Civil War in Iraq?

[g4macdad]

I keep reading about full scale Civil War being declared in Iraq.

How does citizens fighting against foreign occupying invaders = Civil War?

[Puppycow]

I keep reading about full scale Civil War being declared in Iraq.

How does citizens fighting against foreign occupying invaders = Civil War?

It doesn't, but that's not the only fighting that's happening in Iraq.

[g4macdad]

It doesn't, but that's not the only fighting that's happening in Iraq.

What did you see there that we have not?

[Darth Rotor]

I keep reading about full scale Civil War being declared in Iraq.

How does citizens fighting against foreign occupying invaders = Civil War?
How do Iraqis fighting each other in sides selected along sectarian, ethnic, and political lines, killing each other to the tune of 200 to 3,000 dead per month, NOT equal a civil war?

The US is simply another side in a many versus many dogfight. That the US has chosen to back the "new government" which is seen by too many as a Shia puppet, among other distasteful descriptives, hardly changes the character of the war as it has gone since mid 2004.

Wake up and smell the IED.

DR

[LawnOven]

What did you see there that we have not?


I don't think he's seen anything else that we haven't seen. Have you not heard the phrase "sectarian violence" about a thousand times now in the news?

There's a civil war going on there now, made possible by our military interference... but now our soldiers are just in the way.

[Dancing David]

I wonder what started the civil war. If we had treated Iraq the same way we treated the post-nazi germany things might be different.

I think we need to clean up our mess , and maybe all the subcontracting isn't helping. But I do know for sure the Iraqis aren't helping either.

Maybe we should do what we can to get NATO and others to help us clean up our mess, detante with Iran and Syria might help as well.

Cutting loose Israel to suffer the consequence of it's choices would possibly help as well, maybe not.

[fuelair]

I wonder what started the civil war. If we had treated Iraq the same way we treated the post-nazi germany things might be different.

I think we need to clean up our mess , and maybe all the subcontracting isn't helping. But I do know for sure the Iraqis aren't helping either.

Maybe we should do what we can to get NATO and others to help us clean up our mess, detante with Iran and Syria might help as well.

Cutting loose Israel to suffer the consequence of it's choices would possibly help as well, maybe not.
I hate using the words "barely post-nazi Germany" and "civilized" in the same sentence - but post nazi Germany still had several centuries of not fighting each other in a major way, and real politics behind it at that point - they weren't like the quite a bit less civilized -anias, -vakias - and many Muslim areas where there seemed nothing to do but eat, procreate and kill people in the next village over because somebody there stole your great-great-great grandfathers' goats' food during a really bad winter 97 years back. Iraq is not functionally civilized - though it has started heading that way on occassion in the past. The primitive/fanatics keep winning and people keep dying for no purpose. It is a civil war and it will continue until all the religious nut die. Wish I could believe that would be real soon. But.......:mad:

[casebro]

The civil war was going on long before we got there. What do you call it when a government gasses it's own citizens? How many 'civil disobediences' makes a civil war?

Anybody else think we should recarve the whole middle east into different countries now, based on political reality? Instead of the English system of choosing a ruler, then assigning him a space to rule? Or the US, in Iraq, declaring that there will be only one country?

Then we could allow the petty countries to make war on their neighbors. To the victor belong the spoils, just the way the world has run it self, since we were tribes in Africa.

You made war on the Israeli's? You lost, you lost your country. Become Jewish or die. They kicked your ass too?... Soon, Israel is the biggest dog in that fight. Soon, no more wars, everybody happy with jobs in the Israeli economy. Same thing happen in Kurdistan, Turkey, Iran, Sunnistan....

[Upchurch]

What did you see there that we have not?
How have you not seen what the rest of us have?

[g4macdad]

I hate using the words "barely post-nazi Germany" and "civilized" in the same sentence - but post nazi Germany still had several centuries of not fighting each other in a major way, and real politics behind it at that point - they weren't like the quite a bit less civilized -anias, -vakias - and many Muslim areas where there seemed nothing to do but eat, procreate and kill people in the next village over because somebody there stole your great-great-great grandfathers' goats' food during a really bad winter 97 years back. Iraq is not functionally civilized - though it has started heading that way on occassion in the past. The primitive/fanatics keep winning and people keep dying for no purpose. It is a civil war and it will continue until all the religious nut die. Wish I could believe that would be real soon. But.......:mad:

:confused:

Those darn uncivilized Iraqis. Why would they not just do, as a foreign occupying invader tells them to, like the rest of us?

