First, as the 'occupying power' we are responsible for law and order in Iraq. I don't think we are responsible for Columbia, etc.So you glibly ignore my argument? If its just about the numbers, then for a war zone its pretty tame. And the responsibility thing, hmmm, peaceniks don't want to be responsible for much. But how to stay with the peace and harmony for all thing, and ignore such violence simply because 'we' are not responsible? Irregardless, my argument was not about the lefts need for atrocities in the news cycle, simply about large numbers of people, and what level of violence they had.
So....there's 20 times the terrorist death rate in Iraq than in Columbia...not counting what the US does. And Scrub proclaimed that the war was over (remember the speech on the USS Lincoln?) Just what was your argument again? The US destroys the infrastructure of Iraq, so the Iraqis are to blame?.....
Second, the deaths in Iraq are a direct result of US foreign policy actions.Here is where you nutters are so ignorant. Threat denial, and always falling back to the stock "U.S. collective guilt" answer.
Rant, rant. Then name call. How much "terrorism" was there in Iraq before 2002? None. It came with the US invasion. So, who IS responsible? Little green men?
Third, if the CCCRW's had followed the universal advise given them by their own military, State Department and numerous NGO's, they would have used a military force which could have controlled Iraq and prevented the current situation.This is a platitude, there were plenty of said officials for the plan as executed, advice becomes universal in the mind of a peacenik kook. Hindsight is convenient, and I agree, two factors would have limited the current violence, more U.S. troops, and retention of Iraqi forces (keep them off the street). Throw in the big buck construction debacle.
Ah, the "nobody told us" argument. Won't fly. Several generals told them. Planners in the CIA told them. NGO's on contract told them (and were never consulted again) Rummie et all were told many times by many sources months ahead and they chose to ignore the warnings and live in a world of make believe. Now, exactly who, outside of Rummies direct advisors and the Bush CCCRW insiders, said the plan was great? Not even Tommy Franks, who went back AT LEAST three times with estimates ranging from 500,000 to 380,000 troops.
Fourth, there already IS a civil war going on, and has been for some time.Strange definition of civil war you lefties have. There certainly is sectarian violence. And the Sunnis and Shiites aren't going to love each other soon. But civil war it isn't. Now, if the unified government splits up and the Iraqi army splits up, and there is pitched battles over territory, then I will give you the civil war bit.
What's a civil war? It's not defined by the number of dead. When the citizens of a country (Iraq or US) take up arms against each other (Shia vs Sunni militias or US army vs Confederate volunteers) in order to settle political issues (control of Baghdad, oil, religious shrines, control of government or states rights, slavery, control of congress), then you have a Civil War regardless of the level of intensity of the conflict. Iraq sure looks like a civil war, and the intensity seems to be rising.
Fifth, a number of those bodies appear to be the result of US military forces murdering innocent civilians.....did the marines think that the ol'guy in the wheelchair was an insurgent? How about the little kids?Yep, war is an awful thing. But you don't address my argument, just throw typical lefty claims in the air. Show me actual statistics on proved murders committed by U.S. troops (not leftist media claims), and I think you would be safer in many places in Iraq patrolled by Marines than say, Compton, Wash D.C, Trenton... Certainly you would be safer in Iraq than in Columbia.
Ah shucks, ain't war awful. Well, yes, but that's not an excuse for what the Marines did. "It's just what happens in war" is a BS excuse and it don't fly either. Cold blooded murder is what it is, and there isn't an excuse for it.....welcome to Mai Lai. About being safer in DC, r u making a pro gun control argument?
Apparently you still don't get the argument. It is not about terrorists, simply about relative levels of violence. You know, perspective. Actually, Bush haters don't care much for perspective, but that's ok. I make no claim about "terrorist deaths" anywhere, just looking at levels of violent behavior among large populations. Perspective...
On the side, you bring up the gun control thing. I would happily support the old west solution of no firearms within dense urban population centers. Hawaii, for all its socialism, does not do to bad on this point. No carry, but you can own firearms. And there is publicly accessible ranges. I am all for "Leave your heat at the door..." type of control. But that is not what gun control advocates want, so I must oppose them. And from experience in the U.K. (apparently similar in other dense urban areas with strict gun control), there are a lot of stabbings. Granted, your better off statistically with a few stab wounds as opposed to a big hole in your head, but that is a different topic.
I love the 'war is over' thing. The big lib lie machine has you hooked up. Or are you to naive to understand the difference between active combat and police actions? Actually, most lib peacenik wackos don't get that one. It part of the creed now, liberal mythology alive and well. Kind of like the "Bush stole the election" meme. How did you like that special election in the 50th Cali congressional district? Ye ole culture of corruption platform works well (sarc.). Hahaha... Heehehehhehee hahahahhaaha....
So on to the Civil War debate. You claim it is a civil war, and in your argument you use: 1) the level of intensity 2) fighting over political issues. Huh? So Columbia is in a civil war, and so is South Africa! Better throw in Jamaica too. Dang, if we get away from the per capita thing, I bet we can find civil war all over the world under your definition. The only reason you want to label it a civil war is to try and claim the critical step towards failure. Yes, critical for your philosophies political existence, and hence the tendency is to engender and support increased criticism of our Country, our Military, and our President.
Now lets see about this last point. Murder is not acceptable. If they (Marines) committed such acts, they will be prosecuted. Yet, this is a fight is it not? It is a good idea to fight Islamofascism, at least that is my position. To claim we created the problem is asinine. And to bristle at my "War is Hell" rhetoric is disingenuous. Your the one who wants to parade around civilian tragedies, and blame our forces. That is whats truly distasteful. Liberal peacenik nutters really do not see tyranny, and end up in their actions enabling such.
As to Mai Lai, if you are trying to make this Vietnam again, you must have memory loss. There is no free fire zone, no systematic policy of shooting anything that moves, no excuse for breaking clear guidelines of the modern military. Furthermore, even with Vietnam, as horrible as that incident was, there is no proof of systematic abuses. There are a whole lot of allegations (a popular pastime in the early 70's), but not much in the way of proof. I am not making lite of any abuse, but nutter claims are just that, claims. As for real, documented, systematic abuse, turn to Cambodia, or just stay in South Vietnam, in the time after we left. But peacenik nutters don't seem to be bothered by such.
Come on up to the real world. Furthermore, it isn't "the Marines" as you state, it's a few Marines, who have not even been charged yet. Oh, I see the Anbar region has been transferred to Iraqi control. A few more to go. Hey, where are all your statistics on how many murders committed by Marines? Now that I have 'ranted' some more, I leave you with this last thought: the irrational peacenik nutter platform couldn't even beat Bush in re-election, so keep at it!