CNN Correspondant Calls Iraq War "Civil War"

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Ronstang
Don't worry, the Democrats are going to fix everything. They just need a little time. All will be well.

You can't fix the clusterfuck Bush created.

Then why did we elect democrats if they are incapable? Might as well have gone with the same old status quo.

I'm not saying this applies to either the Dems or the Republicans, or even this particular political situation, but generally the reason you replace idiots with competent people isn't because the latter will fix the problems caused by the former, but because a competent person generally won't KEEP screwing things up.

Let's imagine we're talking about, say, crane operators instead of politicians. Imagine we have this one crane operator named Bob who keeps screwing up his job. He keeps dropping stuff, injuring his fellow workers and setting the project more and more behind. Bob gets fired and Joe is hired in his place. Presumably the boss doesn't expect Joe to "uninjure" the workers hurt by Bob, nor does he expect Joe to magically get the project totally back on schedule. But the boss still fired Bob and hired Joe instead, probably because, while Joe can't fix everything Bob did wrong, he probably won't make even more mistakes and make things even worse.

Great analogy. Well said.

 

[astrosfan90]

shira, thanks for your intelligent answer to my rhetorical question. I should have known better than to think I'd have gotten more than insults and accusations from P&N, but at least one or two of you came through.

As for the rest of you? Get over yourselves. And learn to read. I've stated several times I personally feel that it is a civil war. My rhetorical question was to ponder whether or not it was appropriate for the washed-up news networks to get bored over the weekend and decide to become the story themselves instead of reporting the story to us.

I think I need to create a signature that states "I vote democrat, support the DNC financially, and have worked on several democratic campaigns. Please get your head out of your ass when replying to the message above, thank you."

By the way, I'm not exactly alone in my opinion: Text

 

[aidanjm]

I guess if the reporter is there in the middle of it, and it feels like or looks like a civil war, then it is his job to call it as he sees it. It's not like we have to wait for the green light from some central authority before we can apply the term 'civil war' to what is happening in Iraq.

altho 'civil war' doesn't really describe the kinds of killings that are taking place in Iraq. It's really almost like a small scale 'ethnic cleansing', with people from certain ethnic/ religious groups basically being kidnapped and murdered by people from other ethnic/ religious groups. Also lots of homosexual men are being kidnapped and murdered, along with other people coinsidered to be "undesirable". The bodies turn up a few days after the individuals go missing (usually dumped along a roadside or at a rubbish dump) hands tied behind their back and a bullet through their head.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: astrosfan90


I think I need to create a signature that states "I vote democrat, support the DNC financially, and have worked on several democratic campaigns. Please get your head out of your ass when replying to the message above, thank you."




Oh you voted Democratic? Gee I guess that means your lame observation now has more validity.

Dream on.

:roll:

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Of course it?s a civil war. It?s just that you need to realize, if you say it isn?t, that war evolved since last century. Terrorism is war. It?s the natural counter to a superior force that refuses to carpet bomb your location. So yes, the violence there constitutes a war, and it is between themselves.

The Media upping the rhetoric is merely the media being itself.

As for 2006, we?re tired of sitting on the pot. **** or get off, and the message has been clear that our leaders are too incompetent to get the job done of destroying Iraq, thereby permitting it to breed insurgency, thus the course of action was to remove the incompetence from power.

I do not like the alternative option the Dems present one bit, I?d much rather see us destroy Iraq and all the people in it who so much as look at us cross eyed. Yet no one has the will to get the job done, so without victory as an option defeat is all we have left. It?s a matter of it we lose today, or tomorrow. For the sake of our soldier?s lives, maybe it should be today.

One could say that if Bush didn?t give us a good choice, then maybe the Dems could help us lose more efficiently and that is why things turned out as they did.

GrowTF up!

Sandorski, what you need to understand is simple: It may be necessary to kill half of the Iraqis in order that the remaining half of the population may be advanced to a higher plane of life than their present semi-barbarous state affords.

 

[astrosfan90]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Oh you voted Democratic? Gee I guess that means your lame observation now has more validity.

Dream on.

:roll:

No, I was thinking more that it would stop people from accusing me of supporting the Bush administration. Because it really gets old. Some people just don't realize that even within your own party you aren't going to agree with everyone 100% of the time, and just because someone happens to disagree with you, it does not mean you should ignore/flame/ridicule them for holding a different opinion.

Then again, that would be assuming maturity from those responding, which is a faulty assumption on my part. This is P&N.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Of course it?s a civil war. It?s just that you need to realize, if you say it isn?t, that war evolved since last century. Terrorism is war. It?s the natural counter to a superior force that refuses to carpet bomb your location. So yes, the violence there constitutes a war, and it is between themselves.

The Media upping the rhetoric is merely the media being itself.

As for 2006, we?re tired of sitting on the pot. **** or get off, and the message has been clear that our leaders are too incompetent to get the job done of destroying Iraq, thereby permitting it to breed insurgency, thus the course of action was to remove the incompetence from power.

I do not like the alternative option the Dems present one bit, I?d much rather see us destroy Iraq and all the people in it who so much as look at us cross eyed. Yet no one has the will to get the job done, so without victory as an option defeat is all we have left. It?s a matter of it we lose today, or tomorrow. For the sake of our soldier?s lives, maybe it should be today.

One could say that if Bush didn?t give us a good choice, then maybe the Dems could help us lose more efficiently and that is why things turned out as they did.

GrowTF up!

Sandorski, what you need to understand is simple: It may be necessary to kill half of the Iraqis in order that the remaining half of the population may be advanced to a higher plane of life than their present semi-barbarous state affords.

If you are not being sarcastic: BS. What the mass Kill supporters need to understand is simple: If you need to kill mass amounts of people to acheive your goal, your goal is sh**. Especially when the Iraqi's didn't ask for any of this to happen and there's no justification for the foreign presence. The easy way could have been taken, but someone f****d it up and made a mess, now there are no easy or good choices, but none of those choices involve Genocide.

 

[Tom]

Maybe I'm missing something, but most of the reports I see are about armed fvckers killing unarmed people ?

Seems too dishonorable to call it war.

 

[Martin]

The only reason its not being called a 'civil war' is so that Bush and his feckless supporters can save some face. There were 100 000 casualties in Lebanon's civil war over 14 years, and we don't see anything trying to frame that in pleasing language...

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Of course it?s a civil war. It?s just that you need to realize, if you say it isn?t, that war evolved since last century. Terrorism is war. It?s the natural counter to a superior force that refuses to carpet bomb your location. So yes, the violence there constitutes a war, and it is between themselves.

The Media upping the rhetoric is merely the media being itself.

As for 2006, we?re tired of sitting on the pot. **** or get off, and the message has been clear that our leaders are too incompetent to get the job done of destroying Iraq, thereby permitting it to breed insurgency, thus the course of action was to remove the incompetence from power.

I do not like the alternative option the Dems present one bit, I?d much rather see us destroy Iraq and all the people in it who so much as look at us cross eyed. Yet no one has the will to get the job done, so without victory as an option defeat is all we have left. It?s a matter of it we lose today, or tomorrow. For the sake of our soldier?s lives, maybe it should be today.

One could say that if Bush didn?t give us a good choice, then maybe the Dems could help us lose more efficiently and that is why things turned out as they did.

GrowTF up!

Sandorski, what you need to understand is simple: It may be necessary to kill half of the Iraqis in order that the remaining half of the population may be advanced to a higher plane of life than their present semi-barbarous state affords.

If you are not being sarcastic: BS. What the mass Kill supporters need to understand is simple: If you need to kill mass amounts of people to acheive your goal, your goal is sh**. Especially when the Iraqi's didn't ask for any of this to happen and there's no justification for the foreign presence. The easy way could have been taken, but someone f****d it up and made a mess, now there are no easy or good choices, but none of those choices involve Genocide.

do a google search on that quote - but remove Iraq - and add the word "phillipines"...beyond that change, it should be exactly the same...


