Iraq Civil War Starting

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Mortar battles have erupted between Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad, and the once-mixed city is reeling as the two sides adopt the weapons and tactics of urban civil war.

Sunni-Shiite Mortar War


Well..here we go..

This should be interesting.

[edit on 11/10/2006 by DickBinBush]

Iraq's Immigration Ministry says about 1.5 million people are internal refugees, while the
United Nations says a similar number of Iraqis have fled the country altogether. That would be about 12 percent of Iraq's prewar population of 26 million, and both figures are probably low estimates.

Nice. So we've got what now.. 150 000 Iraqi's killed, 3 million refugees, civil war about to claim more deaths... What was it they did again? Nothing? Oh, it was about Saddam's WMDs.. No, liberating the Iraqi's... No, it was the war on terror.. fight them there so we don't have to fight them here.. frikken awesome.

Main Iraqi War Selling Points!:

Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction: 3 and a half years later, never found!
War On Terror: More terrorism has erupted since our arrival!
Iraqi Freedom: Iraqi's are now free to destroy each other in a civil war!

Hell, we can't even claim oil was a good reason considering the prices won't stop climbing.

150,000 Iraqi's dead, civil war beginning..

But at least they're free!!!

Originally posted by DickBinBush
Main Iraqi War Selling Points!:
Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction: 3 and a half years later, never found!

well, there must not have been any then. oh, wait, we sold them to him, and he used them on the kurds. nah, nevermind, the facts dont matter....he never had them.

War On Terror: More terrorism has erupted since our arrival!

how about some numbers to back up that claim? i dont think we were in iraq on 9/11, when the USS Cole blew up, when somalia happened, when the first world trade center bombing happened, when the barracks bombing happened in saudi, when the US embassy bombings in africa happened, or in 82 in beirut for that matter.

Originally posted by DickBinBush

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Mortar battles have erupted between Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad, and the once-mixed city is reeling as the two sides adopt the weapons and tactics of urban civil war.

Sunni-Shiite Mortar War


Well..here we go..

This should be interesting.

[edit on 11/10/2006 by DickBinBush]

It's not like it's anything new. The Sunni and Shia have been going tit for tat since that mosque in Samarra was blown up a few months back.

Originally posted by snafu7700
how about some numbers to back up that claim?

Numbers?

How about 4,413 terrorist incidents in Iraq involving 30,643 victims since January 1st, 2004?

Iraq Incidents

How about 11,765 terrorist incidents worldwide involving 75,987 victims since January 1st, 2004?

Worldwide Incidents

How about 2,358 U.S. military deaths since January 1st, 2004?

U.S. Military Deaths

How about 150,000 civilian deaths since the start of the war?

150,000 Civilian Deaths


Enough numbers for you?

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by DickBinBush
Main Iraqi War Selling Points!:
Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction: 3 and a half years later, never found!

well, there must not have been any then. oh, wait, we sold them to him, and he used them on the kurds. nah, nevermind, the facts dont matter....he never had them.

Who said he never had them?
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone make that claim.

However, when Bush used WMD as an excuse to wage war on Iraq, Saddam had no WMDs.

I'd be careful about accusing others of ignoring facts.

a list of terrorist attacks from 9/11 through 2003....before the united states entered iraq:

terrorist incidents

granted, the last 50 or so are after the invasion.....but those numbers are solely muslim related attacks, not all terrorist attacks regardless of who is involved.

i've never been a supporter of the war in iraq, but terrorism did not start with the war there.

[edit on 11-11-2006 by snafu7700]

Originally posted by BitRaiser

Who said he never had them?

every liberal in the country and you know it. look it up.

Iraq is a disaster and already in a state of civil war. None of the arguments for the war stack up and the wars supporters are grasping at straws when they claim that terror is being fought in Iraq rather then on the home front. Coalition resources are being tired up that could be used elsewhere.

Iraq is what happens when political leaders run a war and military leaders are a bunch of yes men.

[edit on 11-11-2006 by xpert11]

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by BitRaiser

Who said he never had them?

every liberal in the country and you know it. look it up.

I beleive you are completely in error my friend. No one said he "never" had them. What they said was that we knew he didn't have them then. There is a very big difference - but one you'd have to be awake to notice. Saddam didn't have any WMD's when he was being accussed of them. The concern was that he might be making them, and the weapons inspectors were there and did say that as far as their ongoing investigation showed, he didn't have any.

No need for history revision - The US admin just wanted the oil and didn't care how many people got killed for it. The US population, still frieghtened from 911, merely swollowed the propaganda. Those outside of the US though saw through it which is way it was condemned internationally and why Rummy will shortly be up on war crimes.

Many of the wars suppoters cant or choose not to grasp the fact that the small stockpiles of WMDs that have been found pre date the Gulf War.
What else can you expect from people who are brainwashed into thinking that if you dont support the Iraq war you support the enemy ?

