Do you agree with Al Gore that the disaster in Iraq is even worse than a civil war?

Question

And yet Bush's mouthpiece, Tony Snow, tells us that there is no civil war in Iraq, and that we are winning. Do you think Snow is smoking something?

Answer 1

Now the defense minister designate has admitted publicly that he does not think so, Snow will have to change his tune.
Reading off your masters' hymn sheet does not usually mean that you are not compos mentis, just that you don't mind lying.

And yes, I do agree with Gore, this is a civil war with occupying
forces thrown in, for the civilians it must be pure hell and most of them would probably want their former ruler back, even if only a few will say so publicly.

Answer 2

certainly they the two could have, extraordinarily Clinton. human beings forget approximately that Clinton wasn't some loopy liberal, he substitute right into a dealmaker. the guy supported getting stuff accomplished over being a "rah rah" Democrat. Granted, 9/11 would not have been the catalyst, because of the fact 9/11 had no longer something to do with Iraq, yet I easily think of Clinton could have finally long gone after Saddam lower back, specific. P.S. Clinton had a plan drawn up and in a position to pass in December of 2000 to do incredibly each non-Iraq conflict on Terror element Bush has accomplished. the full Afghanistan element could have occurred by employing February 2001 if Clinton substitute into nonetheless in workplace.

Answer 3

Mr. Snow was taken from the TV studios to the white house, he said exactly what he is told to say, he is as you said the mouthpiece, the repeater, now regarding Irak, yes there is a civil war big time there, and no one in the right mind thinks we are winning, we are losing, losing our young people in a non sense war, at the end it will be like Vietnam, but we still lost a great number of Americans..☺

Answer 4

I'll say that I don't agree with him just because people predicted Iraq's current predicament before the war even started. Al Gore, cowardly as he's always been, only recently decided to voice an opinion that is by now old news.

In any case, Iraq's current civil war is worst than, say, Lebanon's civil war of 1975-1990, but only because of its far-reaching implications for the entire world. This isn't, after all, a war between some religious factions (say, Shiites and Sunnis and some Christians thrown in for the fun of it) within a country of a few million people with nothing of monetary and strategic value to offer except for some very interesting history spanning millenniums. Iraq has OIL, which, as the rest of the world knows, is the West's (especially the US's) hard-on and the Middle East's lifeblood.

Moreover, the Iraqi Kurds have plenty of oil for themselves, meaning they'll have the resources to vie for independence which, for Turkey, would mean hell since Kurds from Turkey, who have been suffering under the yoke of Turk's crypto-fascist regime for ages, are aching, like all Kurds, for an independent state.

Then there's the problem of having the Shiites, which also control vast amounts of oil, forging ties with Iran, a mainly Shiite country. As much as I understand Iran's position concerning the US, I think it's safe to assume that a violently repressive theocracy with even more oil wealth of which it can dispose is NOT a good thing.

And never mind the fact that, since the current civil war is, in so many ways, a horrendous fight between two warring factions of Islam, the chances of this conflict spilling over to its neighboring countries is enormous and, should this happen, the consequences would be dire. We are, after all, speaking a region with huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons (except in Iraq, as most people around the world knew all along); a rogue nuclear state which most in the region understandably despise; and the always present prospect of more terror on the part of the US upon it's "enemies".

Well, we could sit here all day and converse about this but, in essence, these are the main reasons for why this civil war is so much worst than any other conflict of its kind. I don't suppose it is enjoyable for most decent people to see death and destruction on such a horribly large scale but the implications are now extremely dire. I'm sure I'm missing many other points in my argument and I am by no means an expert on the subject but here are my two cents on the matter.

Concerning Tony Snow, he's a tool like all his former (current?) colleagues at Fox News: he's nothing to do but be a mouthpiece.

And finally, f**k Al Gore, what he did (or, better yes, failed to do) in 2000 is unforgivable. He's an useless politician who now thinks he's going to make up for his previous lack of cojones by participating in a very good film concerning the dangers we face due to global warming. Well, he's not.

Answer 5

I think they are all in denial about Iraq being in a civil war. What else could it possibly be? All the different groups are going at each other like mad, to put themselves is a position of power. I would love to know what they define as Civil War...

Answer 6

I believe Al Gore is right. The events over in Iraq are more than just people uprising, it is an entire culture in the midst of sudden change. They have lost everything they once knew and trusted, and are being thrust from one fatalistic event to the next. These people are lost, and America is doing nothing to help them. We just keep on fighting like violence is going to solve the problem, when what we need to do is stop and talk to these people.

Answer 7

Sorry, mate. I couldnt, and wouldnt, agree with AlGore that the grass was green, much less on any more important topic. The guy is a fruitcake. Heavy on the nuts.

Answer 8

And you think Al Gore is a friend of Pres. Bush?

Answer 9

i dont agree..they are hiding too much

Answer 10

no