I guess you didn't get what i was quoting >,>

 

[cyclohexane]

Originally posted by: Tom
Maybe I'm missing something, but most of the reports I see are about armed fvckers killing unarmed people ?

Seems too dishonorable to call it war.

qft

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Tom
Maybe I'm missing something, but most of the reports I see are about armed fvckers killing unarmed people ?

Seems too dishonorable to call it war.

Most people are unarmed and defenseless. Besides, the only place I know where most of the population is armed are the northwest provinces in Pakistan.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tom
Maybe I'm missing something, but most of the reports I see are about armed fvckers killing unarmed people ?

Seems too dishonorable to call it war.

Yes, but "armed fvckers killing unarmed people" is exactly what happens in religious/ ethnic motivated civil wars. E.g., the Bosnian war, where Serbian soldiers travelled around Bosnia & Herzegovina slaughtering literally thousands of non-Serbian (i.e., Muslim) men and boys and dumping the bodies in mass graves.

 

[GrGr]

Even Colin Powell is saying that it is a civil war now.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tom
Maybe I'm missing something, but most of the reports I see are about armed fvckers killing unarmed people ?

Seems too dishonorable to call it war.

Yes, but "armed fvckers killing unarmed people" is exactly what happens in religious/ ethnic motivated civil wars. E.g., the Bosnian war, where Serbian soldiers travelled around Bosnia & Herzegovina slaughtering literally thousands of non-Serbian (i.e., Muslim) men and boys and dumping the bodies in mass graves.

I always associated war with fighting, killing unarmed people isn't fighting.

How come the Sunnis who want to fight, and the Shiites that want to fight, don't fight each other ? Or are they, but it isn't being reported ?

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tom
Maybe I'm missing something, but most of the reports I see are about armed fvckers killing unarmed people ?

Seems too dishonorable to call it war.

Yes, but "armed fvckers killing unarmed people" is exactly what happens in religious/ ethnic motivated civil wars. E.g., the Bosnian war, where Serbian soldiers travelled around Bosnia & Herzegovina slaughtering literally thousands of non-Serbian (i.e., Muslim) men and boys and dumping the bodies in mass graves.

I always associated war with fighting, killing unarmed people isn't fighting.

How come the Sunnis who want to fight, and the Shiites that want to fight, don't fight each other ? Or are they, but it isn't being reported ?

Ok So do you prefer the term genocide then? Either way, it's bad.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tom
Maybe I'm missing something, but most of the reports I see are about armed fvckers killing unarmed people ?

Seems too dishonorable to call it war.

Yes, but "armed fvckers killing unarmed people" is exactly what happens in religious/ ethnic motivated civil wars. E.g., the Bosnian war, where Serbian soldiers travelled around Bosnia & Herzegovina slaughtering literally thousands of non-Serbian (i.e., Muslim) men and boys and dumping the bodies in mass graves.

I always associated war with fighting, killing unarmed people isn't fighting.

How come the Sunnis who want to fight, and the Shiites that want to fight, don't fight each other ? Or are they, but it isn't being reported ?

They are fighting each other, and it is being reported every day.

Where do you get your news?

 

[fskimospy]

They are fighting each other, and it is being reported every day.

Where do you get your news?

I think he means more that we aren't seeing pitched battles... or engagements of large numbers of sunnis and shia where both are armed.

I think the reasons for that though are pretty clear. First, there is a huge American military presence in Baghdad. If they settle down for a nice pitched battle you're going to be covered in American troops, etc in no time flat. I'm sure if our troops were not there you would see more up front fighting Beruit style as opposed to this back alley killing. Also if you're trying to kill and intimidate your sectarian rivals you might as well go after the easiest targets, right? No point in shooting at people that will shoot back if you can avoid it.