Joint Chiefs chairman: Iraq civil war not likely (1 Viewer)

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

CAPITOL HILL -- The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs told senators he doesn't expect a civil war in Iraq, but it is a danger.
General Peter Pace said a civil war is not probable. He said
Iraq's Shiite and Sunni leaders must focus on their children's
future rather than religious rivalries.

http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=167852&SecID=2

Later in the hearing Pace told the committee that his comment about the possibility of civil war did not mean he expects one. "Speaking for myself, I do not believe it is probable," he said, because the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military are not breaking apart.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/03/ap/politics/mainD8J954RG2.shtml

God damn facts they're such stubborn things.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

God damn facts they're such stubborn things.

You can have a government in place and still have a Civil War if the government has no real control over areas of the country. The three thousand Iraqis being murdered a month due to sectarian violence is reason enough to refer to the situation in Iraq as a Civil War.

Also, the term "God damn" is rather offensive to most people. I don't understand why the f word is blanked out on here, but that term is not.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You can have a government in place and still have a Civil War if the government has no real control over areas of the country. The three thousand Iraqis being murdered a month due to sectarian violence is reason enough to refer to the situation in Iraq as a Civil War.

Ya I love how every murder in Iraq is now being attributed to sectarian violence I would really love to see those stats and their methodolgy.

Also, the term "God damn" is rather offensive to most people. I don't understand why the f word is blanked out on here, but that term is not.

Ya god damn it what the **** is up with that?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Ya I love how every murder in Iraq is now being attributed to sectarian violence I would really love to see those stats and their methodolgy.





Ya god damn it what the **** is up with that?

Do you ever actually watch news? You know Fox News, CNN, your local affiliates, maybe listen to NPR, or read a newspaper either in print or online? Honestly, how sheltered from current events are you?

Generally, regardless of whether it is Fox News, CNN, NPR or a newspaper, the reports go pretty much as follows:

A Shia death squad posing as Iraqi policemen, raided several Baghdad homes this morning in a Sunni neighborhood, they kidnapped 40 Sunni Men, and 4 hours later, those Sunni men were all found executed.

Or,

A Sunni group set off a car bomb in a predominately Shia area killing approximately 50 Shia civilians this morning.

I suppose in the world of imagination, one could pretend those groups were all Al Qaeda or something. However, the military's own estimates put foreign terrorists as only 5 to 10% of the total insurgency.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

******* is blanked out, but to blank out god damn, we'd have to either blank out the word god, or the word damn. Which of those words would you prefer we blank out? Is damn bad enough of a swear to merit asterisks?

I am just saying that most people would consider that term to be the most offensive term someone could use. I think anyone who has read many of my posts would know that I am about as much as a Civil Libertarian as one can get, but just because some can say something does not mean that its not pretty tacky to say something.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And I'm just stating the realities, to blank out god damn, we'd either have to blank out the word "god", or we'd have to blank out the word "damn".

Actually, you should be able to simply blank out the phrase. However, to be honest with you, I dont think they should blank out anything, but rather people ought to have the tact not to use the most offensive terms anyway.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Do you ever actually watch news? You know Fox News, CNN, your local affiliates, maybe listen to NPR, or read a newspaper either in print or online? Honestly, how sheltered from current events are you?

Generally, regardless of whether it is Fox News, CNN, NPR or a newspaper, the reports go pretty much as follows:

A Shia death squad posing as Iraqi policemen, raided several Baghdad homes this morning in a Sunni neighborhood, they kidnapped 40 Sunni Men, and 4 hours later, those Sunni men were all found executed.

Or,

A Sunni group set off a car bomb in a predominately Shia area killing approximately 50 Shia civilians this morning.

Good for that but what I was asking was to provide a source and methodolgy used in gathering that "3,000 Iraqi's killed in Iraq per month by sectarian violence" statistic that you've been throwing around.

I suppose in the world of imagination, one could pretend those groups were all Al Qaeda or something. However, the military's own estimates put foreign terrorists as only 5 to 10% of the total insurgency.

Ya but they account for the most violent segment of that insurgeny.

 

[Caine]

Ya but they account for the most violent segment of that insurgeny.

Where did you get that bit of info from?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Where did you get that bit of info from?

