was aware that Iraq retained WMDs (or if you prefer, believed Iraq retained WMDs).and was deterred by this. That you can't make leftist talking points jibe with reality has never been my problem.

==================
Be that as it may, the fact is that Iran created and controlled parties are running the Iraqi government is a fact. US created and controlled parties are nowhere to be found.
===================
So much for the "American Imperialists" propaganda, eh?

===================
===================
4. Iraq does not resemble Vietnam. Iraq resembles a chess match between a stoner and a drunk.

===================
Which one are we, then - the stoner or the drunk?
===================
Neither. We set up the chess board.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 11/26/2006 4:55:00 PM

Just curious - is anyone still holding that position? (darth, whiteb, anyone?)

The inmediate piece of news that prompted that question is the recent coordinated bombings that left 215 shiites dead, along with the inevitable revenge killings, al-Sadr taking over a TV station, Maliki's government staggering, and the British openly talking about withdrawing next year.

On a larger scale, I would also be curious to find out whether;

1- Folks still believe that "stay the course" in Iraq is a practical strategy

2- Folks still believe that our involvement in the war in Iraqs helps us win the war on terror

3- Folks still argue that we've achieved anything other than furthering Iran's strategic interests in the region

4- Folks still folks who argue that Iraq bears no resemblance to Vietnam

I imagine that in most cases this would be a mixed bag - "yes" to some questions and "no" to others, but I'd be curious to see where where people fall in each case and, more importantly, what the reasoning is in each case.

Heart,

eu4ea

But you arent really asking are you? Your mind seems quite made up. Also there are 'insurgents', 'regime die-hards', 'foreign agitators' responsible for a lot of the violence. If you aren't willing to acknowledge that then how we get anywhere with the discussion? This is the same "question" asked over and over again by the anti-war crowd just reworded and attached to the latest headline. Wait til the next large act of violence. You will see this all over again. Nothing new here really. What kind of responses are you honestly expecting?

DA

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT