Iraq: not looking good

[Argus]

And this is what is called FREEDOM. Yeah sure let them kill each other off. Sure let them go to civil war and look retarded because you wanted to bring them freedom and peace. What did you bring them? Over 10 years of sanctions prior to the swift 'Mission not so Accomplished'. Violence getting worse almost on a daily basis. Can one be proud of that? Bush will play it off as, well DAMN SON, we tried to bring them peace and freedom but they keep choosing to beat each other up. Why get in the middle of this mess. Good time and reason to pull out. But Bush says he is not backing out. So prepare for worse things to come.

Don't you know, GH? The new meme from the right is we tried to give them freedom, but the ignorant wogs didn't want it (which is ironic, considering how many righties would meet questions about the feasability of uilding democracy in Iraq with statements like "What, you think Iraqis don't deserve democracy? Are you some kinda racist?"). No mention is made of how the invasion and occupation contributed to the civil war, no siree.

Civil war was almost inevitable upon Hussein's loss of power. And while he was in power, Iraq was a cruel and evil place. So you have a lose-lose situation there without regard to the West and its actions. As for the occupation contributing to the civil war - no. It was abuse of their fellow citizens which contributed to the civil war. It was Al Quaeda's deliberate efforts at turning the Shiites and Sunnis against one another which contributed to the civil war. It was power hungry, rabble-rousing clerics like Sadr who contributed to the civil war. It was clerics having each other assasinated, and building up private armies which contributed to the civil war.

It was the locals who will be responsible for a likely civil war, not the occupation. Unless, of course, you take the position that the occupation was too meek and gentle with rabble rousers and should have crushed them and their supporters instantly and absolutely. They might bear some guilt there. And perhaps the Americans silly idealism which said that you could go straight into full bore democracy without any cultural history of it. Americans were ready for democracy two hundred years ago. Many Iraqis are still not at that level, still don't understand the need for compromise with and tolerance of opposing beliefs and opinions.

[Argus]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14197242/

Another bad day in Iraq. Certainly looking more like sectarian violence despite what Rice says.

Things like that don't really bother me nearly as much as this

For the second time in a week the British turned over a base to the Iraqi government, and as in the earlier case, Iraqi security proved incapable of preventing the base from being overrun by thousands of looters. Both bases were supposed to be used by the Iraqi government, and now both are essentially destroyed, with everything, including the kitchen sink, torn out and carried off. As the Telegraph states "The capacity of Iraqi security forces to secure the country is the central plank of the British exit strategy. That they seem unable to secure even their own bases does not augur well."

[Rue]

The majority in Iraq are Shiite. The country was artificially sliced out by the British. The British jammed together 3 enclaves, one Kurd, one Sunni and one Shiite, knowing they would be continuously dysfunctional and so Britain could rule by divide and conquer and maintain its cheap access to oil. Now the UK has turned back to Libya for its oil and finds it easier to kiss Ghaddafi's former terrorist and suddenly benevolent ass. I mean just how long ago was it Blair was in Tripoli performing on his knees for his Eminence Mummy Ghaddafi? So sorry I aint suprised for a second the Brits want out and are prematurely handing over power.

The fact is without a psycho dictator ruling Iraq and killing everyone and ruling it like Stalin and keeping people under control by sheer horror and gas war when necessary, of course it was doomed to fall apart.

The Shiite majority want it to be another Shiite Muslim fundamentalist state and you bet so does Iran.

So the question is, if you want to keep Iraq's oil, you pay the price of needing to leave in a permanent military on the ground beause who are we kidding, without the Yanks there, it blows up into one collosal civil war and then the Shiites take over. The Kurds will then break away and Turkey and Iran find themselves united against the Kurds even though right now Turkey detests Iran as much as it does the Kurds.

Iraq was doomed the moment it was left without a leader. That is precisely the problem through-out the Middle East. Countries like Syria and Egypt are run by ruthless dictators and ruthless secret police, precisely because these are the only kinds of governments that can function.

