Colin Powell - It's a civil war

[Donkey®]

Add Mr. Powell to the long list of people in reality.

Colin Powell says*Iraq in a 'civil war' - CNN.com

Originally Posted by article

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (CNN) -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday that Iraq's violence meets the standard of civil war and that if he were heading the State Department now, he might recommend that the administration use that term.

Many news organizations and analysts are calling the Sunni-Shiite sectarian warfare that exploded this year, killing thousands and causing widespread displacement, a civil war.

Powell's comments -- made in the United Arab Emirates at the Leaders in Dubai Business Forum -- are significant because he backed the war and was the top U.S. diplomat when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. (Watch why some call Iraq's violence a civil war Video)

Bush has avoided using the term "civil war" to describe the situation in Iraq.

Tuesday, he called the latest violence in Iraq "part of a pattern" of attacks by al Qaeda in Iraq to divide Shiites and Sunnis and vowed, again, he won't support the removal of U.S. troops "before the mission is complete."

"There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal," he said. (Full story)

White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley also dismissed the notion that civil war has begun in Iraq.

"The Iraqis don't talk of it as a civil war. The unity government doesn't talk of it as a civil war," Hadley said Monday. "You have not yet had a situation also where you have two clearly defined and opposing groups vying not only for power but for territory."

But he added: "We're clearly in a new phase characterized by an increase in sectarian violence that requires us to adapt to that new phase," according to The Associated Press.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday said that he believes Iraq is near civil war. "Unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact we are almost there," he said. (Full story)

A spokesman for the powerful political bloc of Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said Wednesday the group has suspended its participation in Iraq's government. The group had threatened to take such action if Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met with President Bush in Jordan this week. Al-Maliki was in Jordan Wednesday with talks scheduled for Thursday.

A classified memo prepared by President's Bush's national security adviser after a recent trip to Iraq questions whether al-Maliki can rise above Iraq's widening and bloody Sunni-Shiite divide. (Watch why some question whether al-Maliki can hold Iraq together Video)

Powell proposed a two-part solution to the problems in Iraq. First, he said, coalition troops must remain, but their numbers must be reduced. Second, a political solution must emerge among Iraqis themselves and not be imposed on them.

In 2003, Powell set out a lengthy argument at the United Nations that buttressed the eventual invasion, including supposed evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Asked Wednesday whether he regretted those statements, he said he does. He noted he was working with the information that was available to him at the time.

Copyright 2006 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Thorgrim]

The debate is over, the only matter is of posturing

The same people who are denying it were the same people who called Lebanon a civil war...it doesn't make any sense

Shia mortar Sunni neighborhoods/strongholds, Sunni do the same back, and thats just in baghdad...they make internet postings asking fellow shia or sunni for ammo or reinforcements, they attack each others government institutions (Sunni-dominated departments are targeted by Shia, and vice versa)

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The debate is over, the only matter is of posturing

The same people who are denying it were the same people who called Lebanon a civil war...it doesn't make any sense

The same people who claimed Lebanon wasn't in a civil war are calling Iraq a civil war... it doesn't make any sense.

The debate isn't over, as you can see from the first post in this thread the debate is alive and well. It's a matter of opinion, if it weren't people wouldn't be linking politicians who agree with their position to try to prove their point. We could all sit here and pick politicians and military generals who share opposite opinions. When it comes down to it it's a matter of opinion.

It is my belief that Iraq is in a civil war. I've said it numerous times on this forum, but as previously said it isn't necessarily a concrete judgment call and there is a lot of debate going on about the term. News organizations calling it a civil war are taking a side on the debate. They could handle the situation on the middle road as they have been. But when news organizations like NBC or the NY Times make it a policy to start calling it a civil war they have shown which side of the political aisle they subscribe to. The fact is, it is not conclusive for many Americans that Iraq is in a civil war. By calling it a civil war they are pandering to the political beliefs of their viewers and turning off much of America who disagree with their position.

Iraq being in a civil war denotes failure of the US military and progress in Iraq. Many key Democrats have been calling it a civil war long before the general population would have ever considered it such for these politically motivated reasons. There is a fine line that needs to be drawn and the liberals are willing to draw it much quicker when it comes to a position involving military failure in Iraq... as we have seen throughout the war. Imagine if NBC started calling it a civil war two years ago when the first people started clammering about it. Not much has changed from then till now, it's just been going on for longer.

Some could even make the extreme argument that Iraq was in a civil war before we got there, one side was just more powerful than the other and managed to suppress as many uprising as possible through use of torture, biological weapons, and fear.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The same people who claimed Lebanon wasn't in a civil war are calling Iraq a civil war... it doesn't make any sense.

