So let me ask this. What side are the thousands of B'athists on that got thier authority and party taken away from them but retained thier weapons? And, what numb-nuts allowed that to happen? Many of our problems lie in those answers guys.

We are waiting MidEaster

Cat, I have to agree with you on that one. That is like allowing the SS to keep their weapons after the end of WW2.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Fear leads to Anger...Anger leads to Hate...Hate leads to Suffering.

So the gang violence in every major city in amrica especially in the early 90's would of been consdidered a civil war?..................


not only that but the libbs have been using the argument that the arabs have been fighting themselves for thousands of years and considered that one of the many things bush failed to rationalize before going to iraq. So can we say that the violence we are seing now is a continuation of this 1,000 year civil war?

Gang violence in major cities really is closer to a civil war than many people realize.

Edit: and they don't have a 'Geneva convention'

If this one thing would have been handled right then we could have turned this mess around from the start; we can't go back now an that trust was totally lost. Rumsfeld was for the stupid 'de-B'athifaction' plan and Powell was against it; Powell lost and the administration let Rummy and his boys do whatever the hell they wanted to and numerous mistakes like this one were made. The facts are that the administration did not at all think through the 'de-B'athifaction' plan and went in there willy-nilly after the take over and really pissed of the Iraqis who were B'athists (a big majority of the public). No B'athists (the main institutional memory) were allowed to have jobs or be part of any social/civic/political structure and were not re-trained as to what a democracy is. We re-trained in Berlin and we also re-trained in Tokyo with great success...there was ZERO follow up plan to do this in Baghdad...you are right about the SS analogy...we allowed the Iraqi Republican Guard to keep their weapons without having a paycheck for them. A fine mess, great move RUMMY!!! Those are a number of the pissed off people on the other side of the barrel when an American soldier goes down.

Joke (not really though):

SO WHAT DO YOU CALL AN UNEMPLOYED B'ATHIST WITH A WEAPON?

A TERRORIST INSURGENT!

Well, I am willing to say the idea of not completely disarming all Iraqis was a mistake but to extend that to the claims that you making regarding the aministration that they just jumped into the war without any forethought at all is really pushing it. To me that smacks of just "We hate Bush" than rational debate.

I'd like to get into this conversation!

__________________
Happiness is being Italian bitch!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Coolest Jew ever

"Silly Zionist, dicks are for chicks!"

I don't want to butt in, but yea, they are pretty much united hand in hand. When was the last time a Kurd was involved in the fights? Other than the sect violence that any country will get (Bloods vs. Crips, to name one), there isn't much violence really between the Sunnis and the Shiites. I've read Smitty's and Mideaster's posts, and I kind of see it their view, if they were both actually there. I think, like they said, outside of Baghdad, there isn't any real riots anywhere else. Here's what I think the insurgents are trying to do:

Kill a bunch of Sunnis, blame it on the Shiites... Then kill a bunch of Shiites, blame it on the Sunnis. And pretty much leave the Kurds alone

__________________
Happiness is being Italian bitch!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Coolest Jew ever

"Silly Zionist, dicks are for chicks!"