Originally posted by Waiting2awake

I beleive you are completely in error my friend. No one said he "never" had them. What they said was that we knew he didn't have them then.

which is still a lie. he did have them at the time of the invasion. we have never found more than ten percent of the wmd that we sold him. they simply disappeared....personally, i believe the syrians have them, but that's another thread. what is pretty obvious is that he didnt have a nuclear program, although the intel indicated that he did. and do you know why the intel indicated that? because saddam wanted it to. he was so deathly afraid of iran's program that he wanted them to believe that he had them, and therefore he had to convince us that he had them.

and for the record, most of the democrats, including both hillary and kerry, voted for the war. they saw the same intelligence as everyone else, and believed with everyone else that the intel was correct.

again, i've never been in support of this war, but i am sick and tired of people acting like it was solely a republican agenda, when the record clearly shows that it was a bipartisan venture.

The fact that most of the Democrats voted for the war in Iraq shows more about there character rather then the quality of the intel. I have delt with the Democrats stance on the Iraq war over on PTS.
Cheers xpert11.

Originally posted by snafu7700
terrorism did not start with the war there.

Did I say terrorism didn't exist before that war?

I believe i said MORE terrorism has erupted

MORE means IN ADDITION TO what has occured in the past or IN COMPARISON to the past. In addition or in comparison to the past, the terrorism after the war started IS in fact MORE. It HAS increased. You can't ignore those numbers after the war started.

Iraq is far more unstable since we've been there than it was with Saddam in power. That's pretty pathetic.

We can argue all day, and we do, about the justification of the Iraq war. The only thing we cannot argue, is that it failed, and Iraq is in very poor shape.

Whether the war is right or wrong, the management was, is, and will probably continue to be incompetent.

It will also probably be 50 years until Iraq has the stability it did before the war. Most likely with another dictator.

believe that Iraq is too divided to embrace any other type of government other than a strong arm secular body. If capitalism is to succeed in the ME, I believe it needs to start somewhere other than Iraq. Saudi Arabia for example.

I'm sick of the whole world.

I'm ready for World War 3.

I see others are hesitant to admit we're already in World War 3.

It's only a matter of time before it really blows up though.

World War 3 will be a fight to the death. It will be a war for survival. It will be a last man standing wins type war.

So, you know what, call me what you want, but I say we get it going right now. Everybody against everybody. No allies. Just a fight to the death. All out war. Kill everybody. Blow up everything. That's the only way to solve all the world's problems. That's the only way to achieve world peace. Let's stop wasting time. Let's stop trying to lie to ourselves that it won't happen. It's not getting better before it gets worse.

Blow up the planet.

I'm in

Who's with me?

Probably nobody

well that much we agree on dick....you dont mind if i call you dick, dick?
world war III has been going for quite some time. we've just been in the skirmish phase up to now. dont think it will be too terribly long before it's an all-out war for survival.....and the US is in a bad spot right at the moment. we've got too many resources stuck in the quagmire that is iraq, surrounded on all sides by the enemy (yes, i said allsides...anyone who thinks saudi is our friend needs to take another look at the nationalities of the 9/11 terrorists). we are setting ourselves up for one helluva fall, and nobody seems to realize it. yall better start paying more attention to those "survivalist" threads.....they may save your life.

We always have another option if things get too bad with us being surrounded out there..

You know..that mushroom shaped cloud option..

Nobody likes to say the use of nuclear weapons is a good thing, but, in that situation, it would be.

All out war is just that, all out war, no boundries, no rules, no sympathy, just kill. That's what we're heading for whether all of you want to admit it or not.

And, we agree on another thing, Saudi Arabia is NOT our ally. It's quite ammusing sometimes when people claim they are our ally. What do they do for us? Sell us oil? Yeah, so does Venezuala..what's your point?

Dont be ridiculous..
civil war?

All these dead bodies being found on a daily basis are nothing but the road to a unity government...
/s


Civil war in this country is very very very bad...

do I need to over state the very badness of civil war?

Saudi's, Iranians, Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Africans, Somali's, Iraqi's..
is just one big battlefield now where old scores can be settled.

Iran is never going to allow peace in Iraq, because the longer this struggle goes on, the weaker and weaker the great satan gets.

The sooner GW Admits iraq has become such an unstable bomb that the USA has NO HOPE IN contorlling, the sooner the world will appreciate the problem and come to the regions Aid.

For so long this government has been denying the bloody obvious..

I just cant understand the logic here..
did they think it was going to subside? and there'd be no need to recognition?
did they think the public just wouldnt realise, what with the scores of bodies behind found tortured and mutilated daily?

I am just at a total loss for why Bush would lie and ignore the facts for so long...

if it was for personal gain, and his freinds corporate agenders... well... ... did they think people wouldnt think for them selves eveantually?

Civil war has definately started, and expect it to roll into Iran, Israel, Saudi and all the other regional hot spots.

[edit on 12-11-2006 by Agit8dChop]