I mean we have been around over 200 years. They have only been around a little over 2000 years. Who do they think they are?:eye-poppi

[fuelair]

:confused:

Those darn uncivilized Iraqis. Why would they not just do, as a foreign occupying invader tells them to, like the rest of us?

I mean we have been around over 200 years. They have only been around a little over 2000 years. Who do they think they are?:eye-poppi

Cute. But are you seriously saying that without some Hussein style government terrorizing everyone that sunni and shia and kurds would not be killing each other off as much as possible? If you are, I think your history knowledge is some off. If, on the other hand, you regard more-or-less constant tribal warfare as a good thing (as opposed to my belief that is is primitive behavior) by all means support it.

[Darth Rotor]

If, on the other hand, you regard more-or-less constant tribal warfare as a good thing (as opposed to my belief that is is primitive behavior) by all means support it.
It is very much a good thing, since it is a check on overpopulation and of course, the secondary effect of too many people, global warming from human causes.

War
Helps keep the population down
War
Means less people in a crowded town
War
Let's us try out new artillery
War
Gives our soldiers foreign trips for free
(Mad Magazine song parody, circa 1970)

FWIW, good book out called "The End of Iraq" by Galbraith.

He's a bit of a Kurd fan, but his analysis and discussion on the low probability that Iraq survives as a single entity is worth taking in.

DR

[g4macdad]

Cute. But are you seriously saying that without some Hussein style government terrorizing everyone that sunni and shia and kurds would not be killing each other off as much as possible? If you are, I think your history knowledge is some off. If, on the other hand, you regard more-or-less constant tribal warfare as a good thing (as opposed to my belief that is is primitive behavior) by all means support it.

Can an armed foreign invading occupier that destroyed the country, save that country from civil war? (being the initiator of violence)

It seems you are overlooking some important facts here. :confused:

[Skeptic Ginger]

Iraq's Civil War; James D. Fearon; From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007 (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html)Summary: The White House still avoids the label, but by any reasonable historical standard, the Iraqi civil war has begun. The record of past such wars suggests that Washington cannot stop this one -- and that Iraqis will be able to reach a power-sharing deal only after much more fighting, if then. The United States can help bring about a settlement eventually by balancing Iraqi factions from afar, but there is little it can do to avert bloodshed now.

James D. Fearon is Geballe Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences and Professor of Political Science at Stanford University.

What's missing from the national debate is the input from the people who know what is going on and have the expertise to evaluate it. We get Republicans claiming every criticism of Bush policies is just political and we get Democrats who realize we are accomplishing very little so they just want out. The real answer lies in taking the advice of people who study and/or live in the culture and understand what is going on. It isn't about the '08 election. It's about ending a civil war that has deep roots and no simple solutions.

But there are solutions. And there is a better role the US could be playing in the matter than feeding the corrupt crony and military industrial machines. That's the first step. Stop pouring our tax dollars into friends of Bush's pockets. Get those a-holes out of there.

Next is to separate the warring parties, not an easy task.

Then we have to quit saying that, leaving is surrender and losing. It wouldn't be if we did the other two tasks above.

Someone needs to get this incompetent President out of the picture. Until that happens or someone enlightens the jerk, all we will see is more of the same.

[g4macdad]

Iraq's Civil War; James D. Fearon; From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007 (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html)What's missing from the national debate is the input from the people who know what is going on and have the expertise to evaluate it. We get Republicans claiming every criticism of Bush policies is just political and we get Democrats who realize we are accomplishing very little so they just want out. The real answer lies in taking the advice of people who study and/or live in the culture and understand what is going on. It isn't about the '08 election. It's about ending a civil war that has deep roots and no simple solutions.

But there are solutions. And there is a better role the US could be playing in the matter than feeding the corrupt crony and military industrial machines. That's the first step. Stop pouring our tax dollars into friends of Bush's pockets. Get those a-holes out of there.

Next is to separate the warring parties, not an easy task.

Then we have to quit saying that, leaving is surrender and losing. It wouldn't be if we did the other two tasks above.

Someone needs to get this incompetent President out of the picture. Until that happens or someone enlightens the jerk, all we will see is more of the same.

Then the republicans are right! It is political. The solution is a real leader that would never have started this mess.

According to the current administration "leaving is losing, Staying is winning". Works out real nice for the V.P.

P.S. Nice signature. Where did you get the idea?

[Kerberos]

I hate using the words "barely post-nazi Germany" and "civilized" in the same sentence - but post nazi Germany still had several centuries of not fighting each other in a major way
Post-Nazi Germany didn't have centuries of anything at that point. Still haven't actually. Germany was founded in 1871. The german states that existed before that did fight each other, though I can't say anything about their internal stability.

[corplinx]

Whats at stake in this civil war? Territorial control of Baghdad? I don't see any invading or occupying forces other than the US.

[g4macdad]

Whats at stake in this civil war? Territorial control of Baghdad? I don't see any invading or occupying forces other than the US.

Bingo!

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

P.S. Nice signature. Where did you get the idea?It evolved from playing with dead fish: <+++<

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whats at stake in this civil war? Territorial control of Baghdad? I don't see any invading or occupying forces other than the US.
Cheney can't leave because he'd have to give up the oil contracts he dealt his friends, Bush would have to admit he was wrong, and neither of them live in the real world.

It would give AlQaeda brownie points but if Bush et al wasn't so big on his personal win, he could change his language and say we are leaving because that's what the Iraqi's want, not because we were surrendering. But he's too much of an idiot to think that one through.

[fuelair]

Post-Nazi Germany didn't have centuries of anything at that point. Still haven't actually. Germany was founded in 1871. The german states that existed before that did fight each other, though I can't say anything about their internal stability.
Based on a quick update of my memory,, from 1400 to Germany as Germany, there were occasionally minor debates and squabbles but nothing like the 30 years war and 100 years war - and not like the tribal stuff of Iran, Iraq (or their equivalents earlier in the same geography). Basically, as I noted, reasonable civility no major kill-offs over religion (unlike, say, Huguenots in France or Royalists in France and England).

[Beerina]

How do Iraqis fighting each other in sides selected along sectarian, ethnic, and political lines, killing each other to the tune of 200 to 3,000 dead per month, NOT equal a civil war?

One has to answer the question: If the US suddenly pulled out, would the attacks stop (indicating they're trying to get the US out by making us feel bad and/or causing drop in support for the US among Iraqis) or would they continue largely unabated (indicating they are all about jockeying for position after the US leaves)?

I don't know the answer to this.

[Dancing David]

:confused:

Those darn uncivilized Iraqis. Why would they not just do, as a foreign occupying invader tells them to, like the rest of us?

I mean we have been around over 200 years. They have only been around a little over 2000 years. Who do they think they are?:eye-poppi


The Persian Empire was huge, when northern europe was a backwater.

[Darth Rotor]

The Persian Empire was huge, when northern europe was a backwater.
So what?

DR

[Dancing David]

Cute. But are you seriously saying that without some Hussein style government terrorizing everyone that sunni and shia and kurds would not be killing each other off as much as possible? If you are, I think your history knowledge is some off. If, on the other hand, you regard more-or-less constant tribal warfare as a good thing (as opposed to my belief that is is primitive behavior) by all means support it.
Who drew the lines for Iraq? Why would they want people fighting?

[Dancing David]

Post-Nazi Germany didn't have centuries of anything at that point. Still haven't actually. Germany was founded in 1871. The german states that existed before that did fight each other, though I can't say anything about their internal stability.


Stop bringing facts into this....

[Dancing David]

Based on a quick update of my memory,, from 1400 to Germany as Germany, there were occasionally minor debates and squabbles but nothing like the 30 years war and 100 years war - and not like the tribal stuff of Iran, Iraq (or their equivalents earlier in the same geography). Basically, as I noted, reasonable civility no major kill-offs over religion (unlike, say, Huguenots in France or Royalists in France and England).


No major kill offs, what about the Anababtists, I could be wrong. I don't suppose any Catholics or Lutherans died in the reformation?

Were you being sarcastic?

http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture6c.html


In 1555, the Peace of Augsburg brought an end to religious wars in Central Europe by dividing the numerous German states between Catholic and Lutheran authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

The Thirty Years' War was fought between 1618 and 1648, principally on the territory of today's Germany, and involved most of the major European continental powers. Although it was from the outset a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics, the rivalry between the Habsburg dynasty and other powers was also a central motive, as shown by the fact that Catholic France even supported the Protestant side, increasing France-Habsburg rivalry.

[Drysdale]

:confused:

Those darn uncivilized Iraqis. Why would they not just do, as a foreign occupying invader tells them to, like the rest of us?

I mean we have been around over 200 years. They have only been around a little over 2000 years. Who do they think they are?:eye-poppi

So by that logic you'd agree everyone older than you is wiser no?

And the Hussein regime was a utopia before we screwed it up? Thats what you're saying?

[Mycroft]

The Persian Empire was huge, when northern europe was a backwater.

So what?

DR

Yeah, what DR said.

What difference does it make what you were in the past?

The issue on anything will always be what the situation is today and what the potential for improvement is. What is was fifty, one hundred or a thousand years ago doesn't mean squat.

[g4macdad]

So by that logic you'd agree everyone older than you is wiser no?

And the Hussein regime was a utopia before we screwed it up? Thats what you're saying?

I am saying we bombed them for no reason, and now they are doing the same thing anyone else would do in the same situation. What are you saying?


Would you rather not have GWB as president, or your friends and family alive in our Utopia?

Try being a little realistic.

[Kerberos]

I am saying we bombed them for no reason, and now they are doing the same thing anyone else would do in the same situation. What are you saying?


Would you rather not have GWB as president, or your friends and family alive in our Utopia?

Try being a little realistic.
Frankly if that's what you're saying you should say that, rather than bringing up inane points about the age of their civilization, as if it actually meant something.

[Architect]

I am saying we bombed them for no reason, and now they are doing the same thing anyone else would do in the same situation. What are you saying?



What, shoot our neighbours? What a peculiar position. I don't seem to recall (say) the French or Norwegians doing that during WWII. Perhaps you should give a bit more thought to you posts before pressing "submit".

[g4macdad]

What, shoot our neighbours? What a peculiar position. I don't seem to recall (say) the French or Norwegians doing that during WWII. Perhaps you should give a bit more thought to you posts before pressing "submit".

Yes, I can see the WWII comparison. :boggled:

It's exactly the same situation.:eye-poppi

I will think things through more carefully the way you do next time.:cool:

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, I can see the WWII comparison. :boggled:

It's exactly the same situation.:eye-poppi

I will think things through more carefully the way you do next time.:cool:

Perhaps you can also set your sarcasm detector to 11, while you are at it.

Your current setting seems to be at low gain.

DR

[g4macdad]

Frankly if that's what you're saying you should say that, rather than bringing up inane points about the age of their civilization, as if it actually meant something.

It was a reply. Try reading the thread before you start your trolling motor.:cool:

[g4macdad]

Cheney can't leave because he'd have to give up the oil contracts he dealt his friends, Bush would have to admit he was wrong, and neither of them live in the real world.

It would give AlQaeda brownie points but if Bush et al wasn't so big on his personal win, he could change his language and say we are leaving because that's what the Iraqi's want, not because we were surrendering. But he's too much of an idiot to think that one through.

Cheney has many more interests in Iraq than just oil contracts. Can you say KBR? He has inside contracts for all the rebuilding of Iraq. He basically names his own price on everything. "Our" Troops die, HE lines his pockets. War profiteering is a harsh reality. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155&q=iraq+for+sale

[Carnivore]

Whats at stake in this civil war? Territorial control of Baghdad? I don't see any invading or occupying forces other than the US.

Excuse me? (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_ira_coa_cas-military-iraq-coalition-casualties)

[g4macdad]

Excuse me? (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_ira_coa_cas-military-iraq-coalition-casualties)

But our close ally Israel is no where on that list. Strange huh?:confused:

[geni]

Whats at stake in this civil war? Territorial control of Baghdad? I don't see any invading or occupying forces other than the US.

At stake for who?

The kurds? well if they play their cards right they end up with a de-facto (but not de-jure) independent state. Play them badly and they get sucked into the fight with the others or turkey invades.

For the sunni? being on the recivieing end of mass purssiction from the shia

The shia? being on the recivieing end of mass purssiction from the sunni

Territorial control in the conventional militry sense isn't relivant as long as the US hangs around.

[geni]

Anybody else think we should recarve the whole middle east into different countries now, based on political reality?

No

http://www.exile.ru/2007-March-06/war_nerd.html


Then we could allow the petty countries to make war on their neighbors. To the victor belong the spoils, just the way the world has run it self, since we were tribes in Africa.

tribes in africa don't have nuclear weapons.



You made war on the Israeli's? You lost, you lost your country. Become Jewish or die. They kicked your ass too?... Soon, Israel is the biggest dog in that fight.

Not after saudi arabia nuked them it wasn't.

[Tony]

But our close ally Israel is no where on that list. Strange huh?:confused:

No, it makes perfect sense.

[Schneibster]

It is very much a good thing, since it is a check on overpopulation and of course, the secondary effect of too many people, global warming from human causes. Helps keep all those post-adolescent males from causing problems for everyone else, too.