The debate isn't over, as you can see from the first post in this thread the debate is alive and well. It's a matter of opinion, if it weren't people wouldn't be linking politicians who agree with their position to try to prove their point. We could all sit here and pick politicians and military generals who share opposite opinions. When it comes down to it it's a matter of opinion.

It comes down to credibility. The "it's a civil war" side are more credible.

[JaJae]

Credibility is a matter of perspective.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Credibility is a matter of perspective.

George Bush "no civil war"


Colin Powell "civil war"


Which is more credible? What you're talking about is delusion...has nothing to do with perspective.

[Thorgrim]

Well ofcourse there was an attack on the media in your post...anyway

If news organizations want to be ignorant and ignore the facts, they'll lose credibility

If the NYTimes reported "in Rwanda, there was more sectarian strife, and some are calling it genocide" they'd lose all their credibility at the height of the massacres

NBC reports both sides every night, Bush and Bush critics, and they've laid out an objective term that they report both sides are arguing over

News reporters are both to show both sides without bias, but not without asserting basic facts...I remember the Onion "Bush issues statement saying world is flat, critics disagree" I mean cmon whats next, are we going to say OBL isn't a terrorist because his real purpose is to unite the world under islam using as peaceful means as possible, he only resorts to violence and intimidation, as does the US, when both sides feel it is neccesary

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Well ofcourse there was an attack on the media in your post...anyway

The entire debate of civil war has been brought about because of media intervention in the naming so please leave your rude comments out of responses to me and other members of the board.

The original post left no opinion to take the thread, but seems to show a relationship to the recent media events. Your response of people denying or agreeing has a strong relationship to the current events of the Iraq civil war terminology... which is being carried out by the media and our politicians.

[DosEquis]

Joe Scarbarough, former congressman, republican, called the president delusional last night. It is a civil war any way you slice it. One ethnic group is fighting another in attempts to influence or gain control of the country. Its a civil war.

Personally i think msnbc just has enough balls to say it, and the people still grasping to... i have no idea what...just call it "media bias".

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Joe Scarbarough, former congressman, republican, called the president delusional last night. It is a civil war any way you slice it. One ethnic group is fighting another in attempts to influence or gain control of the country. Its a civil war.

Personally i think msnbc just has enough balls to say it, and the people still grasping to... i have no idea what...just call it "media bias".

Some people (not in this thread) just hate NBC SOOOO MUCH that they will take any chance to swipe at them, why? Because they aren't fox news, they don't stuff their primetime slots with conservative commentators, and their flagship news show doesn't have an "all-star panel" of 2 conservatives 2 ultra-neoconservatives

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Some people (not in this thread) just hate NBC SOOOO MUCH that they will take any chance to swipe at them, why? Because they aren't fox news, they don't stuff their primetime slots with conservative commentators, and their flagship news show doesn't have an "all-star panel" of 2 conservatives 2 ultra-neoconservatives

I think I have posted one comment about NBC in all my time on this board I do Hate them soooo much! The suggestion was that they were trying to make a news story. I stand by that interpretation. If anyone would bother to ask me what I thought they would find that I don't think the civil war label wrong at this point although I would use it with caution as Colon Powell has done.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I think I have posted one comment about NBC in all my time on this board I do Hate them soooo much! The suggestion was that they were trying to make a news story. I stand by that interpretation. If anyone would bother to ask me what I thought they would find that I don't think the civil war label wrong at this point although I would use it with caution as Colon Powell has done.

I agree what makes Iraq a civil war more than it was the day before their announcement? What happened that day? What changed in Iraq? It seems rather arbitrary.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Personally i think msnbc just has enough balls to say it, and the people still grasping to... i have no idea what...just call it "media bias".

I guess Bill O'Rielly isn't qualified to give the "Fox" perspective, but this is his opinion of it. I guess the opposite side of the coin if you will.
FOXNews.com - Is It Civil War in Iraq? - Bill O’Reilly | The O’Reilly Factor

Is It Civil War in Iraq?

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

By Bill O'Reilly

NBC News has declared that there is indeed a civil war in Iraq. Now that's not shocking, because NBC is the most aggressive anti-Bush network these days, as they have made a calculated effort to woo left-wing viewers.

The question is: Is NBC wrong about Iraq? The answer is yes — at this point.

The Iraq War has morphed into a number of conflicts, much like the chaotic Baltic situation under President Clinton. Because the Bush administration miscalculated the problems after Saddam, the ensuing chaos has given power to a number of bad guys.

First is Iran. That country is training and arming Shiite killers to cause chaos in Iraq. Iran clearly wants to dominate the world's oil flow and controlling Iraq would be a major part of that.

