Welcome to PatsFans.com

Civil War

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by wistahpatsfan, Nov 24, 2006.

  1. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Iyad Alawi, the former interim president of Iraq and an ally of our psychotic president admits that we are seeing the beginnings of civil war, as many in this forum have predicted. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1687910,00.html

    Burning people alive and gangs of civilians with RPG's is generally a bad indication of a society's health and the degree of control the occupation forces have. The question now is: What is your threshold for tolerance of the apparent degeneration of the situation in Iraq? Do you think it's worthwhile to remain militarily engaged or should we abandon any hope of the ability of the US to stabilize Iraq.
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,313
    Likes Received:
    118
    Ratings:
    +245 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    They've proven beyond any doubt they're an uncivilized, beastly society. In terms of just Iraq, I'm fine with leaving and letting them kill each other. Unfortunately that does nothing to slow their goal of killing us too.
  3. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0


    You know how embarrassing it is when I hear some French guy say just exactly that about my country with regard to this mess we've created and I have to hold my tongue because he's absolutely right, and he was absolutely right months before we even went in? You Bush voters gave the USA the the gift that just keeps on giving. Now, on top of everything else, the F'in French have a legitimate reason to look down their noses at us.
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,313
    Likes Received:
    118
    Ratings:
    +245 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Don't point your finger at me, I moved on from Bush before others. I didn't vote for him in 2004, yet he was re-elected. So there's no "you" here, buddy.

    Regardless, the question is where to go from here whether we were wrong is starting it before or not.
  5. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    So you voted for Bush before you voted against him huh?

    Gee whiz, where have I heard that before?
  6. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,313
    Likes Received:
    118
    Ratings:
    +245 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Yeah because there were two elections, dip****. One is 2000, one in 2004.
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,830
    Likes Received:
    89
    Ratings:
    +150 / 3 / -19

    I am not sure of the technical definition of "civil War", but what is going on in Iraq sure looks like it to me. Interesting the Marines have turned over Fajullah to the Iraqi Army, lets see how this turns out. My hope is well, so we can follow this plan to get our kids home soone.
  8. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    1) The Iraq war started in 2003, 2004 was too late to correct your mistake. That's assuming that you did what you say. Voting in secret allows you to do whatever you want and say you did something else entirely when you find out that you blew it badly.

    2) I'm sure you're also aware that there were two separate votes on that appropriations bill that your side refused to let Kerry off the hook for. One just to supply the troops with the stuff they needed and a second with all sorts of pork thrown in.
  9. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,282
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +85 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    You guys are not giving yourselves en ough cvredit, not only did many on the left predict a "civil war" in Iraq. They have rooted for it, and made it possible.

    Imagine what Iraq would be like today if the left in this country had not, from DAY ONE, (remember the crying about the Iraqi Museum) undermined the war effort and the troops. Keep telling yoursleves this is Bush's fault, so you can sleep at night.
  10. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,699
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +35 / 0 / -1

    #15 Jersey

    Better yet, lets give credit where it's rightly due. Imagine what Iraq would be like today if Bush, from DAY ONE (remember the first cabinet meeting) had not sought a reason to invade Iraq. Keep telling yourselves this is Bush's fault, so you can sleep at night when his term is over.
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,830
    Likes Received:
    89
    Ratings:
    +150 / 3 / -19

    What a limp dicked right wing response, only on this board and in this surreal world can someone blame the left for this mess, from the onset this was ill advised as no one in charge knew what the politics would be after this invasion. The reality is that if the intelligence ( an oxymoron for this administration) was paid attention to, there may have been different tactics. But this is what happens when you have single, like minded people making decisions without the input of those who have differing views and different information.
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,640
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +141 / 1 / -4

    That reasoning doesn't work, considering that the right controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. If they were such wimps that they couldn't develop an effective strategy because of the likes of Cindy Sheehan, then how the hell did you ever expect them to win a war?
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    You're funny.

    What do you mean by "you guys"? Shouldn't that be reserved for people other than Americans? You really believe Americans who were against this war did so because we didn't care about our troops? Can't you imagine any other reason why a good American would be against the government's policy in Iraq? I don't think occupation supporters do so because they want to hurt troops, but that is a more certain outcome while they're in Iraq as opposed to being home. That doesn't make you any less caring of the troops, does it?

