Top military comander in Iraq, contradicts Dixie!

[Jarod]

The top U.S. military commander in the Middle East told Congress on Thursday that "Iraq could move toward civil war" if the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad is not stopped.

"I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it," Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said the top priority in the Iraq war is to secure the capital, where factional violence has surged in recent weeks despite efforts by the new Iraqi government to stop the fighting.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/03/D8J90H7O0.html


Stark contrast to the insurgency being in its "last throws"!

Gusee Abizaid is on the side of the terrorists.. I wish he would stop "cheer-leading" the insurgents!

 

[Damocles]

Sectarian violence is not the same as the insurgency. They are two separate issues. Sectarian violence is something that Saddam dealt with by simply killing whole villages...

 

[Jarod]

Sectarian violence is not the same as the insurgency. They are two separate issues. Sectarian violence is something that Saddam dealt with by simply killing whole villages...

Please explain the difference...

 

[Jarod]

Is the general on the side of the insurgents? Is he Cheerleading the terrorists? Is he providing aid and comfort to the enemy?

 

[Damocles]

Please explain the difference...

The difference is Iraqis attacking Iraqis over Sectarian differences rather than Iraqis attacking US forces because of occupation...

One is a regular occurence there and will be as long as they allow themselves to fight over religious differences, the other can be fixed simply by leaving.

 

[Cypress]

Sectarian violence is not the same as the insurgency. They are two separate issues. Sectarian violence is something that Saddam dealt with by simply killing whole villages...

Indeed. But the part of the article posted refers to the emerging civil war in Iraq, not the anti-american insurgency. So, I'm not sure what the insurgency has to do with the pasted portion of the artical.

 

[Damocles]

Is the general on the side of the insurgents? Is he Cheerleading the terrorists? Is he providing aid and comfort to the enemy?

Wha? Who has said anything like this? Methinks you are assuming an opinion and in doing so setting up strawmen.

 

[Damocles]

Indeed. But the part of the article posted refers to the emerging civil war in Iraq, not the anti-american insurgency. So, I'm not sure what the insurgency has to do with the pasted portion of the artical.

It was in answer to the "insurgency in its last throes" comment in the original post.

 

[Cypress]

Is the general on the side of the insurgents? Is he Cheerleading the terrorists? Is he providing aid and comfort to the enemy?

What were seeing is exactly what happend in 2003.

bush, rumsfeld and the pentagon tried to deny for many months that there even was an emerging guerilla war or insurgency. I think even as late as December 2003, Rumsfeld was denying there was a credible insurgency taking root.

Same playbook here. The admin has denied a civil war has taken root for the past year. As the facts and evidence bypass them, they have to modify their statements. Here, we see the beginnings of an acknowlegement of reality.

 

[Cypress]

It was in answer to the "insurgency in its last throes" comment in the original post.

Okay. Right.

The problem has metastized. The insurgency is still as strong as it ever was, but has metatisized into a civil war, as well.

 

[Jarod]

The difference is Iraqis attacking Iraqis over Sectarian differences rather than Iraqis attacking US forces because of occupation...

One is a regular occurence there and will be as long as they allow themselves to fight over religious differences, the other can be fixed simply by leaving.

Thanks, I was unclear on the difference. So sectarian violence is worse than insurgent violence as we do not have a simple solution to the Sectarian violence. What a mess we, strike that, those who voted Republican made.

 

[Jarod]

So is Abizaid providing aid and comfort to the enemy by saying this?

 

[Cypress]

Thanks, I was unclear on the difference. So sectarian violence is worse than insurgent violence as we do not have a simple solution to the Sectarian violence. What a mess we, strike that, those who voted Republican made.

Of course, its the ever-evolving spin from the white house.

Last year, when civilians were getting blown up, it was because of terrorists.. Then it was because of insurgents. Now, its because of waring factions in a civil war.

The root cause of the problem remains the same: Bush's incompetence.

 

[Damocles]

Okay. Right.

The problem has metastized. The insurgency is still as strong as it ever was, but has metatisized into a civil war, as well.

It's a continuation of the same sectarian violence that has always been evident since the creation of Iraq. It isn't a natural State, it was created out of whole cloth without regard to the cultural differences of the population.

The main difference is in the reaction, before it was a slash and burn answer that kept people from doing this out of fear of reprisal. Now it is a disjointed effort at law enforcement that is behind the curve on keeping it in line...

 

[charver]

The good General isn't alone in his views. The last report from "our man" in Baghdad, British ambassador, William Patey, has been leaked and he is saying the same thing.

"The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5240808.stm

 

[toby]

Poor Jarad. he thinks a general who says violence is as bad as he has seen it, somehow supports violence! LOL

 

[Jarod]

It's a continuation of the same sectarian violence that has always been evident since the creation of Iraq. It isn't a natural State, it was created out of whole cloth without regard to the cultural differences of the population.

The main difference is in the reaction, before it was a slash and burn answer that kept people from doing this out of fear of reprisal. Now it is a disjointed effort at law enforcement that is behind the curve on keeping it in line...

Ill quote Colon Powell when he advised president Bush not to invade Iraq..."You broke it, you bought it."... "You will be responsable for the lives and safety of millions of Innocent Iraquis."

 

[Damocles]

Ill quote Colon Powell when he advised president Bush not to invade Iraq..."You broke it, you bought it."... "You will be responsable for the lives and safety of millions of Innocent Iraquis."

I agree. I was against this action from the beginning. I don't believe in undeclared "war" or in nation-building. I stated long before no WMD were found that it was not a good enough reason to go anyway. The "WMD" that Iraq had was pretty ineffective stuff...

 

[Jarod]

I agree. I was against this action from the beginning. I don't believe in undeclared "war" or in nation-building. I stated long before no WMD were found that it was not a good enough reason to go anyway. The "WMD" that Iraq had was pretty ineffective stuff...

I agree and agreed.

Does anyone still support Bush and or his war?

 

[Care4all]

The difference is Iraqis attacking Iraqis over Sectarian differences rather than Iraqis attacking US forces because of occupation...

One is a regular occurence there and will be as long as they allow themselves to fight over religious differences, the other can be fixed simply by leaving.

what are the religious differences between the sunni and shiites? do you know offhand damo?

also, aren't hezbollah, shiites? aren't iranians? what were we thinking, longterm, when we planned to put the shiites in power....knowing they were the same tribe as the iranians? or were ''they'' not thinking?

didn't the cia back in the late 50's/60's help saddam rise to power to fight off the shiite control?

aren't all shiites really persians and not arabs? iran is primarily the old persia, right?


i saw parts a history channel special on the rise of the Bath party and then saddam, and the middle east in general the other night and though i missed a great deal of it, i can honestly say that the middle east is a mess right now.....because of the BRITS! it is anyold's ancestor's fault!