Only 4 to 10% of Iraq's insurgents are foreign fighters, according to a report from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington released recently. But while they are a minority, says the report, they are a potent segment largely from Algeria and Syria. The report's co-authors Anthony Cordesman, a former director of defence intelligence assessment for the US secretary of defence, and Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi national and security analyst, wrote: "The fact that there are 3,000 foreign fighters in Iraq is cause for alarm, particularly because they play so large a role in the most violent bombings and in the efforts to provoke a major and intense civil war".

http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/550575-1.html

..........................................................

 

[ALiberalModerate]

..........................................................

Your article is a year old. The dynamics of the insurgency and the violence in Iraq have changed over the last year. A year ago, attacks were targeted more at Coaltion Troops. Today, they are between Sunnis and Shia.

As to sources, once again, do you read the news?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003139038_iraq20.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1212767.ece

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0721/p01s04-woiq.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901791.html

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Your article is a year old. The dynamics of the insurgency and the violence in Iraq have changed over the last year. A year ago, attacks were targeted more at Coaltion Troops. Today, they are between Sunnis and Shia.

As to sources, once again, do you read the news?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003139038_iraq20.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1212767.ece

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0721/p01s04-woiq.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901791.html

A) I'm still waiting on the source for your made up statistic or do you not believe in intelectual honesty?

B) It's the foriegn insurgency attacking both the sunni's and the shia in attempts to spark sectarian violence in order to ferment a civil war.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

A) I'm still waiting on the source for your made up statistic or do you not believe in intelectual honesty?

B) It's the foriegn insurgency attacking both the sunni's and the shia in attempts to spark sectarian violence in order to ferment a civil war.

I provided serveral sources, the CS monitor article went into it in great detail. Even our own government does not make the claim you are making. What is your source for it?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I provided serveral sources, the CS monitor article went into it in great detail. Even our own government does not make the claim you are making. What is your source for it?

More than 3,000 Iraqis were killed in June, an escalation of the country's death toll.

Now where does it say that they were all killed by sectarian violence? Because the c.s. story was focused on the kidnapping of olympic officials.

Another official on the committee, who didn't attend the meeting, also says he believes the attack may have been undertaken at the behest of Hajia's rivals. He points out that the hostages released so far have included Shiites, Sunnis and Christians, which implies it wasn't motivated by sectarian hatred.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Lets see:

General John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, said that fighting in Baghdad is at its highest level and threatens to push Iraq into civil war. ``The sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular,'' Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington. ``If not stopped, Iraq could slide into civil war.''

Why would General Abizaid be so worried about sectarian violence if most of the violence was actually being commited by foriegn terrorists?

Up to 80 percent of the attacks in one of Iraq's most troubled provinces are against civilians rather than the U.S. military, a deliberate shift in tactics over the past eight months, a U.S. commander said Friday.


The description of kidnappings, assassinations and other attacks in Diyala province followed testimony Thursday by two U.S. generals to Congress that an upsurge in violence in Iraq could drive the country into civil war.
"Initially we were the target of just about 60 percent of the attacks," Col. Brian Jones, commander of the 4th Infantry Division's 3rd Brigade Combat Team, said Friday.


Now, he said, "we are seeing anywhere from 20 to 25 percent of the attacks, and a majority of the attacks are now amongst the civilian population."
The attacks in Diyala, north of Baghdad, often are assassinations or kidnappings for extortion, Jones told Pentagon reporters in a briefing from Iraq.
The Bush administration and military leaders have been reluctant to characterize the sectarian violence as a civil war.

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=5241214

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Lets see:





Why would General Abizaid be so worried about sectarian violence if most of the violence was actually being commited by foriegn terrorists?


[/color][/size]
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=5241214

Attacks on civilians is not the same thing as sectarian violence.

 

[Deegan]

I think the country could very well spiral in to a civil war, so what?

We had one, 600,000 died, these people are not special, if they can't live together, fight it out, and when the smoke clears, you might just find yourself where we are in a hundred years.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Attacks on civilians is not the same thing as sectarian violence.

Yes, but why would our military describe it as sectarian violence if it were not. If a Shia attacks a Sunni, then that is by definition sectarian violence. if a Sunni attacks a Shia, then that is by definition sectarian violence. I remember way back in 2002 before the war, old line conservatives like Pat Buchanan were saying this is exactly what would happen if we went in and toppled Saddam's regime. They said this is exactly why Reagan and Bush Sr. did not buy into the Neo-Conservative ideology. Personally in terms of foreign policy, I would take guys like Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr, and their pragmatic approach over this bunch any day.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes, but why would our military describe it as sectarian violence if it were not.

