From: "Mark" 

Exactly right Rich. But they're being very selective in their definition of
"civil war" by defining it as within "a country."

The actual civil war is between us and those that want a caliphate -- you
"progressive" guys want to bury your heads in the rich loam of
the United States of America and make a wish upon a star that those that
have sworn to bring famine upon your ideals with swords and demands of
appeasement will be happy to agree to negotiations...

They will not, and I'm not wont to let you find out the hard way at the
expense of my head, and that of my family. If it were possible to allow you
to sacrifice yours without endangering mine, I'd almost be tempted to allow
you to do so, but even then I'd feel impelled to stop you/protecting you
from giving in without a fight for your life.

That's why the USA is exceptional, and I pray that those ideals are not
undermined from within, within my, or my son's lifetime, nor ever -- but I
worry for our future, just the same, and I hate how accurate H.G. Well's
"Eloi" depiction seems to be panning out the century after he
wrote it -- perhaps he consulted with the Islamo-Fascists of his day on
writing it?



"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in
message news:463ff757{at}w3.nls.net...
> there is no graceful exit from a civil war
>
> http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civi
l-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.
>
> ....
>
> A civil war is a violent conflict within a country fought by organized
> groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change
> government policies. Everyday usage of the term "civil war" does not
> entail a clear threshold for how much violence is necessary to qualify a
> conflict as a civil war, as opposed to terrorism or low-level political
> strife. Political scientists sometimes use a threshold of at least 1,000
> killed over the course of a conflict. Based on this arguably rather low
> figure, there have been around 125 civil wars since the end of World War
> II, and there are roughly 20 ongoing today. If that threshold is increased
> to an average of 1,000 people killed per year, there have still been over
> 90 civil wars since 1945. (It is often assumed that the prevalence of
> civil wars is a post-Cold War phenomenon, but in fact the number of
> ongoing civil wars increased steadily from 1945 to the early 1990s, before
> receding somewhat to late-1970s levels.) The rate of killing in Iraq --
> easily more than 60,000 in the last three years -- puts the conflict in
> the company of many recent ones that are routinely described as civil wars
> (for example, those in Algeria, Colombia, Guatemala, Peru, and Sri Lanka).
> Indeed, even the conservative estimate of 60,000 deaths would make Iraq
> the ninth-deadliest civil war since 1945 in terms of annual casualties.
>
> A major reason for the prevalence of civil wars is that they have been
> hard to end. Their average duration since 1945 has been about ten years,
> with half lasting more than seven years. Their long duration seems to
> result from the way in which most of these conflicts have been fought:
> namely, by rebel groups using guerrilla tactics, usually operating in
> rural regions of postcolonial countries with weak administrative, police,
> and military capabilities. Civil wars like that of the United States,
> featuring conventional armies facing off along well-defined fronts, have
> been highly unusual. Far more typical have been conflicts such as those in
> Algeria, Colombia, Sri Lanka, and southern and western Sudan. As these
> cases illustrate, rural guerrilla warfare can be an extremely robust
> tactic, allowing relatively small numbers of rebels to gain partial
> control of large amounts of territory for years despite expensive and
> brutal military campaigns against them.
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:463ff3cd{at}w3.nls.net...
>>I don't know Rich, it seems pretty obvious to me that abandoning them in
>>view of: "And now our coalition is engaged in securing and
reconstructing
>>that country.," is a pretty wimpish surrender monkey move, but what the
>>hell do I know? I'm just not very "progressive" I guess.
>>
>> I've only read about the "Werewolves," I never actually
engaged them in
>> the *years* after we *won* WWII and had *signed* surrender papers from an
>> *identifiable* nation-state enemy, nor had yet invoked the *Marshall
>> Plan*; but yea, I guess since there is no one in a cleanly pressed
>> uniform to sign a surrender declaration with a Mont Blanc pen, that we
>> should just present our necks (or those of the regular Iraqi people that
>> are having a tough time trusting us in view of the "the war
is lost"
>> statements by the likes of dweebs like Reid and Murtha) to the scumbags
>> and spout blood from our/their vacant shoulders...? Yes?
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote
in message
>> news:463ff020$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> How can there be a surrender after our Commander-in-Chief said?
>>>
>>> "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the
battle of Iraq, the
>>> United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is
>>> engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>> news:463fee2d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> Well, hell Randy, I don't really don't give a shit if a fence won't
>>>> work, the border still has to be secured.
>>>>
>>>> I guess what we need then, is the National Guard on the border with
>>>> lots of rounds of live ammunition until the illegal
trespassers figure
>>>> out that we're serious about stopping them. >>> surrender in Iraq and bring them on home>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Randy"  wrote in message
news:463fec9e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> Mark wrote:
>>>>>> "Randy"  wrote in
message: It gets worse-to restock the
>>>>>> Guard will take 5 years, even if the money is
ready to be spent
>>>>>> yesterday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's probably true. How many years will it take
to stop illegal
>>>>>> aliens from walking/swimming across our border?
How many American
>>>>>> lives? Jobs? Hospital Beds? Children? Will be lost?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess, if only we weren't engaging in the wrong
war, in the wrong
>>>>>> place, at the wrong time, that our National Guard
could actually
>>>>>> protect our borders... >>>>> to "Bush's War" did it?>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Securing the borders has had the wrong emphasis placed
on doing the
>>>>> wrong things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Penn and Teller devastatingly proved the big fence
idea-they hired a
>>>>> bunch of illegals to build the kind of fence they're
trying to build
>>>>> between the US and Mexican Border. It took the crew
about 8 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a test, they got through it in 8 minutes-over the
top, straight
>>>>> through, and under.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

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