From: "Rich Gauszka" 

It's the wrong war but not everyone that is saying that thinks we can pull
out now. Heck I've heard some ultra-conservatives try to use the excuse
that since there is a civil war in Iraq that the situation can justify a
pullout.

I don't think we can easily pullout. I also suspect that their are years of
pain and suffering ahead due to the incompetence of this administration in
dealing with the aftermath of 'victory' in Iraq. The delusional attitude
that groups that hate each other would rush to democracy and everything
would be happy happy boggles the mind. We didn't have enough troops nor was
there a viable plan for them create a 'new' Iraq. No we shouldn't pull out
but someone on high needs to be fired for incompetence of an previously
unimaginable level

Dang Mark it looks like 67% of Americans now feel we can't stop this
non-existant civil war from breaking out in Iraq

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=18782
 A new poll conducted by Opinion Dynamics released by Fox News shows 67
percent of those polled believed the United States will be unable to stop a
civil war from breaking out in Iraq. Three percent of those polled believe
the situation in Iraq has already become a civil war

"Mark"  wrote in message
news:44ed0c00{at}w3.nls.net...
> Look Rich, I realize you think all is lost. It's not really a profitable
> use of time to discuss it, you will always believe that. Many years from
> now after a new Sheraton opens in Babylon, if a hot water heater
> (manufactured by a Shia) explodes and kills a Sunni janitor, you'll be
> claiming that it's evidence that all is still lost in a civil war.
>
> The simple fact is, when the Dems (many if not most of them) blather away
> daily about it being "the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong
> place" and "bring our boys home and do it now" that is
not supporting our
> efforts; it is undermining them.
>
> That's a fact, that in my eyes, is indisputable -- so don't bother trying.
>
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:44ed0688{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Talk about parroting distortions - the ultimate distortion is that a
>> person using free speech on our airwaves criticizing the bungling of this
>> administration is causing the Iraqis to not support their government. How
>> about a more realistic view of the Iraqi government or rather the
>> non-existance of one?
>>
>>
>> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH24Ak03.html
>>
>> 1: The Iraqi government - a group of 'talking heads'
>> A minimally viable central government is built on at least three
>> foundations: the coercive capacity to maintain order, an administrative
>> apparatus that can deliver government services and directives to society,
>> and the resources to manage these functions.
>>
>> The Iraqi government has none of these attributes - and no prospect of
>> developing them. It has no coercive capacity. The national army we hear
>> so much about is actually trained and commanded by the Americans, while
>> the police forces are largely controlled by local governments and have
>> few, if any, viable links to the central government in Baghdad.
>>
>> Only the Special Forces, whose death-squad activities in the capital have
>> lately been in the news, have any formal relationship with the elected
>> government; and they have more enduring ties to the US military that
>> created them and the Shi'ite militias who staffed them.
>>
>> Administratively, the Iraqi government has no existence outside Baghdad's
>> heavily fortified Green Zone - and little presence within it. Whatever
>> local apparatus exists elsewhere in the country is run by local leaders,
>> usually with little or no loyalty to the central government and not
>> dependent on it for resources it doesn't, in any case, possess.
>>
>> In Baghdad itself, this is clearly illustrated in the vast Shi'ite slum
>> of Sadr City, controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army and his
>> elaborate network of political clerics. (Even US occupation forces enter
>> that enormous swath of the capital only in large brigades, braced for
>> significant firefights.)
>>
>> In the major city of the Shi'ite south, Basra, local clerics lead a
>> government that alternately ignores and defies the central government on
>> all policy issues from oil to women's rights; in Sunni cities such as Tal
>> Afar and Ramadi, where major battles with the Americans alternate with
>> insurgent control, the government simply has no presence whatsoever. In
>> Kurdistan in the north, the Kurdish leadership maintains full control of
>> all local governments.
>>