    Kinda like Viet Nam, right? We would have won there, too, if the damn PEOPLE had kept their mouths shut and let the military protect our freedom there. Oh...that's right - this is nothing like Nam.
  14. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,313
    Likes Received:
    118
    Ratings:
    +245 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    I don't know why you're bringing up Kerry with me, I guess you're changing the subject again. And, yes, I voted for Bush in 2000 and the Libertarian in 2004. Why would you be worth lying to ?

    Look, I think most people think it was a mistake now. But most Democrats voted for the war at the time. Hindsight is easy. Just because the Democrats went along with Bush and didn't do their due diligence at the time doesn't let them off the hook. I don't recall any of them predicting a civil war.
  15. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,725
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2



    Thank you for saying that. You are as right as can be. Of course, the partisans in here will deny that till they die. Think about it though, they are now saying it's "heading toward all out civil war", well, according to them it was all out civil war 2 years ago. They've been saying it's civil war forever. Here's the left yelling "i told you so", then trying to say that they've still supported the war. Yeah right.

    Anyhow, as for what is going on in Iraq, it won't be catagorized as civil war until the government factions get involved. What this means is, if the Army/police, or portions of either, begin to fracture and support slayings along ethnic lines, then it will not be viewed as civil war. Until that happens, it will be considered sectarian strife. What you have to understand is that there are 18 provinces in Iraq, and only 3 of the provinces are accounting for the violence. The 3 provinces in question are all part of the Sunni Triangle. Furthermore, the social structure is still functional. By this I mean that schools are still open, markets are still doing business, and people are generally practicing their everyday lives. Those who are comprising all of the killing are militiamen on both sides. Obviously those who are targeted are the civilians. So far, the ISF has not fractured. What they are contemplating doing now is moving back to 24 hour check points inside Baghdad. They stopped running these check points a few months ago when suicide bombing were non-existent. Now that they don't have them, we've seen the violence increase. Personally, I'm hoping that Al-Sadr (biggest problem in Iraq) sticks to his promise of quiting the parliament if Malaki meets Bush. If he quits, we could finally take him and his radical militia out. Doing so would seriously aid security.

    Also, if I may say, I'm perplexed by the lack of blame being assessed to the people who practice this "religion of peace". Sorry, but with what goes on there everyday, I can't help but see how savage and primitive these people are. When you read how fellow muslim nations are aiding the slaughter of civilians (Iran & Syria), I realize that there is no negotiating with these people. They are savages plain and simple.
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,725
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2

    What the left of centers don't understand in here is that their side (generally speaking) has been undermining the war effort for quit some time. The bottom line is that these clowns in office all voted for the war. Now, where I have issue, and agree with those in here who have said the same, is that the post-war strategy has been abysmal. I've said that before and I say it now. However, for people to vote for a war, then when it gets hard, criticize it, is hypocritical. When I hear these washington politiicans I cringe. Remember what I say about party politics. How putting party over principle is a loosing proposition for Joe Taxpayer. Well, these loosers put a finger in the wind in 2003 and saw that the voters breeze was blowing toward action, so they voted in kind. Then, when times got tough, they start saying how bad an idea it was. Sad. Remember something people, I was not for action in April 2003. I totally understood why we were going in, and thought the reasoning was sound (geopolitical change in the ME). However, I never liked the precedent we were setting. That being the USA as invaders. However, once we broke it, we owned it, and that is why I support the cause today. That being said, a good chunk of the left has undermined the war for a long time. Criticism of GW and his post war plan is absolutely warranted. However, when people tell me they've been supportive from the left, I can't help but laugh.
  17. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    I, for one, have been opposed to this war from the very beginning, like you. I was also opposed to Gulf One because of the "What the hell business is it of ours" reasons. As a Libertarian, I consider myself not of the "modern left" but the "traditional left", the revolutionary idea that governments are subject to the will of the people and the world is not our playground to do with as we please.

    I can't understand why Congress was compliant with the White House - probably for the reasons you outlined as our Congress is a bunch of finger-in-the-wind cowards

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>