This myth that Israel is the cause for all the Middle East woes is just utter bs. Look around. More Muslims die from each other's hands in secretarian violence then any conflict with Israelis. That is a fact.

But of course in the West we blame everything on Israel and to a lesser extent the US and ignore what is in front of our face, that the Muslim Middle East is a society of violence and tyranny between Muslims and is nothing but violence and coruption as far as the eye sees.

Oh Israel is to blame for it all. Uh huh. Meanwhile when was the last time any of you have read about any Muslim politician criticizing his fellow Muslims for their civil wars and crimes against each other? Oh yah they will point out how evil Israel is but what about their own civil wars? Oh yes its the fault of those colonial sob's. Its their fault. Let's just selectively ignore the thousands of years of inter-Muslim violence and blame it all on the Brits or French or Turks.

Well those 3 didn't help but the cold hard facts are the Middle East was a bloody civil mess long before Israeli Jews were propped up as the scapegoats and distraction for its internal woes.

So you have a choice. If you want to pull the Yanks out, start taking public transportation and riding your bikes or horses cuz you can't have it both ways-you can't keep driving those SUV's without paying the price and that price right now is Canadian young men in Afghanistan and thousands of Yanks and Brit soldiers, etc. in Iraq.

[jdobbin]

So you have a choice. If you want to pull the Yanks out, start taking public transportation and riding your bikes or horses cuz you can't have it both ways-you can't keep driving those SUV's without paying the price and that price right now is Canadian young men in Afghanistan and thousands of Yanks and Brit soldiers, etc. in Iraq.

So this is all about oil now?

There is a the beginnings of a civil war in Iraq now and no amount of U.S. troops are going to stop it. It will take Iraqis themselves to stop it.

And even in areas that are called secure and troops withdraw, this happens:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08...main/index.html

So the best advice is stay the course? For five years, ten years, twenty years?

[jdobbin]

Transcript of interview with Washington Post writer Thomas Ricks, author of 'Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq'.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1723569.htm

[jdobbin]

Another day of violence in Iraq. Two U.S. soldiers killed. And the Iraqi leader says it is not civil war.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14537878/

[KrustyKidd]

Another day of violence in Iraq. Two U.S. soldiers killed. And the Iraqi leader says it is not civil war.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14537878/

Unless you can show us all that there is a unified front against the government or even leaders of national factions I would have to agree with him. Morons have been calling it a civil war for over a year without there actually being one. Glad to see you are not one of them as you only describe terrorist actions rather than organized battles.

[Black Dog]

Unless you can show us all that there is a unified front against the government or even leaders of national factions I would have to agree with him. Morons have been calling it a civil war for over a year without there actually being one. Glad to see you are not one of them as you only describe terrorist actions rather than organized battles.

Translation: "This is not a civil war by my definition of what a civil war is."

Civil war was almost inevitable upon Hussein's loss of power. And while he was in power, Iraq was a cruel and evil place. So you have a lose-lose situation there without regard to the West and its actions. As for the occupation contributing to the civil war - no. It was abuse of their fellow citizens which contributed to the civil war. It was Al Quaeda's deliberate efforts at turning the Shiites and Sunnis against one another which contributed to the civil war. It was power hungry, rabble-rousing clerics like Sadr who contributed to the civil war. It was clerics having each other assasinated, and building up private armies which contributed to the civil war.

No. It was the dismantling of the shell of Iraqi society by the invaders that led to this. It was disbanding the army, banning political parties, the massive layoffs, the complete lack of post-war planning that were the first dominoes to fall.

Here's a question: if civil war was inevitable, why weren't steps taken to prepare for it?