>> As for resources, with 85% of the country's revenues deriving from oil,
>> all you really need to know is that oil-rich Iraq is also suffering from
>> an "acute fuel shortage" (including soaring prices,
all-night lines at
>> fueling stations, and a deal to get help from neighboring Syria, which
>> itself has minimal refining capacity). The almost helpless Iraqi
>> government has had little choice but to accept the dictates of American
>> advisers and of the International Monetary Fund about exactly how and
>> what energy resources will be used. Paying off Saddam Hussein-era debt,
>> reparations to Kuwait from the Gulf War of 1990, and the needs of the
>> US-controlled national army have had first claim.
>>
>> With what remains, so meager that it cannot sustain a viable
>> administrative apparatus in Baghdad, let alone the rest of the country,
>> there is barely enough to spare for the government leadership to line
>> their own pockets.
>>
>>
>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>> news:44ed00ce$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>>> news:44ecfa70{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> I'm not the only one calling it a civil war.  Nor do I pine for the
>>>> incompetence of the Bush Administration whose actions were
instrumental
>>>> in creating the conditions for those deaths
>>>
>>> Not you, but the Dems in office that continually carp and whine and
>>> intimate that they'll cut and run at the earliest opportunity (hell,
>>> it's not intimation, it's fact) are the ones causing greater death for
>>> our troops, for Iraqi citizens, and greater sectarian violence in
>>> general, because the average Iraqi watches their BS on TV at night and
>>> wonders if he should stand up for his new government, if the US is going
>>> to cut and run if the Dems take majorities. I can't say as I blame them.
>>> Let us pray the Dems don't get control, cause that's gonna cause one
>>> hell of a sea of glass in the middle-east. Bush has been trying to avoid
>>> that, the Dems are trying to ensure it.
>>>
>>>> http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/20/hagel-iraq-civil-war/
>>>> Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said
that Iraq is in
>>>> a "very defined civil war" and that the Middle
East is "the most
>>>> unstable we've seen since 1948."
>>>
>>> Exactly. The status-quo was BS, instability was the goal.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It appears that commanders need permission from the White
House to even
>>>> use the term 'civil war'. If one is not going on why would
the term be
>>>> banned?
>>>
>>> If you'd followed the link I provided to the interview with the top Brit
>>> in Iraq in the previous message, you'd have read this:
>>>
>>> "I think it's very important that we talk -- we don't
talk about civil
>>> war, because of itself it is -- it's inflammatory language. It is
>>> implying that the situation is worse than it is. It therefore
>>> encourages, amongst other things, adventurous media reporting. It could
>>> encourage a certain degree of despondency in the political
>>> constituencies of both of our countries.
>>>
>>> But above all, I simply don't think it is an accurate statement of the
>>> situation that we're currently involved in. And I'm sorry to sound as
>>> though I'm being sort of rather didactic in a military way, but I think
>>> it's important that we use the proper language to define the situations
>>> that we find ourselves in."
>>>
>>>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR20060821
00798.html
>>>> Former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, Ned Walker, said if
>>>> military commanders were talking about civil war they must have been
>>>> given permission from the White House to do so and Bush was testing
>>>> public opinion by uttering the phrase.
>>>
>>> He wasn't testing "public opinion," is that all this
is to you guys
>>> 24/7? Bush doesn't give a shit about public opinion, he ain't running
>>> for anything --- Damn why is that so hard to swallow? He was allowing
>>> them to breach the subject because so many dimbulbs have been uttering
>>> it non-stop for so long.
>>>
>>>> Of course now the term 'miniature civil war' has now been offered
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Aug22/0,4670,IraqBritishCommander,00.html
>>>> WASHINGTON - The British deputy to the top U.S. commander
in Iraq said
>>>> Tuesday the country's sectarian conflict is not a
full-blown civil war
>>>> but could be described as a"civil war in miniature."
>>>
>>> Again, *if* you'd read my previous link maybe you'd see some frigging
>>> context to that point; not just parrot some more distortions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5