[Kerberos]

It was a reply. Try reading the thread before you start your trolling motor.:cool:

How does it being a reply preclude it from being inane?

[Dancing David]

Yeah, what DR said.

What difference does it make what you were in the past?

The issue on anything will always be what the situation is today and what the potential for improvement is. What is was fifty, one hundred or a thousand years ago doesn't mean squat.

So by extension the same applies to the present? The Iraqi's are not backward and neither are we. We broke up a dictatorship, we failed to create a situation of stability after the invasion, we even made choices to destabalize the situation (such as not vetting the Iraqi Army.), the Iraq War did not lead to civil war because of the inherent nature of the Iraqi's.

I would say that it was because some people made choices to encourage a power vacum, and then the civil war occured. So why didn't they plan for the peace, why not use the Iraqi Army while you vette out the Baath members? Why not have made a deal that the Europeans woiuld have helped us with, to provide more troops.

A civil war may have occured anyhow.

I do not know who made the choices or why. I just think that there were other choices that could have possibly led to a more stable situation.

We broke it, and the same things are about as true of post war Germany as are true of modern day Iraq.

It just bothers me, especialy when the alleged liberals do so, when many people say"Well we have to pull out, we don't want our troops in a civil war". As though our army was just strolling down the street and happened upon a civil war.

I did not agree with the war, I stood in silent demonstrations prior to the outbreak of hostilities. I have since not participated in silent demonstration, I do support the troops. And I support the Iraqi civilians. I feel that there are solutions to lead to a more stable situation, mainly making niice, nice with Syria and Iran and Turkey, while making a space for the Europeans to help us out.

I don't want to see our army ground down either way, but I also don't want to see a worse situation arise do to a series of poor choices. A civil war in Iraq will not help the situation. It may very possibly be too late to stabalize the situation. But I believe (perhaps mistakenly) that there are choices that would lead to a more stable situation.

[Darth Rotor]

The Iraqi's are not backward and neither are we. We broke up a dictatorship, we failed to create a siutaion of stability after the invasion, we even made choices to destabalize the situation (such as not vetting the Iraqi Army.)
Yep.
the Iraq War did not lead to civil war because of the inherent nature of the Iraqi's.
Peter W Galbraith tends to disagree with you. (His book "The End of Iraq (http://www.amazon.com/End-Iraq-American-Incompetence-Created/dp/0743294238)" is a decent read, albeit written by an American Kurdophile.) He points out that the car herding necessary to sustain the lines on the map was a consistent struggle from the inception of "Iraq" as a political entity, under British authority, from the get go. It is indeed inherent in the nature of the various factions there to squabble and fight.

You seem to presume a creature called "an Iraqi" and are as likely to find one as anyone was likely to find any "Yugoslav" other than Tito.
I would say that it was because some people made choices to encourage a power vacum, and then the civil war occured. So why didn't they plan for the peace, why not use the Iraqi Army while you vette out the Baath members? Why not have made a deal that the Europeans woiuld have helped us with, to provide more troops.
All good questions, all rooted in garbage for policy formulation in Washington. Some of those things were tried, but unfortunately, were implemented with other conflicting priorities interfering at the same time.
A civil war may have occured anyhow.
Yes, that was always a risk of breaking Saddam's system of order.

We broke it, and the same things are about as true of psot war Germany as are true of modern day Iraq.
Not really, though in principle I agree that there is a moral obligation to help undo that which cracking the structure of Iraqi political structure did.

The cold hard fact is that trying to rebuild in Iraq is enough to do serious damage to the US, economically, in the near to mid term.

Galbraith's advocacy of accepting that Iraq, like Yugoslavia, be allowed to break along factional lines is not a great idea, but it is more practical that trying to hold Humpty DUmpty together now that we knocked him off of the wall.

Since the egg is broken, make an omelette, divided as Gaul was into three parts. ;)

DR

[Drysdale]

Yes, that was always a risk of breaking Saddam's system of order.


Not really, though in principle I agree that there is a moral obligation to help undo that which cracking the structure of Iraqi political structure did.

The cold hard fact is that trying to rebuild in Iraq is enough to do serious damage to the US, economically, in the near to mid term.

Galbraith's advocacy of accepting that Iraq, like Yugoslavia, be allowed to break along factional lines is not a great idea, but it is more practical that trying to hold Humpty DUmpty together now that we knocked him off of the wall.

