Start of Civil War? Attacks Across Iraq!

[Uncle Sparky]

"Civil war" is definately the wrong term. Friday prayer services in Baghdad saw Sunnis and Shiites holding joint services, a very rare thing (apparently like a joint Baptist/RC service).

Iraq isn't splitting apart at all; Iraqis are uniting !

Bush wanted a United free Iraq (not the oil or rebuilding contracts) ! Get the coalition of the willing out of Iraq !

Now !

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Oh come on, since destroying the authority in Iraq we have an obligation to stick around until a sufficiently strong new one is in place to take over - otherwise you are leaving a dangerous power vacuum and the ones with the guns will take over... Leaving is not an option!

The Coalition Provisional Authority destroyed the Ba'athist regime and set up a new government of collaborators, many of whom have now fled the country, or are now publicy denouncing the US. The public workers have now all gone on 'strike', and it seems that the Civil Defense forces are on the side of the warriors. That the Republic of Iraq was destroyed, the bureaucracy, the adminstrative routines, the power structure was destroyed is doubtful. The clerics have called for the ousting of the aggressors, and the young men have gone to battle. Pray tell me where the socalled power 'vacuum' is.

The United States of America is at war with the Republic of Iraq for all intents and purposes, and no legalist cover up can hide that basic fact.

A former US four star general has said that the supply for the American forces is in danger of being cut off. Wounded marines have stated that they did not have enough ammunition. For whatever reason on the ground commanders are refusing to give up casualty figures to Pentagon.

This is not about politics. It is about being realistic.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
"Civil war" is definately the wrong term. Friday prayer services in Baghdad saw Sunnis and Shiites holding joint services, a very rare thing (apparently like a joint Baptist/RC service).

Iraq isn't splitting apart at all; Iraqis are uniting !

Actually that is quite a stunning success on Bush's part - pity they happen to be united in their solidarity against the Americans...

[Ted Striker]

You guys, especially MOBIUS and Sparky literally seem to be getting off on this whole thing.

Pathetic.

[joncha]

Why don't we go through the archives and see who was "getting off" on the invasion in the first place?

chicken hawks = pathetic

[Ted Striker]

Go for it Commie.

You won't see me "getting off."

Once the decision is made it's better to support it and get behind it so the job is done right. Second guessing a drastic action in the middle of its execution does more harm than good for everybody involved.

This kind of nonsense isn't contructive and is outright disgusting.

The thing is that it hurts the Iraqis most of all when crap like this goes down but some of you morons think it's cool because someone is going against the USA. That's what it's all about really, "oh look cool guys are defying the USA."

Fine, get off on your sickness all you want, the USA is staying with the Iraqis for as long as it takes until there is stable democracy there, so go ahead and gloat all you want about it right now.

It was only a matter of time before the militia was going to be disarmed and unfortunatley it came down to this but one way or the other it's going to be eliminated.

Maybe you'd prefer to see Saddam still in charge.

[Agathon]

Actually he was doing a better job (Saddam that is).

It's not that simple. If this invasion is a success, then Bush will feel confident enough to start other wars. If this invasion fails or is costly then we won't have to suffer any more of that nonsense.

It's just choosing between the lesser of two evils.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Once the decision is made it's better to support it and get behind it so the job is done right. Second guessing a drastic action in the middle of its execution does more harm than good for everybody involved.

I disagree. Second guessing can in now way affect the resolve of the US in following whatever policy the neo-cons lay out. It can however help in establishing a case against them if it goes wrong, which it has now in oh so many ways, and create the political conditions for a purge - read: election.

The objective military conditions on the ground, will not be affected by "disgruntled" people on the homefront. This is a myth.

[Ted Striker]

Sorry guy but I don't think so

I have alot of friends in the services who have come back from Iraq and say that the support they get from back home made it easier for them to do their jobs

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Actually he was doing a better job (Saddam that is).

Yeah right.

It's not that simple. If this invasion is a success, then Bush will feel confident enough to start other wars. If this invasion fails or is costly then we won't have to suffer any more of that nonsense.

Speculation

Iraq is a special case. Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what when he came into office.

[Frozzy]

The BBC is reporting that at least 42 US army personnel have died in the past week.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Iraq is a special case. Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what when he came into office.

And for that he should be tried as a war criminal.

Anyway, things aren't looking too hot for him. I just saw him take another punch over the declassified PDB. If even a weak consensus arises that he didn't take AQ seriously, he's toast.

[Kuciwalker]

And for that he should be tried as a war criminal.

You are guilty of war crimes for intending to invade a country?



Explain exactly what "laws" he broke...

[Agathon]

Intending and then doing so. Don't play smart with me little boy.

[Tripledoc]

I think one of the charges brought against the defendants of of the Nuremberg trials was 'conspiracy to wage aggresive war.'

Not that I think that Bush will ever face a trial.

THE "NUREMBERG PRINCIPLE"


1. The initiating and waging of aggressive war is a crime.

Aggressive war is illegal.
The political, and military leaders of a government, when they act in a political capacity, who initiate and wage an aggressive war, commit a crime against humanity for which they may be tried by a duly constituted international tribunal.

Those who initiate and wage aggressive war must answer for the killings and devastation resulting therefrom to the extent of their participation in the perpetration and prosecution of the war.

Such leaders may not exculpate themselves by a plea that such killings and devastation are the incidents of war.

Military leaders who participate in political decisions to wage such war forfeit their military immunity.


2. Conspiracy to wage war is a crime.

Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan to commit any act of aggressive war or crime against humanity are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of the plan.
The crime of conspiring to commit aggressive war, to be a separate crime, must be closely related to the actual outbreak of armed conflict.

Source