A Word From Iraq
Ralph Peters, in Iraq, notes that there is no civil war.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:50 AM
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Contact & Other Information
Contributors
Key Links
Previous Posts
- (Yet Another Reason) We Need Vouchers
- (Another Reason) We Need Vouchers
- But Wait!
- Nice Try
- KABC Tonight
- ABC Needs "Shelf Life"
- Watching the MSM
- (Democratic) Culture of Careerism
- Something Special About Hillary Clinton?
- How Well Do You Know Your Spouse?
9 Comments:
Nope, no civil war here. Nosiree bob.
Dead people? What dead people?
Oh... Those 1400 dead civilians. Must have been something they ate--maybe a bad flan or something.
Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.
Mr. Twister,
This may be an all time low for even you. Do you hate the current administration so much that you would actively cheer on a Civil War in Iraq?
My God, man! Where is your heart? Where is your soul?
Greg, I am sorry that you are so blinded by partisan cheerleading that you have lost the ability to comprehend simple written English.
Over 1400 people have been killed in sectarian violence in Iraq in the past week. My acknowledgement of the truth on the ground is not equivalent to cheering on the incipient Civil War.
Carol chooses to link to a person who is attempting to whitewash these deaths for partisan reasons. You choose to enable her dysfunctional approach to the issue. Explain to me why anyone should condone ignoring the blood of those 1400 people.
Good God, man, where is your humanity? Have you no soul?
Mr. Twister,
There's a huge difference between a violent provocation followed by a violent reaction and outright Civil War. Your "acknowledgement" of the truth on the ground failed to recognize the immediate reaction of all leaders for all affected parties who unanimously condemned the provocation and called for peace.
Yes, a violent and deadly reaction did occur in response to a violent provocation. This situation seems to be easing as we speak - exactly the opposite of what would be occurring if Civil War was actually under way.
The tone in your posts, both in this thread and others, makes it abundantly clear that you are actually rooting for death and destruction in Iraq in desperate belief that the hoped-for carnage will harm the reputaion of the President of the United States.
That's more than sad, Mr. Twister, it's pathetic.
You are on the wrong side of history. Humanity longs for and fights for freedom. How many times must the left ignore that and embarass themselves before they finally see?
Freedom cannot be stopped, it can only be interrupted. It must be uncomfortable to be rooting for the continued interruption of freedom to millions of humans.
My humanity hopes for freedom, Mr. Twister, with all my soul. My humanity stands with the Iraqi people. My humanity supports the defeat of fascists.
What about yours?
What a ridiculous response. Your moral relativism does not serve you well, here. (Where does it ever serve you well?)
War has been openly declared against the United States. Sadly, we didn't take those declarations seriously until 3,000 innocent civilians were murdered by those repeatedly declaring war on us.
Our belated response was to openly engage in the war.
The recent events in Iraq are the opposite. Rather than openly declare Civil War in Iraq, the terrorists committed a vile and desperate act of violence hoping to provoke the various political and religious factions in Iraq to break out in open Civil War.
That. Did. Not. Happen.
Yes, violence occurred in reaction to the provocation. But the leaders of the various interests immediately, openly, and repeatedly spoke out against Civil War.
They are prevailing. The violence is subsiding. These leaders have brought their country back from the brink of Civil War. The desperate provocation has failed in its primary objective.
There is no Civil War in Iraq.
That's not to say there won't be. But the current crisis has been handled admirably by the various factions in Iraq. Their efforts should be honored and lauded.
Instead, the looney left finds themselves actually cheering for increased carnage in a country whose people are fighting valiantly for freedom after decades of brutal fascist dominance.
The message from the left is that they'd rather see people brutally oppressed or visiously murdered than to have the United States of America given an ounce of credit for helping liberate them.
This is the common theme from the left. It is the main reason the left is losing influence in American politics. Americans like to like America. They're growing tired of the left telling all of us how bad America is. They're tired of the left always siding with America's sworn enemies.
I think the Wikipedia definition supports my point.
Those wishing to use violence in Iraq to gain national control are either foreign terrorists, foreign agitators (Iran), or deposed Baathists.
While the Baathists may be natives, they are continuing the struggle with a foreign invader, the U.S., that deposed them from power more than with fellow Iraqis.
The violence surrounding the bombing of the mosque certainly does not qualify as prolonged, does it? Also, that violence seems to have been more along the lines of retribution than of struggling for national control.
And, as I said earlier, all the leaders of all the affected factions have struggled valiantly - and apparently succeeded - to keep actual Civil War from breaking out.
Greg the right-wing f*cktard writes, "The tone in your posts, both in this thread and others, makes it abundantly clear that you are actually rooting for death and destruction in Iraq..."
Translation into English "Mr. Twister didn't say the despicable things I accused him of, but rather than admit I was a jerk I'll make up even more crap that Mr. Twister never said nor implied because I am a despicable piece of sh*t."
Mr. Twister,
Ouch.
Rzafft,
You make a good point about the militias. I'm concerned about those myself. Not so much that they are currently involved in a civil war.
I'm much more concerned about the affect they will have after the war is over and Iraq is trying to move on. I fear they may be either already influenced by the likes of Iran or will be easy targets for such influence in the future.
That's not good.
By the way, Mr. Twister, I never accused you of saying anything. I accused you of having a certain despicable motive.
If you were half the advocate you think you are, you would have exploited the weakness in that argument right away instead of resorting to foul-mouthed name calling.
Rzafft,
I must apologize to you. In the heat of my emotions, I called one of your responses "ridiculous".
Having read all of your responses in this thread, I take that back. Your points are not ridiculous at all. They seem to represent a point of view different than mine. But they are not ridiculous. They are reasoned and well said.
Forgive me.
Post a Comment
<< Home