Since the egg is broken, make an omelette, divided as Gaul was into three parts. ;)

DR

I wish it were this easy. I really do. Then we could leave and say fight amongst yourselves. Unfortunately there's other dictatorships waiting in the wings to swoop in and claim the spoils, which in this case is much more significant because of the oil.

We've really gotten ourselves into a precarious situation this time.

[Darth Rotor]

I wish it were this easy. I really do. Then we could leave and say fight amongst yourselves. Unfortunately there's other dictatorships waiting in the wings to swoop in and claim the spoils, which in this case is much more significant because of the oil.

We've really gotten ourselves into a precarious situation this time.
If by "precarious situation" you mean "tar baby filled with razor blades," I agree. ;)

DR

[Dancing David]

Yep.

Peter W Galbraith tends to disagree with you. (His book "The End of Iraq (http://www.amazon.com/End-Iraq-American-Incompetence-Created/dp/0743294238)" is a decent read, albeit written by an American Kurdophile.) He points out that the car herding necessary to sustain the lines on the map was a consistent struggle from the inception of "Iraq" as a political entity, under British authority, from the get go. It is indeed inherent in the nature of the various factions there to squabble and fight.

I quite agree, the British usualy did these things to piss off the French or create an unstable society that would depend upon them for stability. I feel that the garbage policy made things much worse. I think that there may have been, let them riot and depose the the Baathists or something equaly foolish.

I think that the addidition European forces could help provide the stability to make partition safer.
[/quote]


You seem to presume a creature called "an Iraqi" and are as likely to find one as anyone was likely to find any "Yugoslav" other than Tito.
[/quote]
Quite true


All good questions, all rooted in garbage for policy formulation in Washington. Some of those things were tried, but unfortunately, were implemented with other conflicting priorities interfering at the same time.

Yes, that was always a risk of breaking Saddam's system of order.


Not really, though in principle I agree that there is a moral obligation to help undo that which cracking the structure of Iraqi political structure did.

The cold hard fact is that trying to rebuild in Iraq is enough to do serious damage to the US, economically, in the near to mid term.

Galbraith's advocacy of accepting that Iraq, like Yugoslavia, be allowed to break along factional lines is not a great idea, but it is more practical that trying to hold Humpty DUmpty together now that we knocked him off of the wall.

Since the egg is broken, make an omelette, divided as Gaul was into three parts. ;)

DR

[g4macdad]

I wish it were this easy. I really do. Then we could leave and say fight amongst yourselves. Unfortunately there's other dictatorships waiting in the wings to swoop in and claim the spoils, which in this case is much more significant because of the oil.

We've really gotten ourselves into a precarious situation this time.

See when you start with a lie, you can never end with a solution. We did not invade Iraq to break up a dictatorship. They know this, and the rest of us who live in reality, do too.

The only answer is for people to stop lying about why we are there. America's president invaded a foreign country and murdered innocent people. He did this without consent from the rest of the world. He needs to face a trial for war crimes, just like Sadam did. Then an apology from the new leader of our country and start a withdraw.

Do we really think the Iraqis are so much less intelligent than us? Get off your high horses and take responsibility for your own country's atrocities.

[strathmeyer]

Do we really think the Iraqis are so much less intelligent than us? Get off your high horses and take responsibility for your own country's atrocities.

Thank you, G4, for finally holding Iraqi's to the atrocities that their countrymen have committed. It is usually something people just ignore around here, and I'm glad that you've brought it up. Before the removal of Saddam, people were afraid to look at government buildings. But now that Iraq has been held accountable for its atrocities, the Iraqi people can finally live free without the fear of genocide.

[Drysdale]

See when you start with a lie, you can never end with a solution. We did not invade Iraq to break up a dictatorship. They know this, and the rest of us who live in reality, do too.

The only answer is for people to stop lying about why we are there. America's president invaded a foreign country and murdered innocent people. He did this without consent from the rest of the world. He needs to face a trial for war crimes, just like Sadam did. Then an apology from the new leader of our country and start a withdraw.

Do we really think the Iraqis are so much less intelligent than us? Get off your high horses and take responsibility for your own country's atrocities.

Time to wake up now.

I'd guess you are from the faaaar left as they say?

I'm not gonna spend a lot of time on this but for the record the radicals have been taking potshots at us since 1979. The Iraq war did'nt just start it.

And to be naive enough to believe an apology will make things all better is ridiculous. You cant be in high school yet surely to be that naive.

Should we have invaded? I dont know, history will be the final judge of that.
But to think an apology and just leaving Iraq will somehow create world peace is ludicrous.