It was the locals who will be responsible for a likely civil war, not the occupation. Unless, of course, you take the position that the occupation was too meek and gentle with rabble rousers and should have crushed them and their supporters instantly and absolutely. They might bear some guilt there. And perhaps the Americans silly idealism which said that you could go straight into full bore democracy without any cultural history of it. Americans were ready for democracy two hundred years ago. Many Iraqis are still not at that level, still don't understand the need for compromise with and tolerance of opposing beliefs and opinions.

In other words: "we tried to give them freedom, but the ignorant wogs didn't want it." So tell me: do you think Iraqis are too ignorant to have democratic institutions? Are you saying that Iraqis are doomed to live under nothing but brutal dictatorship forever? And both we and they should be happy with that?

[KrustyKidd]

ranslation: "This is not a civil war by my definition of what a civil war is."

No, the translation is there is not a civil war. Unless of course you call a faction commiting terroist attacks on another faction here and there without political enforcement a civil war. Kurds are ok, as are more than 90% of the population so call it what you will but there is no civil war. When Jihadists and former regime members are discounted there isn't much left.

Here's a question: if civil war was inevitable, why weren't steps taken to prepare for it?

You mean when there was the inevitable insurgency by Jihadists and former regime members. OOOOO much better to make them part of government to do it legaly right? What are the movements both politically and on the ground? Who is who, who are the leaders and what are they calling for that make them a viable political force in the country?

Basiclly Black Dog, call it a civil war? Who are they and what are their aims and attactions for political mass of the population and, what exactly are their agendas? On what side are the population? How do we contact these people so they can be negotiated with?

Some civil war. No factions, just guys with guns killing whomever and whenever for whatever. Let's see, Russian Revolution with five hundred guys in masks. Forget the Whites, Bolsheveks or whomever, just a bunch of guys throwing bombs into markets. The Tszar would still be in charge (or living in his left wing fantsay world) if he ruled Iraq with a civil war like this on the go.

[Black Dog]

No, the translation is there is not a civil war. Unless of course you call a faction commiting terroist attacks on another faction here and there without political enforcement a civil war. Kurds are ok, as are more than 90% of the population so call it what you will but there is no civil war. When Jihadists and former regime members are discounted there isn't much left.

And I'm sure it's in its last throes as well....

There are six criteria for considering a conflict a civil war.

Q. Is the focus of the war control over which group governs the political unit?

Q. Are there at least two groups of organized combatants?

Q. Is the state one of the combatants?

Q. Are there at least 1,000 battle deaths per year on average?

Q. Is the ratio of total deaths at least 95 percent to 5 percent? In other words, has the stronger side suffered at least 5 percent of the casualties?

Q. Is the war occurring within the boundaries of an internationally recognized state or entity?

The first criterion centers on the notion of sovereignty and governance. In a civil war, the main struggle is over who will govern, with each side rejecting the legitimacy of the other to take control of the government.

The second indicates that each side has to be organized and armed for the war. This criterion therefore excludes spontaneous mob actions or riots, as, for example, in the Albanian pyramid scheme crisis in 1997.

The third criterion holds that the state must be formally involved in the war, which allows for the exclusion of communal conflicts where there are two warring identity groups.

The fourth tries to capture the intensity of civil war as opposed to other types of violence such as crime, riots, and smaller-scale insurgencies. This excludes such cases as the fight for Northern Ireland (although the costs of that long conflict have been tragic).

The fifth captures the idea of a minimal capability of each side to conduct its military operations by inflicting casualties on the other side. This ratio criterion excludes massacres and genocides.

The sixth excludes wars between two sovereign states.

Iraq has met all of the criteria. The main one that has been contested is "the state is one of the combatants." Until recently, the argument put forward was that most of the violence was fomented by foreign insurgents. Although there is no denying that the foreign insurgents were involved in quite a bit of the violence, they were and are not alone. Organized groups of Sunnis (former Baathists in particular) have been waging violence as have Shiites (e.g., the Badr brigade/Mahdi Army) since at least Spring 2004.