I can't speak for them but I'm wondering how one would distinguish a sectarian bomb from an ordinary bomb.

If a Shia attacks a Sunni, then that is by definition sectarian violence. if a Sunni attacks a Shia, then that is by definition sectarian violence.

No it's not unless the shia attacked the sunni because he was a sunni.

 

[Deegan]

Yes, but why would our military describe it as sectarian violence if it were not. If a Shia attacks a Sunni, then that is by definition sectarian violence. if a Sunni attacks a Shia, then that is by definition sectarian violence. I remember way back in 2002 before the war, old line conservatives like Pat Buchanan were saying this is exactly what would happen if we went in and toppled Saddam's regime. They said this is exactly why Reagan and Bush Sr. did not buy into the Neo-Conservative ideology. Personally in terms of foreign policy, I would take guys like Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr, and their pragmatic approach over this bunch any day.

Well, you could side with them, but then again, what did they do to make the M.E a better place? Things seem bad now, but this has been boiling for some time, now they are free to seek the revenge they feel is due, and the other side is fighting to keep it as it was. Who is right, and who is wrong, that is all I am concerned with, not making nice, or putting icing on a steaming pile of s**t, in other words.

I have always said that these clerics need enough rope to hang themselves, they now have it, and I believe they will.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I can't speak for them but I'm wondering how one would distinguish a sectarian bomb from an ordinary bomb.



No it's not unless the shia attacked the sunni because he was a sunni.

This is absurd. You would argue the law of gravity if it fit your worldview. A sectarian bomb is a bomb set off by Sunni militants or shia death squads. Something tells me between our intelligence, and eye witness accounts, we generally know when violence is sectarian in origin or foreign terrorist in origin.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Well, you could side with them, but then again, what did they do to make the M.E a better place? Things seem bad now, but this has been boiling for some time, now they are free to seek the revenge they feel is due, and the other side is fighting to keep it as it was. Who is right, and who is wrong, that is all I am concerned with, not making nice, or putting icing on a steaming pile of s**t, in other words.

I have always said that these clerics need enough rope to hang themselves, they now have it, and I believe they will.

Thats it, we can't make the Middle East a better place. Middle Easterners have to decide for themselves if they want a better life or not. Maybe in 50 years, they will decide to do that.

 

[Deegan]

Thats it, we can't make the Middle East a better place. Middle Easterners have to decide for themselves if they want a better life or not. Maybe in 50 years, they will decide to do that.

Not true, we helped quite a few countries become "better places" I'll list them for you, but I think you already know.

How many American lives could we have saved in our civil war, had we had the help the Iraqi's have now?

I think this is a very good question, and an important one?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Not true, we helped quite a few countries become "better places" I'll list them for you, but I think you already know.

How many American lives could we have saved in our civil war, had we had the help the Iraqi's have now?

I think this is a very good question, and an important one?

In our Civil War, we did not have Ayatollah Lee sending suicide bombers to blow up schools full of children of followers of Mullah Lincoln and if that were the situation back then, a nation would have had to have been out of their mind to get in the middle of it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This is absurd. You would argue the law of gravity if it fit your worldview. A sectarian bomb is a bomb set off by Sunni militants or shia death squads. Something tells me between our intelligence, and eye witness accounts, we generally know when violence is sectarian in origin or foreign terrorist in origin.

No what's absurd is making claims like: "3000 Iraqi's are being killed a month by sectarian violence" and then offering an article that distinctly states that the hostages were not taken as a result of sectarian violence to bolster your assertion.

You have four forces at work (maybe more) you have your day to day criminal killings ie murder, then you have foriegn insurgents which by all accounts are the most violent element within the overall insurgency, you have the baathist army hold outs attempting to regain their power, and then of course you have your sectarian violence.

 

[Deegan]

In our Civil War, we did not have Ayatollah Lee sending suicide bombers to blow up schools full of children of followers of Mullah Lincoln and if that were the situation back then, a nation would have had to have been out of their mind to get in the middle of it.

True, but we had desperate acts of Resistance all the same, just because we wore fancy uniforms, and claimed right was on our side, we still managed to get over 600,000 people killed, did we not?