Comments on: Iraq, Land of the Eternal Civil War

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:23:48 +0000

StaggerLee – If you consider having the comment field pretty much to yourself because I don't feel like hacking my way through the tired talking points, then sure, you're the champion, bug guy.

Don't bruise your knees or chap your lips congratulating each other, k?

By: StaggerLee

StaggerLee — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:58:38 +0000

Wow, I link from Salon to read the latest right wing talking points on the uncivil war in Iraq and I find the author being slapped around by a gang of dirty hippies. Time to turn in your official Dubya "We're A Surgin'" Franklin Mint plate.

By: suek

suek — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:05:25 +0000

Good article for those who actually care.

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/03/iraqi-t…

By: John Ryan

John Ryan — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:28:11 +0000

IRAQ just five years old and OUR BEST WAR EVER !!!

By: Tom Swirly

Tom Swirly — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:01:37 +0000

Actually, it's the liberal tyrant haters who are here.

We're against tyrants like George Bush; we're against tyrants like the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Bush's great friends (perhaps you've forgotten that the 9/11 attacks were funded by and operated by Saudi Arabians).

So which "tyrant" did we support? (Hint: it wasn't Saddam, we hated that Republican-installed, Republican-supported tyrant as much as any of them.)

By: fostert

fostert — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:45:20 +0000

"What is not often reported is that the Madhi Army operates thanks to the funding and support of Iran."

Actually it's reported all the time. What's not reported all the time is that our ISCI allies are also supported by Iran. In fact, it's original incarnation, SCIRI, was established by Iran during the conflict with Iraq. The Mahdi army at least originally existed as in independent operation. SCIRI (now ISCI), has always been Iran's pawn. And now they control the Iraqi army. Now why would Iran back both sides in this conflict? Easy, it guarantees that they will have influence with whoever wins. It's a fairly common strategy. When I was in Vietnam (recently, not during the war), I met several families that had sent one son to fight for the North and one to fight for the South. No matter who won, they'd have a son on the winning side who could help them out when it was all over.

As for your definition of "civil war," the conflict is more a civil war than our own Civil War. Remember, in our Civil War, there were actually two separate countries involved (just like in Vietnam). In Iraq, we have multiple factions trying to control the same country. Obviously, many of these factions receive foreign help, but I can't think of a single civil war where that hasn't been the case.

By: Old Coot

Old Coot — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:41:09 +0000

Now as I remember it that Vietnam thing warn't no Civil War neither. Sucked a whole bunch 'tho.

By: psmarc93

psmarc93 — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:22:22 +0000

Jimmy: it's also important to learn that Al Sadr not only has support of 65% of the Iraqis (Malaki only 33%), that Malaki is supported by Iran, that the Iraqis want nationalization of the oil as does Sadr, that the vast majority of the country wants America out, a soft partition of the nation, that Sadr has kept the peace through cease-fire that PREDATES the surge as does the resulting downturn in violence from that cease fire, that Sadr has called for CIVIL disobedience because Malaki's police forces have continued to squeeze the Mahdi army — the most popular faction in Iraq, the will of the people there. Your complaints about the term "civil war" are sooooo 2003.