The conflict in Iraq formally became a “civil war” once a sovereign Iraq government took control in June 2004. Although precise figures are hard to come by, I don’t think anyone would doubt that the death count has exceeded 1,000 per year on average since. Furthermore, since the spring of 2006 at least, the number of deaths by sectarian groups (commonly referred to as death squads) has far outpaced that of suicide bombers (presumed to be foreign insurgents).

Link

Also:

"Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain." -(Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer, "Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, May 2000.)

Some civil war. No factions, just guys with guns killing whomever and whenever for whatever.

Of course there are factions. The main one, of course, being the nominal government of Iraq. And there's no requirement that any of them have a particular poliical agenda. Most civil wars are just what you describe: guys with guns killing whomever and whenever for whatever. You are stretching the definition to mean what you want it to mean, perhaps out of some quaint association with the U.S. civil war.

[KrustyKidd]

And I'm sure it's in its last throes as well....

What is? Jihadists and former regime members? Or, People retalitating for percieved attacks? This can go on for a long time as you must know as the War on Terror will last decades but is hardly a civil war.

Q. Are there at least 1,000 battle deaths per year on average?

So, WWII was a civil war? IOWs the US is in a civil war as per homicide rates. What rubish.

Q. Is the ratio of total deaths at least 95 percent to 5 percent? In other words, has the stronger side suffered at least 5 percent of the casualties?

Huh? Do the math here please. Iraq has over twenty eight million people.

The second indicates that each side has to be organized and armed for the war. This criterion therefore excludes spontaneous mob actions or riots, as, for example, in the Albanian pyramid scheme crisis in 1997.

Holy shit, can't beleive I waste time responding to this crap.

Most civil wars are just what you describe: guys with guns killing whomever and whenever for whatever. You are stretching the definition to mean what you want it to mean, perhaps out of some quaint association with the U.S. civil war.

Oh really? Name a group in Iraq that is doing what it does. At best, you might call it anarchy but there is control otherwise, there would be escalation to complete anarcy. However, just try to give us a play by play on the groups, comanders, agenda and so on. You have no fricking shmich do you? Just know that there is violence and that means civil war. Ok, then in that case, every city has civil war.

[Black Dog]

What is? Jihadists and former regime members? Or, People retalitating for percieved attacks? This can go on for a long time as you must know as the War on Terror will last decades but is hardly a civil war.

You're perating on one criteria for civil war. Fine, stick with that if it keeps you warm at night.

So, WWII was a civil war? IOWs the US is in a civil war as per homicide rates. What rubish.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is it genuine? You can't seperate one of the six criteria from the others in order to attack the whole set.

Huh? Do the math here please. Iraq has over twenty eight million people.

And your point? How many casualties has the Iraqi govenmnent taken?

Holy shit, can't beleive I waste time responding to this crap.

Then don't. Go play X-Box or something more in line with your analytical abilities since you've clearly no leg to stand on here. Otherwise, what exactly is the problem wih the criteron? Or is it you have never heard of the 1997 Albanian financial crisis?

Oh really? Name a group in Iraq that is doing what it does.

Doing what it does? Is that a Zen koan or something?

At best, you might call it anarchy but there is control otherwise, there would be escalation to complete anarcy.

So there is anarchy, but its controlled and not complete anarchy? What are you on about, man?

However, just try to give us a play by play on the groups, comanders, agenda and so on.

Active Religious Seminary

Al-Faruq Brigades

Al-Mahdi Army

Al-Sadr's Group

Ansar al-Islam

Armed Vanguards of Mohammad's Second Army

Black Banner Organization

Hasad al-Muqawamah al-'Iraqiyah

[Harvest of the Iraqi Resistance]

Iraqi National Islamic Resistance

Iraqi Resistance Brigades

Iraqi Resistance Islamic Front (JAMI)

Iraq's Revolutionaries

Islamic Armed Group of al-Qaida, Fallujah branch

Jamaat al-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad

Jaysh Muhammad

Jihad Cells

Liberating Iraq's Army

Mujahideen Battalions of the Salafi Group of Iraq

Muslim Fighters of the Victorious Sect (aka, Mujaheddin of the Victorious Sect)

