Political Crossfire Forums

[beachbum bob]

finally MSM getting on board on where Iraq has been for a couple years now....can't wait for foxnews to follow.....someday....
10's of thousands of refugees
1000's killed every month
no Iraqi govt presence
militia rule vast areas


yep....the failure of bush Iraq war policy has given the iraqi people their civil war


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15921476/


NBC label of civil war at odds with White House
Pronouncement to increase public dismay over troop presence, analysts say
Updated: 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - NBC News Monday branded the Iraq conflict a civil war — a decision that put it at odds with the White House and that analysts said would increase public disillusionment with the U.S. troop presence there.

NBC said the Iraqi government's inability to stop spiraling violence between rival factions fit its definition of civil war.

[baleyg]

beachbum bob wrote: finally MSM getting on board on where Iraq has been for a couple years now....can't wait for foxnews to follow.....someday....
10's of thousands of refugees
1000's killed every month
no Iraqi govt presence
militia rule vast areas


yep....the failure of bush Iraq war policy has given the iraqi people their civil war


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15921476/


NBC label of civil war at odds with White House
Pronouncement to increase public dismay over troop presence, analysts say
Updated: 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - NBC News Monday branded the Iraq conflict a civil war — a decision that put it at odds with the White House and that analysts said would increase public disillusionment with the U.S. troop presence there.

NBC said the Iraqi government's inability to stop spiraling violence between rival factions fit its definition of civil war.
:-| "Analysts"?

I suppose it's hard to object to the kind of argument that says: if civil war is displacement of people, warring factions and failed political settlements between them - then Iraq is a civil war.

But I guess I don't see how /calling/ it a civil war would be a problem? I mean, it's a problem for the Whitehouse since they've staked their reputation on it - but.. oh, wait..

[Commiebastage]

Haha, thats funny...I heard this about an hour ago on NPR. And guess whos NOT calling it a civil war? Fox News.

Iraq was a complete failure. Whos dumb idea was it to treat another nation like an anthropological experiment by supplanting its government and telling their people to adopt Western values....by force?

[Timmytour]

Does this follow on from Kofi Annan´s recent assessment?

[sLiPpY]

Why has it taken the media, well over two years to state the obvious?

Maybe it's just that our media, is even dumber than our government?

[Rankor and Pissing]

sLiPpY wrote: Why has it taken the media, well over two years to state the obvious?

Maybe it's just that our media, is even dumber than our government?

Why? Because it takes more than simply groups fighting each other to qualify as a civil war. Civil wars have goals and objectives. They are fighting for or against something. If it's simply Shia and Sunni hating and killing each other - it's not a civil war. If it's Sunni or Shia fighting against the U.S., it's also not a civil war. For it to be a civil war, a power struggle for control of the country or against policy must occur. For example, Kashmir fighting between Muslims and Hindu's isn't called a civil war is it? No, it's not, yet Kashmir resembles one more than Iraq currently.

Secondly - because the majority of the fighting and killing is occurring in regional areas only and hasn't spread, making it really a "regional interstate war" or one could say even a religious war. With factions of Iran, Syria, terrorist organizations as well as Iraqi organizations all fighting each other. One could argue this is a timing factor and that given time, the regional portion will spread and become a true civil war. Perhaps. However, to answer the question "why has the media been on board with the civil war in Iraq" is because it's not meeting the criteria for civil war and hasn't yet - though it's getting close.

It's not the media's stupidity at all - it's your lack of understanding as to what civil war actually is - it's the parroting of what you've been told to say by those you believe do know and not checking it for yourself. I think if you did that - you'd see it's not so cut and dry.

[sLiPpY]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: sLiPpY wrote: Why has it taken the media, well over two years to state the obvious?

Maybe it's just that our media, is even dumber than our government?

Why? Because it takes more than simply groups fighting each other to qualify as a civil war. Civil wars have goals and objectives. They are fighting for or against something. If it's simply Shia and Sunni hating and killing each other - it's not a civil war. If it's Sunni or Shia fighting against the U.S., it's also not a civil war. For it to be a civil war, a power struggle for control of the country or against policy must occur. For example, Kashmir fighting between Muslims and Hindu's isn't called a civil war is it? No, it's not, yet Kashmir resembles one more than Iraq currently.

Secondly - because the majority of the fighting and killing is occurring in regional areas only and hasn't spread, making it really a "regional interstate war" or one could say even a religious war. With factions of Iran, Syria, terrorist organizations as well as Iraqi organizations all fighting each other. One could argue this is a timing factor and that given time, the regional portion will spread and become a true civil war. Perhaps. However, to answer the question "why has the media been on board with the civil war in Iraq" is because it's not meeting the criteria for civil war and hasn't yet - though it's getting close.

It's not the media's stupidity at all - it's your lack of understanding as to what civil war actually is - it's the parroting of what you've been told to say by those you believe do know and not checking it for yourself. I think if you did that - you'd see it's not so cut and dry.

