The violence today has been caused by us deposing the old government without being able to prevent the factions from fighting with each other. If Bush had sent the 500,000 troops the Generals said were needed, we could have prevented these factions from organizing and conducting the terrorist attacks that are taking place. Bush did not listen to the military experts that understood what was required to properly control Iraq when Saddam was no longer in power!

No col, the violence is because of different factions that never got along. The difference now is the media and you are blaming Bush for something that has been going on for decades. How pathetic.

Singrdave and others talk about U N resolutions. When did the United States become the enforcement agent for the U N?

Hey clueless, it happened when the US became a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Or don't you remember who led the Inchon landing in Korea? Ummm, GEN Douglas MacArthur. Duh.

Don't you know everything is Bush's fault. Any good news about the economy they will find something to say about it. What a bunch of losers.

Singrdave and others talk about U N resolutions.

Besides, I talk about them because they're RELEVANT. I never, not once heard the UN say they were going to enforce the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002) to defend America alone. This is a worldwide problem. The UN had employed sanction after sanction, resolution after resolution... eventually the US saw the writing on the wall and realized it must act against Iraq through the coalition of the willing. Or no one would.

The US had a pretty open-and-shut case to get a unanimous resolution in the UN, my friends. That body doesn't agree on much, if ever. But it did that day.

I just stubbed my toe. It's Bush's fault.

Singrdave

You are so full of BS it comes out of your ears. The United States being one of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council DOES NOT MAKE US THE U N ENFORCEMENT AGENT. ONLY the Security Council can enforce its resolutions with force and ANY perminent member can VETO and STOP any such action! There was NO Security Council Vote to invade Iraq and to remove Saddam from power!

Better look at your history. If the UN had voted to use force, the command would by under the UN not the United States.

Bush DID not build a case and obtain the support needed at the U N. That is why most countries have refused to help in Iraq.

Today another 60 people were killed by the escalating violence in Iraq. Many of the news services are now reporting that it appears as if Iraq is on the verge of an all out civil war.

Bush DID not build a case and obtain the support needed at the U N. That is why most countries have refused to help in Iraq.

The U.S. did build a case and the coalition was made up of over 60 nations. We didn't have the approval of France and Germany, so you liberals were all saddened by this.

Many of the news services are now reporting that it appears as if Iraq is on the verge of an all out civil war.

I can't stop laughing at this. The news media have been saying this for years. Do you think the anti-U.S. media in this country is going to report anything else but bad news. What a loser.

Hey col, here's some more news the media hasn't been reporting.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGRkNzdhMGE4MjZhNzUxMjE5ZjkwZDViNmYxM2EyYjQ=

Without the occupation of Iraq, the recruitment to Al Qaeda would have declined.

There is absolutely no evidence for this claim.

The Sectasriasn strife between then Shiaas and Suinnis is a direct result of the Americasn style Identty Politics introduced and encouraged in Iraq.

This is a crock of shit and you know it - the Shiite majority was mercilessly persecuted by the regime for decades before Iraqi Freedom. It is a local miracle that the Shiites, given the opportunity, didn't cleanse Iraq of the Sunnis.

But wait, col says the honest U.S. media thinks a civil war is happening.

Zalmay Khalilzad said there's "no doubt" that sectarian violence is occurring. But since Iraq's leaders are willing to work together, it can't be defined as a civil war, he said. Speaking in Washington, Khalilzad also cautioned against a sudden pullout of U.S. troops. He said nation-building takes time, and if American forces leave too soon, that could unleash a real civil war.

Today the Washington Post carries a story that says the officials in Iraq believe there is a Low Grade Civil War taking place in Iraq.

That Coalition you talk about amounted to only TWO countries providing and REAL help-- The U S and England! We did not have the support of the UN to invade Iraq and that included a lot more countries then just France and Germany!

That Coalition you talk about amounted to only TWO countries providing and REAL help-- The U S and England!

That is a flat out lie and you know it. Italy, Japan, and many others provided great support. You are so pathetic.

The number of troops all the other so called Coalition did not amount to 5% of the total force levels. You are the one full of BS.

Today Gen Casey said we may need to INCREASE U S Troop strength to control the escalating violence. Iraq officials said that there is a limited Civil war going on and the levels of violence are increasing. This 3 1/2 years after, “Mission Accomplished". What a pile of CRAP!

Speaking of crap, please take that tired old "Mission Accomplished" garbage & stuff it where yours lives.

Isn't it great when he can't prove a civil war, so he changes it to a "limited" civil war.

I love how you take everything out of context. This is what Casey said.

"We'll make sure there are adequate forces available for the Iraqis to succeed in Baghdad,"

>Isn't it great when he can't prove a civil war, so he changes it to a "limited" civil war.

How many iraqis have to die daily before it graduates from sectarian violence to civil war? What are your criteria for civil war, Island Dog? This goes for everyone else

How many iraqis have to die daily before it graduates from sectarian violence to civil war? What are your criteria for civil war, Island Dog? This goes for everyone else

I'm not the one claiming a civil war here. Iraqis have been killed in sectarian violence for many years before Saddam was removed. I notice the media didn't label it as a civil war back then.

This violence was going on way before the war. There were pro and anti-Saddam factions in Iraq before we invaded. The only difference now is the liberal media is reporting it.

This is just absurd. There was hardly any violence during the days of Saddam and with the strong UN presence it would not have gone unreported.

Daiwa

That "Mission Accomplished" Crap, as you put it, was Bush trying to get a news clip for reelection. Trouble is that it backfired BIG TIME!

The unrest and daily violence is FAR greater today then under Saddam's rule. EVERY News Program is saying the same thing-- CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ.

yeah...and all of those mass graves never existed, either, right? Nor the times that Saddam gassed his own ppl, that never ever happened, right?

I sit and read this....and can't help but stare wide-eyed at the screen in disbelief....

Personally, I am glad that the UN isn't involved, and I feel that we should dump that piece of garbage political Anti-American Meeting of the dumbasses anyways. The UN is anti-America...until they need us to help them take care of business.

Why do you continue to need us to explain to you that Germany, France, and probably Russia, would never want to invade Iraq? They were busy getting their political/financial BJ from saddam...

Clinton had the opportunity to have Bin Laden handed over to us several times...he turned the offers down.....several times. After the first WTC attack, he did...nothing. After the bombing of the USS Cole (did I get that one right?), he did....nothing. He did manage to lob some missles into Iraq when he was on trial for sexual harrassment, though....now THAT is making a statement!!

Col, I very rarely post in your threads....and Bahu, I laugh in your general direction....you two are so Anti-American strength....it actually makes me sick to my stomach....if you don't like this country, please, by all means, excercise your freedom...and LEAVE....

This is just absurd. There was hardly any violence during the days of Saddam and with the strong UN presence it would not have gone unreported.

What a load of bs that is. I can't believe you actually believe this.

EVERY News Program is saying the same thing-- CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ.

Col, I have barely seen any news network say it's a civil war. Even if they were, the media in this country have no credibility to declare anything. Especially when it deals with Iraq. They hate Bush as much as you do, therefore, their reporting is just as biased and factless as your posts.

The unrest and daily violence is FAR greater today then under Saddam's rule.

Once again your emotional hatred for Bush out weighs any factual content.