Muslim Youth

Nasserites

National Iraqi Commandos Front

Salafist Jihad Group

Snake Party

Sons of Islam

Unity and Jihad Group

Wakefulness and Holy War

White Flags

General Command of the Armed Forces, Resistance and Liberation in Iraq

New Return

Patriotic Front

Political Media Organ of the Ba‘ath Party (Jihaz al-Iilam al-Siasi lil hizb al-Baath)

Popular Resistance for the Liberation of Iraq

Return

Saddam's Fedayeen

Here's a primer for you.

You have no fricking shmich do you? Just know that there is violence and that means civil war. Ok, then in that case, every city has civil war

Uh...no. Again:

"Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain."

[Shady]

Another day of violence in Iraq.

At least 47 dead, 100 injured in Iraqi bombings

[jdobbin]

Unless you can show us all that there is a unified front against the government or even leaders of national factions I would have to agree with him. Morons have been calling it a civil war for over a year without there actually being one. Glad to see you are not one of them as you only describe terrorist actions rather than organized battles.

I have no evidence of it being an organized civil war but it is sectarian violence. And casualties have been going up rather than down. On Sunday alone, 11 U.S. soldiers were killed. Iraqi citizens killed are generally over 50 a day and often near 100. 23 Iraqi soldiers have been killed and 38 police.

I certainly don't think the Americans or Iraqis expected things to continue unabated like this.

Not all of the fighting in strictly insurgency. Some of it is soley directed as religious violence.

[KrustyKidd]

You're perating on one criteria for civil war. Fine, stick with that if it keeps you warm at night.

Sorry, long day yesterday. I should have blown all of them out of the water rather than concentrate on a couple. Here, I will fix that problem.

There are six criteria for considering a conflict a civil war.

Q. Is the focus of the war control over which group governs the political unit?

First, there is no war. It is an insurgency at best. Terrorism to be sure. Second, from your list you supplied, which of them are involved politically? Answer, none of them have any aspiration of running a country.

Q. Are there at least two groups of organized combatants?

Holy smokes, you have the entire population of Iraq listed there. Picture them as organized gangs fighting for their turf. Crypts, Bloods, Michigan Militia, Waco Davidians etc. Doesn't wash.

Q. Is the state one of the combatants?

No. The state is conductiong police action against these gangs.

Q. Are there at least 1,000 battle deaths per year on average?

No. There are deaths from terrorism, police action and resictance against that police action.

Q. Is the ratio of total deaths at least 95 percent to 5 percent? In other words, has the stronger side suffered at least 5 percent of the casualties?

When they actually go to arrest or take out terrorists and such, any casualties are from a police action rther than a battle.

Q. Is the war occurring within the boundaries of an internationally recognized state or entity?

What war? Oh, you mean the insurgency, terrorist acts and police action by the US and the Iraqi government. Got it. There's your problem.

Then don't. Go play X-Box or something more in line with your analytical abilities since you've clearly no leg to stand on here. Otherwise, what exactly is the problem wih the criteron?

Cute.

Black Dog

"Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain."

Here. I'll make it easy for you. None of the groups you listed are vying for nationnal control to my knowledge. Second, none of them pose a threat to the government and actually engage the government in battle. Terrorism here and there for sure, no battles though as the government if they engage them, win. Hence, the actions by these groups are terrorism or turf control rather than an attack on the forces of the government inorder to win ground, control or political points. In short, no war, much less a civil one.

Back to my X box......

[Black Dog]

First, there is no war. It is an insurgency at best. Terrorism to be sure. Second, from your list you supplied, which of them are involved politically? Answer, none of them have any aspiration of running a country.

