Al Zarqawi's successor has been killed in Iraq -- by Sunnis.
So much for the great "civil war" so frequently invoked by the left. They made it seem as if the Iraqis were the bombers and that Al Qaeda had not shipped unwelcome foreigners to Iraq.
2007-05-01 12:26:16 · 11 answers · asked by Whootziedude 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's very clearly a civil war. Sunnis battling Shi'ites and clans battling clans. Calling it anything else is preposterous. The idea that everyone fighting is a foreigner aiming at U.S. soldiers is obviously false. I'm sorry that it doesn't fit your political needs, but the longer you deny the truth the longer our soldiers will have to die in a failed strategy. It's a civil war and we can't end it, unless we take sides of course, and we can't do that.
2007-05-01 12:51:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because we aren't functionally illiterate. Since you probably don't have all day to read the rest, here's the short version. "Secession" and "starting a war" are not even similar things. Claiming otherwise is like claiming walking out of your house is the same as setting fire to it. As with all links any Democrat has ever posted, yours DISPROVES your claim. NOTHING you presented here advocated war AT ALL. Obviously slavery was a large part of the motivation to SECEDE but NOT A SINGLE LINE of what you posted or which can be found by chasing your link suggests GOING TO WAR. NO State and NO individual ever advocated "going to war to protect slavery." It simply never happened - as YOUR sources make plain.
2016-05-18 04:12:58 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sunnis and Shiites have been at it for 1500yrs., all based on who should have been Mohammed's successor. Eliminating Saddam was akin to Tito dying in Yugoslavia; their hatred and animosity had been held in check by their fear of a dictator. With Saddam gone, the results we are witnessing now were an inevitability.
It's a religious war. What the hell is the difference. We are in the way.
2007-05-01 12:33:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
First there is no need for the name calling whats a lib2nd have u talked to any of the veterans who r returning from iraq and afghanistan?I have I work around them at a va hospital and what they r saying is that they are fighting a war around a civil war.so i bet u watch fox news.lol
2007-05-01 12:37:17 · answer #4 · answered by kevin f 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
You're right. And that war on US soil in the 19th century was just a misunderstanding.
2007-05-01 12:33:07 · answer #5 · answered by Pitchow! 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
diferent factions of the same country fighting each other. sounds like civil war to me.
2007-05-01 12:33:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
civil war: a war between political factions or regions within the same country. Use your head for something besides a hat rack!
2007-05-01 12:30:21 · answer #7 · answered by jeb black 5 · 3⤊ 5⤋
I know...
Bushie just did his African rain dance
and made all those bad civil wars go away...
Bush laughs & dances
while mothers cry....
2007-05-01 12:34:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Libs lie a lot
2007-05-01 12:30:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Would "War for Oil" be better?
What should we call it?
2007-05-01 12:34:25 · answer #10 · answered by Matthew P 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