Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by scout, Feb 14, 2007.
Breaking news, more to come. Does anyone side with our President on this?
Iraq War right on course.
clearly, by Tony Snow logic, we can tell Bush is saying the exact opposite, that there IS civil war...
you remember "Mission Accomplished", yes?
well, Tony explained the secret code here:
Snow Falsely Claims That Bush Said âJust The Oppositeâ Of âMission Accomplishedâ
In todayâs press briefing, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow tried to distance President Bush from his infamous âMission Accomplishedâ speech, claiming that Bush said âjust the oppositeâ of âMission Accomplishedâ:
What is sad is, the fact that Bush says this does not convince me or most other people. Bush has almost zero credibility anymore.
Agreed. he has lost it...
Re: Bush, Declares Iraq Not A Civil War
George Castanza Bush. I am a uniter. Wanted dead or alive. Will not enter a war without an exit strategy. I will fire anyone involved... Mission Accomplished. WMD. Yellow Uranium. 9/11 link to Iraq. Credibility.
Re: Bush, Declares Iraq Not A Civil War
What a friggin embarrassment!
He's like this uncle I have that shows up at family functions late, drunk and talks crazy. Total embarrassment....oh wait a minute... that uncle is me!
I don't think it's a Civil War. If it were a Civil War then the government would cease to exist, and the military would not be fighting along side US forces, nor would they be controlling provinces, as they'd be fighting each other. The situation stinks, but it's not Civil War, it's sectarian strife. The problem is that the MSM has been labeling it a Civil War, or trying to, for 3 years now. If it was a Civil War, then why is the MSM still asking the question? Civil War sells better. It's a more sensationalistic headline. In Palestine you have Fatah and Hamas government forces attacking each other, killing each other, and kidnapping the others politicians. I'd say that is more along a Civl War than Iraq. Civil Wars tend to include government operandi, or are explicately faught for control of a government. Everyone's definition or preception might be different, but this is my take. What's really interesting the obvious need of some to call this a Civil War. I get the feeling that it's part of the pile on factor, like a "see, it's a civil war, it sucks more now" reasoning. Am out of line with that feeling? I'm asking.
Yes, like the government ceased to exist during the American Civil War.
Language is ambiguous, arguing about whether Iraq is a "civil war" or some other term is pointless. What's important is that Iraq's a major mess.
Read my entire post, and not just the first line.
The rest of your post doesn't make the first line any more true. There's no requirement that a government completely vanish. I don't have a position on whether Iraq's a civil war or not (I don't care to play word games), but the "government ceases to exist" assertion just isn't in the definition.
It would fracture, as did the US during its Civil War.
Isn't that the situation in Iraq? There is a Shiite government, but the north is controlled by the Kurds and three provinces (Salah ad Din, Ninawa, and Al Anbar) are controlled by Sunnis.
i believe the mainstream media has been saying so for exactly one year, not three, so there's a bit of an overdramatazation there... and they've been saying so since the mosque bombing last february, and since several military officials declared the same over the summer... "Iraq is a Civil War"
yay, let's blame the media for everything!!!
The Central government runs the roost. It's somewhat similar to the fed versus states. My point is that if it were a true civil war, then portions of the police, ISF, IA, etc would be branching off independently and entering the fray. Think along the lines of our Civil War, where the army and government fractured, and faught each other. That's not happening in Iraq. Again, this doesn't mean the situation is not terrible.
The MSM has been hollaring Civil War since 2005.
Lol, it's worse than a civil war. There aren't just two sides, there are dozens of them. Warlords aren't loyal to the central government. The central government may run the roost (Baghdad) but they have as much influence in Sunni provinces are the yankees did in the confederate south.
well let's see... "3 years" = 36 months... "since 2005" = 14 months... which is it?
anyhow, that's a vague statement, and completely unfounded...
the MSM has only been declaring the situation a civil war since a few months after the mosque bombing LAST february... this isn't Lifetime Channel, so tone down the drama...
2005, 2006, and now 2007.
A quick google of: 2004 Iraq Civil War.
Mosque attacks fuel fears of Iraq civil war
By Anne Barnard, Globe Staff | March 23, 2004
Civil War in Iraq?
New York Sun Editorial
September 17, 2004
President was told in July of civil war risk in Iraq
Intelligence report adds weight to criticism of White House
Gary Younge in New York
Friday September 17, 2004
This is their civil war
Tuesday December 7, 2004
Separate names with a comma.