Second is Al Qaeda, which simply wants to do damage to the USA and is using the Sunni fear of the majority Shiia to provoke conflict. It is Al Qaeda doing much of the bombing of Shiia sites and that, of course, leads to murderous revenge. The Sunnis have aligned themselves with Al Qaeda, feeling they need protection.

Third are organized criminals who are running wild because there is little Iraqi police presence.

Add all that up and you have violent, out-of-control chaos — not civil war.

The problem in Iraq is not American. The problem is the Iraqis themselves. They're not fighting for their freedom in a way that puts the bad keys on the defensive.

There is only so much the USA can do. If the Iraqi people are unwilling to challenge the bad guys, the bad guys will win — period.

The vital problem now is how to protect U.S. troops from the bad guys in Iraq. If we pull a John Murtha and bail out, Al Qaeda and Iran win big. But clearly, the status quo will not hold.

If the Bush administration will not consider dividing the country into three autonomous regions, then it must consider allowing the Iraqi military to run the place, much like Musharraf runs Pakistan. Yes, that would be brutal, but clearly, the Iraqi people are not embracing freedom. So imposing order through a military strong man might be the only way.

Of course, the American media is not helping anyone by oversimplifying the situation and rooting for the USA to lose in Iraq. And that is what some media people are doing.

This is a brutal issue that affects all Americans. And we need to think about it very carefully and avoid foolish descriptions that define nothing.

His opinion of "civil war" I think is valid. And it's the opinion of many conservatives. It's hard to prove his opinion wrong that it's not just "chaos" and actually a war. I disagree with his definition of civil war, but I can respect it.

[Thorgrim]

I trust retired US generals more than pundits

And to pretend the political factions aren't acting with cause is just silly

Yeah, I am sure common criminals are leaving dozens of tortured bodies in the tigris, lobbing mortars in opposing neighborhoods, and setting up checkpoints for kidnappings/death

And the "blame Iran" card is a conservative one because they don't want to blame themselves for not going "hey, what happens...after Saddam?"

The Badr Corp and Mahdi army would be getting arms regardless of iran, they'd just be paying a higher price

and ofcourse, back to blaming Al Qaeda, even though military reports on every network (except maybe fox) have shown foreign fighters at 2-3%

People at NBC are risking their lives to give accurate reports to America and they are basically being called traitors...how pathetic

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I guess Bill O'Rielly isn't qualified to give the "Fox" perspective, but this is his opinion of it. I guess the opposite side of the coin if you will.
FOXNews.com - Is It Civil War in Iraq? - Bill O’Reilly | The O’Reilly Factor



His opinion of "civil war" I think is valid. And it's the opinion of many conservatives. It's hard to prove his opinion wrong that it's not just "chaos" and actually a war. I disagree with his definition of civil war, but I can respect it.

Ridiculous. Let's look at this objectively....


Colin Powell vs Bill O'Reilly.


Hmmmmmm.....

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Ridiculous. Let's look at this objectively....


Colin Powell vs Bill O'Reilly.


Hmmmmmm.....

I'm not comparing Powell and Bill O'Reilly. I'm comparing NBC pundits and Fox pundits. But yes, that would be ridiculous.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm not comparing Powell and Bill O'Reilly. I'm comparing NBC pundits and Fox pundits. But yes, that would be ridiculous.

But we're not talking about different subjects. You somehow are claiming NBC's claiming it's a civil war is not credible...and FOX's claim that it isn't is. That's when you have to take a step back and realize NBC + Colin Powell >>>>>>>>> Bush + FOX.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I guess Bill O'Rielly isn't qualified to give the "Fox" perspective, but this is his opinion of it. I guess the opposite side of the coin if you will.
FOXNews.com - Is It Civil War in Iraq? - Bill O’Reilly | The O’Reilly Factor



His opinion of "civil war" I think is valid. And it's the opinion of many conservatives. It's hard to prove his opinion wrong that it's not just "chaos" and actually a war. I disagree with his definition of civil war, but I can respect it.

Bill'O lost me soon as he dropped the "just like when clinton" card. Why even mention it? What does it have to do with anything? It is a different conflict in a completely different region in a different period of time. It was said it to soften the blow for conservatives. He said it so that people can be like "wuhll see when clinton"... clinton and that war were different. We are talking today and today there is a civil war period. 2 main factions, sunni and shiite, fighting for control. Thats it. Shiite group, current ones in control, also happen to be Iran friendly.

Clinton has nothing to do with anything what so ever, bill O can have his opinion, but he is a fucking moron. His conclusions may be 20% correct at best. He is basically the conservative olbermann. Scarbarough was a congressman, knows how the shit works on that level, and is a conservative.

However former generals, colin powell, joe scarbarough, and his 2-3 guests that night, all refer to it as civil war. Give me a break here.