Actually it is that cut and dry...thing is when you have imbeciles with tunnel vision formulating policy...they spend years in denial.

Do you know when the Iraqi Civil War began?

It was on Nov 8th 2004.

Do you know when the American Civil War began?

It was in 1859, via John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry.

Someone like Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld would say that the Civil War started in 1861. They'd have no recognition of the catalyst that set the ball in motion at all.

So in your view, I'll agree that the Civil War can be dated as beginning in 1861.

But us Left minders always have the advantage in seeing what sets the ball in motion before we get hit, and most of the time we can see where the ball is going after it gets kicked. :wink:

The big screw up was Fallujah. And the Bush White House owns it.

[trefakio]

Less people died daily in the EL Salvador civil war.

No wonder they want to spend half a billion for the dumb President's library. That buys rewriting history.

[Chymical]

I bet it will be Syria and Iran's Fault. The Bastards.

[beachbum bob]

Chymical wrote: I bet it will be Syria and Iran's Fault. The Bastards.

always the liberals fault...don't ya know...

[Chymical]

beachbum bob wrote: Chymical wrote: I bet it will be Syria and Iran's Fault. The Bastards.

always the liberals fault...don't ya know...

Damn Liberul-Mooslem-Fascists I AHTE THEM SOOOO MUCH"QWJ

[Rankor and Pissing]

sLiPpY wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: sLiPpY wrote: Why has it taken the media, well over two years to state the obvious?

Maybe it's just that our media, is even dumber than our government?

Why? Because it takes more than simply groups fighting each other to qualify as a civil war. Civil wars have goals and objectives. They are fighting for or against something. If it's simply Shia and Sunni hating and killing each other - it's not a civil war. If it's Sunni or Shia fighting against the U.S., it's also not a civil war. For it to be a civil war, a power struggle for control of the country or against policy must occur. For example, Kashmir fighting between Muslims and Hindu's isn't called a civil war is it? No, it's not, yet Kashmir resembles one more than Iraq currently.

Secondly - because the majority of the fighting and killing is occurring in regional areas only and hasn't spread, making it really a "regional interstate war" or one could say even a religious war. With factions of Iran, Syria, terrorist organizations as well as Iraqi organizations all fighting each other. One could argue this is a timing factor and that given time, the regional portion will spread and become a true civil war. Perhaps. However, to answer the question "why has the media been on board with the civil war in Iraq" is because it's not meeting the criteria for civil war and hasn't yet - though it's getting close.

It's not the media's stupidity at all - it's your lack of understanding as to what civil war actually is - it's the parroting of what you've been told to say by those you believe do know and not checking it for yourself. I think if you did that - you'd see it's not so cut and dry.

Actually it is that cut and dry...thing is when you have imbeciles with tunnel vision formulating policy...they spend years in denial.

Do you know when the Iraqi Civil War began?

It was on Nov 8th 2004.

And what makes it a civil war. What is being fought for? What is being fought against between the Shia and Sunni's?

[Tracker]

It's NOT a 'civil war' AT ALL ...

... it's NOTHING MORE NOR LESS than three different religions HATING and DIVIDING so-called 'beloved-neighbor' AGAINST BelovedNeighbor in so-called 'positive-goodness' -- the ideology of TERROR, as ALL RELIGIONISTS DO.

-- they ALL claim 'one and only truth, therefore we are SUPERIOR and YOU are WORSE than US!' in so-called 'positive-goodness' -- and ANY EXCUSE WILL DO.

-- they say anything and do anything to 'justify' their MEANness -- the meanness brainwashed into them by HatefulReligiousSupremacy: their own religions.

FACT.

And it's about time we had some BrutalHonesty about it.

No more excuses and lofting one's self on a self-made 'victim-stage' to do Me-ismWorship in so-called 'positive-goodness' -- claiming, "Oh, I'm a victim -- I'm so oppressed! -- my religion is being discussed! -- there oughtta be a law to CENSOR ... uh, ... well, ... "

-- yeah, STFU.

And religion has been perverted into a 'license' to do THAT grossness and get away with it.

It's sickening.

A real global crisis. No s**t.

Just turn to those three versions of religious 'love' hating and murdering and pillaging and plundering in Iraq to see what HatefulReligiousSupremacy and HatefulReligious_'eye-for-an-eye'_VINDICTIVENESS/VENGENACE is all about, EXACTLY -- all HATE, nonstop -- it's soooooooooo GROSS!

But it's HERE that religionists want every government official and educator replaced with CLERICS!

Go figure! :roll:

Like I said, it's a GLOBAL CRISIS -- vast, huge, multi-faceted -- and a scary one at that.

[Bull]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: sLiPpY wrote: Why has it taken the media, well over two years to state the obvious?

Maybe it's just that our media, is even dumber than our government?