Now you're quibbling over the definiton of war? Look: just because there aren't two groups in uniforms squaring off across a field, flags a-fluttering, does not mean its not a war. As for politics, the Mehdi Army and the Badr Brigade are two groups that come to mind. boh are tied with the political party SCIRI. There are others. Anyway, no group needs to aspire to run the country for it to be a civil war. That's another part of the definition of civil war you invented.

Holy smokes, you have the entire population of Iraq listed there. Picture them as organized gangs fighting for their turf. Crypts, Bloods, Michigan Militia, Waco Davidians etc. Doesn't wash.

Why not? In any case, you're assuming civil wars are conducted soley for the purpose of usurping the government. That's not the case.

No. The state is conductiong police action against these gangs.

Bwah ha ha!!!

No. There are deaths from terrorism, police action and resictance against that police action.

OMG LOL.

When they actually go to arrest or take out terrorists and such, any casualties are from a police action rther than a battle.

Ah, so armed clashes between state military forces and insurgent groups with all the bells and whistles (tanks, RPGS, heavy machine guns) utilizing small-unit tactics isn't a "battle". What, pray tell, is your definition of a battle?

Here. I'll make it easy for you. None of the groups you listed are vying for nationnal control to my knowledge. Second, none of them pose a threat to the government and actually engage the government in battle. Terrorism here and there for sure, no battles though as the government if they engage them, win. Hence, the actions by these groups are terrorism or turf control rather than an attack on the forces of the government inorder to win ground, control or political points. In short, no war, much less a civil one.

Why not just reiterate my original interpretation of your position since its 100 per cent accurate: "This is not a civil war by my definition of what a civil war is." Anyway, I've provided my definition: what's yours?

[jdobbin]

Pentagon says conditions for civil war exist in Iraq.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/01092006/6/n-us...exist-iraq.html

The military is paying a contract of $20 million to monitor media reports on Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14621718/

[jdobbin]

Bush denies Pentagon report that says Iraq is slipping into possible civil war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060902/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

And yet more and more sectarian violence.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14633705/from/RS.1/

10 weeks to the mid-term elections.

[KrustyKidd]

Bwah ha ha!!! (replying to KK "No. The state is conductiong police action against these gangs."

The state could shut anyone of these gangs down at will. Are you telling us that Al Sadr could withstand a direct attack on his neighborhood if the government wished to shut him and his people down? The only reason they don't is that he is a unifying factor and, is able to be negotiated with. If they take him out, then they have to start all over again.

Ah, so armed clashes between state military forces and insurgent groups with all the bells and whistles (tanks, RPGS, heavy machine guns) utilizing small-unit tactics isn't a "battle". What, pray tell, is your definition of a battle?

I'll go with this one

British military historian Sir John Keegan suggested an ideal definition of battle as "something which happens between two armies leading to the moral then physical disintegration of one or the other of them" though the origins and outcomes of battles can rarely be summarised so neatly.

From what I see happening in Iraq, there are no battles although heavy weapo0ns are used. When the Government attacks, it is with overwhelming force on concentrated targets wheras when the Insurgents attack the government, they are concentrating on weak points trying to undermine moral and make a statement of their power rather than conduct an effective crippling blow against the military capability of the government.

Why not just reiterate my original interpretation of your position since its 100 per cent accurate: "This is not a civil war by my definition of what a civil war is." Anyway, I've provided my definition: what's yours?

Because you origional def is tailor made for you point.

Wilkpedia Def of Civil War

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).

Fighting for political power. Societal restructuring. Organised armies fighting conventional battles. Prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country.

By your definition, action with gangs and sects constitutes a civil war as long as the terrorist acts hits the government weak points as well.

Religion is more contentious, there are some civil wars that can be seen as fueled by religion in early years, such as the Jewish Revolts against Rome, but these can also be seen as revolts by a servile people against their oppressors or uprisings by local notables in an attempt to gain independence.

