Political Crossfire Forums

Trajan · Joined: 16 Jul 2005 Posts: 6584 Location: SE PA

cool_chick wrote: Chingu wrote:

Rah rah rah - go terrorists and murderous thugs go! We'll be your right hand man cheering you on - demoralizing your enemies!!!! Wee Hoo - go go go!

Chingu, quite frankly, you guys are getting more and more outrageous by the day. Seriously.

WTF is wrong with you guys anymore? You've seriously lost it. And with it, lost credibility. You guys can't control yourselves and be even remotely objective anymore, your credibility is lost.

The aftershocks of the unexpected, though only by the cons, loss of control of Congress.

Nine_Enigmas · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2312

Nathyn wrote: 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.
ROFL.

CNN did a report on it. After citing Sunni and Shiite death-squads, CNN's correspondent in Iraq said that anybody who doesn't think there's a civil war in Iraq is simply deceived by distance from Iraq. The Bush admin and the U.N. say it's not a civil war, but that it's really close and could go that way (but they've been saying that for like at least 6 months now). A professor of political science CNN interviewed said Iraq is a civil war because the technical definition of a civil war is a competition for control over a given territory where there is over 1,000 civilian casualties. According to him, Iraq fits the bill.

It's kinda sad that Sunnis and Shiites can't come together, peacefully. Their only disagreement is over the proper Hadiths, not over the Koran. Well, it is a belief in the Koran which makes one a Muslim. And the Koran says killing one Muslim is as bad as killing all of humanity. Such a shame they can't work together.

I think we should try to wash ourselves clean of the matter. Not getting involved ensures that they can't blame us. Letting them duke it out will fuel liberal and secular movements within the Middle East the same way that medieval Christian conflicts fueled the Enlightenment.

"competition for control over a given territory where there is over 1,000 civilian casualties". Uh, so most every invasion fits that bill as well. Did he get his philosophiae doctor in quackology?

As for washing ourselves of the matter; if only absolution were so easily attained. We've already made ourselves suspect for any negative fallout which could even be potentially attributed to this war.

Finally, Islam has already undergone it's own cultural revolution, and has it's own storied philosophical history. They are no more barbaric, and no less refined, than we.

leftneckredwing · Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 30458 Location: North America

Trajan wrote: That's all that can be used as that is all that remains.

Funny how we are going to Iraq to offer so called democracy and so called freedom, and according to some it's living and breathing. Can't find it anywhere, but it must be true, Fox said so.

But when democracy is exercised in the US, somehow, everyone became left wing nut jobs cheering on AQ. Which is odd, because I thought we started a whole war just to catch him. I suppose success is directly proportional to the number of car bombs. And God knows, there's been plenty of those. But it's not a civil war.

Trajan · Joined: 16 Jul 2005 Posts: 6584 Location: SE PA

leftneckredwing wrote: Trajan wrote: That's all that can be used as that is all that remains.

Funny how we are going to Iraq to offer so called democracy and so called freedom, and according to some it's living and breathing. Can't find it anywhere, but it must be true, Fox said so.

But when democracy is exercised in the US, somehow, everyone became left wing nut jobs cheering on AQ. Which is odd, because I thought we started a whole war just to catch him. I suppose success is directly proportional to the number of car bombs. And God knows, there's been plenty of those. But it's not a civil war.

Democracy is just the latest in a long line of "reasons" that have changed. We were no more interested in 2002 of what went on there than we were in 1982. Probably the only democracy in Iraq is in the Green Zone. Everywhere else it depends on who wins the firefight.

The other? I can't come up with a rational explaination. Somehow, dissent against our gov't decision is twisted into support for the enemy. It must take a good deal of willful twisting and false thinking to make it so.
Hell, they keep twisting and pulling in an ongoing attempt to justify this Iraq mess Bush got us into. To justify it for themselves.

It's just being avoided. This is a civil war in all but name. The name doesn't matter. They can spin and deny it all they want. But it doesn't change anything. It's started. And we're in the middle.

Fullerov · Joined: 31 Oct 2006 Posts: 79 Location: SXSW

the civil war has started in earnest for nearly a year now.

with its origins from mid 2004.

Timmytour · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 6863

Chingu wrote:
it's the same sort of thing as where one poster, who I assume would be on your side of this argument eagerly pots about a US Helicopter firing on a funeral procession - picking that one bit out and thirstily getting it up in lights here on PCF so that everyone can read about how one of our helicopter crews might - and I stress "might" have made a mistake. In the middle of all the possible news - one side eagerly picks out - with a sense of glee, it seems - anything to paint America as the bad guys.

Being that poster who started the thread on the helicopter, I would like to state for the record that at no time did I refer to the pilots of the helicopter making a mistake.

The premise for that thread was to question the reasoning in sending out a helicopter to hover above on such a sensitive day as Iraqis were burying their dead from the previous day.

So why does the summary of it as given in the quoted post paint such a distorted picture of what it was about?

Well either the distortion was deliberate..

..or being charitable.. it may have stemmed through a lack of being able to comprehend what has been written.

If the former is the case then we can only guess what the motives might be :roll:

If it is the latter, then a recommendation to avoid exposing evidence of your shortcomings across different threads is in order :wink:

Alizard · Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject:

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?

No, our media has been very effectively intimidated and muzzled by the government. The combat units "embed" reporters (which is to say, allow them to go along on missions).

Any news service who consistently posts critical content risked losing those priveledges.

The stories now are becoming more honest because the violence is so widespread and out of control it is no longer necessary to go into the field to look for it. It's everywhere.