Why? Because it takes more than simply groups fighting each other to qualify as a civil war. Civil wars have goals and objectives. They are fighting for or against something. If it's simply Shia and Sunni hating and killing each other - it's not a civil war. If it's Sunni or Shia fighting against the U.S., it's also not a civil war. For it to be a civil war, a power struggle for control of the country or against policy must occur. For example, Kashmir fighting between Muslims and Hindu's isn't called a civil war is it? No, it's not, yet Kashmir resembles one more than Iraq currently.

Secondly - because the majority of the fighting and killing is occurring in regional areas only and hasn't spread, making it really a "regional interstate war" or one could say even a religious war. With factions of Iran, Syria, terrorist organizations as well as Iraqi organizations all fighting each other. One could argue this is a timing factor and that given time, the regional portion will spread and become a true civil war. Perhaps. However, to answer the question "why has the media been on board with the civil war in Iraq" is because it's not meeting the criteria for civil war and hasn't yet - though it's getting close.

It's not the media's stupidity at all - it's your lack of understanding as to what civil war actually is - it's the parroting of what you've been told to say by those you believe do know and not checking it for yourself. I think if you did that - you'd see it's not so cut and dry.

1. Do you know what the definition of a civil war is? Without the obvious spin? A civil war constitutes two or more groups who are citizens of one country warring against each other. Period. That has been going on for a long time now...and I guess the MSM got tired of the Bush Administration strong-arming them not to call it like it is.

"it's your lack of understanding as to what civil war actually is - it's the parroting of what you've been told to say by those you believe do know and not checking it for yourself."

Oh, and you don't parrot? You're probably doing it now from what you've heard on FOX News or read on some website full of other people in denial over this fiasco. WE know what a civil war is.

[Mr. Sunshine]

Editorializing "civil war" means nothing. :lol:

[sLiPpY]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: sLiPpY wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: sLiPpY wrote: Why has it taken the media, well over two years to state the obvious?

Maybe it's just that our media, is even dumber than our government?

Why? Because it takes more than simply groups fighting each other to qualify as a civil war. Civil wars have goals and objectives. They are fighting for or against something. If it's simply Shia and Sunni hating and killing each other - it's not a civil war. If it's Sunni or Shia fighting against the U.S., it's also not a civil war. For it to be a civil war, a power struggle for control of the country or against policy must occur. For example, Kashmir fighting between Muslims and Hindu's isn't called a civil war is it? No, it's not, yet Kashmir resembles one more than Iraq currently.

Secondly - because the majority of the fighting and killing is occurring in regional areas only and hasn't spread, making it really a "regional interstate war" or one could say even a religious war. With factions of Iran, Syria, terrorist organizations as well as Iraqi organizations all fighting each other. One could argue this is a timing factor and that given time, the regional portion will spread and become a true civil war. Perhaps. However, to answer the question "why has the media been on board with the civil war in Iraq" is because it's not meeting the criteria for civil war and hasn't yet - though it's getting close.

It's not the media's stupidity at all - it's your lack of understanding as to what civil war actually is - it's the parroting of what you've been told to say by those you believe do know and not checking it for yourself. I think if you did that - you'd see it's not so cut and dry.

Actually it is that cut and dry...thing is when you have imbeciles with tunnel vision formulating policy...they spend years in denial.

Do you know when the Iraqi Civil War began?

It was on Nov 8th 2004.

And what makes it a civil war. What is being fought for? What is being fought against between the Shia and Sunni's?

http://videos.informationclearinghouse.info/fallujah_ING.wmv

[Bull]

I had to pull out the dictionary on this one... :lol:

From the American Heritage Dictionary...

Civil War
Noun.

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.

There you have it.

[Chymical]

That's a liberal dictionary, hillary wrote it ;)

[Mr. Sunshine]

Bull wrote: I had to pull out the dictionary on this one... :lol:

From the American Heritage Dictionary...

Civil War
Noun.

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.

There you have it.

The sectarian violence stems from a long history in cross populated tribal societies. Identify the factions outside of Sunni vs. Shia which extend beyond the borders of Iraq. Is the Middle East in a civil war. Buzz words change nothing. 8:)

[Bull]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Bull wrote: I had to pull out the dictionary on this one... :lol:

From the American Heritage Dictionary...

Civil War
Noun.

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.

There you have it.

The sectarian violence stems from a long history in cross populated tribal societies. Identify the factions outside of Sunni vs. Shia which extend beyond the borders of Iraq. Is the Middle East in a civil war. Buzz words change nothing. 8:)

You don't even know the meaning of the words you use. "Sectarian violence" is a gloss over of what is actually going on...CIVIL WAR.

Again...

Sectarian
Adjective

-Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.

A sect is "any group, party, or faction united by a specific doctrine or under a doctrinal leader." So in other words, it's a synonym for a faction. To put it plainly, "sectarian violence" = civil war in laymens terms. So all this time the adminstration has been calling what's going on in Iraq "sectarian violence" was all Orwellian mind games, because that's what they meant all along in so many words.