More

One possibility with chronic inter-communal violence is not that it leads to civil war, in which it is possible for one side to defeat the other in battle, but instead to a complete breakdown of social order so that there is no effective government at all.

That would be bordering on anarchy rather than being called a civil war.

This is the sort of scenario that is more likely in Iraq than a classical civil war, because the Shia majority should always be able to crush any opposition forces drawn from the minority Sunnis.

I could be persuaded to call it a resistance Black Dog but, given the diverse groups involved in the violence none of it is broad based and the targets of their terrorism and violence is not directed exclusively at the existing government.

[jdobbin]

I suppose the fight in Afghanistan has to be taken into context. The losses of American and British soldiers in Iraq numbers 10 in the last two days.

http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=9-2006

Last month, it averaged two soldiers killed a day.

[KrustyKidd]

I suppose the fight in Afghanistan has to be taken into context. The losses of American and British soldiers in Iraq numbers 10 in the last two days.

http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=9-2006

Last month, it averaged two soldiers killed a day.

The above is an example of somebody that has no shmick of the stakes involved in the labled 'War on Terror'. Two deaths a day to avert a planetary restructuring is nothing compared to what we had to endure during WWI, II and the cold war as we fought the Axis and later, proxies of the Soviets.

People who have intententions of subverting the world to their rule with others having no say in the matter are to be stopped, not appeased. I have no wish to see North America or Europe become hostage to a military and economic poser run by Conservative Wahabbists thank you.

[jdobbin]

The above is an example of somebody that has no shmick of the stakes involved in the labled 'War on Terror'. Two deaths a day to avert a planetary restructuring is nothing compared to what we had to endure during WWI, II and the cold war as we fought the Axis and later, proxies of the Soviets.

People who have intententions of subverting the world to their rule with others having no say in the matter are to be stopped, not appeased. I have no wish to see North America or Europe become hostage to a military and economic poser run by Conservative Wahabbists thank you.

Hardly anyone believes this is related to the war on terror anymore. In 64 days, elections in the U.S. are likely to show that.

[KrustyKidd]

Hardly anyone believes this is related to the war on terror anymore. In 64 days, elections in the U.S. are likely to show that.

You think that if we all leave Afganistan to the Taliban that it would not be used once again to harbor terrorists?

[jdobbin]

You think that if we all leave Afganistan to the Taliban that it would not be used once again to harbor terrorists?

I've said I don't think the Taliban can be defeated if they can hide in Pakistan. I have also said that I don't think the Afghans can take of themselves if they become a narco state with the Afghan government giving complicit support. One last thing, if sectian violence continues to grow, it will be difficult to offer security for the very people that might re-build Iraq.

In other words, I am saying we can't win the war, whatever war you want to call it, without changes coming from the Afghan people themselves. This fight has been going on for as long as some world wars have gone on and even though it is a low grade conflict, it is a grinding one.

I personally don't think a government in Canada, Liberal, Conservative or NDP, could survive fighting a conflict that people don't think is winnable.

I've said the window to provide some security for Afghanistan keeps growing smaller.

[KrustyKidd]

I've said I don't think the Taliban can be defeated if they can hide in Pakistan.

In other words, I am saying we can't win the war, whatever war you want to call it, without changes coming from the Afghan people themselves.

I personally don't think a government in Canada, Liberal, Conservative or NDP, could survive fighting a conflict that people don't think is winnable.

So, in your opinion then, the conservative Islamist G=Facsist movement should be allowed to topple weak regimes and take control. Then, with a growing movement in a stronger oil rich country such as Saudi Arabia, they should also be permitted carte blanche and trade petro dollars for weapons to take other countries with. Then, when they have recreated the former Caliphate (which stretched from Spain to the Pacific) they should also be allowed to control world markets in trade and energy. While enforcing their rule of law on those they have taken over both militarily, subverted or simply ground into submission economicly.

Yes indeed, nothing worth fighting for. Just our children's and grandchildren's security and way of life. May as well give up and let them have free run.