Civil war in Iraq

[mjairlax]

ever since this happened the news reports are saying that civil war is unavoidable. Personally I agree its 2 hours before the first prayer starts so if the Imams' say to fight the muslims will fight of if they ask for peace there will be peace but peace is unlikely

[animehater]

Will it lead to civi lwar in islam itself?

[adamsaysmoesgay]

hopefully not. Im pretty pissed off about this thing as well, but not stupid enought to think that a civil war would be a good thing.

[Shagge]

You guys are fucking stupid. The war in Iraq is partly a civil war also. The groups that operate within Iraw contain Iraqi citizens, and are clearly a group (I am not making a connection between them and Al Queda). And there are some Iraqi troops operating at the moment, so technically it is a civil war.

lolopinion

[MagicalPJ]

It's certainly a possibility. It's about the worst thing that could happen right now.

[MagicalPJ]

At 2/23/06 08:48 PM, Traced wrote: You guys are fucking stupid. The war in Iraq is partly a civil war also. The groups that operate within Iraw contain Iraqi citizens, and are clearly a group (I am not making a connection between them and Al Queda). And there are some Iraqi troops operating at the moment, so technically it is a civil war.

lolopinion

I'll agree with you to an extent. There are some Iraquis in the insurgency. However, it's largely foreigners. What we're talking about is full-blown civil war, which is NOT what's going on right now. Things are bad enough as it is, you throw in an actual civil war and things will get really ugly.

[Gunter45]

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. The current government that is in place was set up by the US, so yeah, a civil war seems pretty standard. Of course, the region is incredibly unstable anyway. I mean, there's all kinds of hostility in Iraq, I think there will be a civil war when we leave. If not right when we leave, then a few months afterwards.

[King-Christov]

You guys are fucking stupid. The war in Iraq is partly a civil war also. The groups that operate within Iraw contain Iraqi citizens, and are clearly a group (I am not making a connection between them and Al Queda). And there are some Iraqi troops operating at the moment, so technically it is a civil war.

dude... the sunnis and the shi'ites are against eachother over stupid things there was going to be a civil war probally if we didnt go in there. but the shi'ites would have lost the civil war because if we hadn't gone in there saddam would be the dictator still and he was a sunnis. al queda is just some random terrorist group. nothing really to do with iraq so i really dont even know why your saying that. and some iraqi troops at the moment operating???? omg... they are against the united states. not against themselves. a civil war is when one country fights itself. in this case its the two branches of islam. sunnis and shi'ites. god dude learn your facts. you just put a bunch of random words togehter and called it an idea. and your calling them stupid???? HA!!!you really make me laugh. your acting like a 12 year old would.

[rescuer]

stupid decision

[PharaohRamsesII]

There would have been no civil war if the USA never would have gone into Iraq.
Saddam stopped anyone who tried to disturb the peace, he created a country where Sunnis and Shiites could co-exist. Granted he did to some pretty messed up things, but Iraq was a lot better off stability wise with Saddam in power.

[darkfiretime1]

It was a hell of alot better off. With us going in there, no end will come to the grief. We havent even seen the shit hit the fan over there yet, but when it does, its going to be bad.

[JudgeDredd]

At 2/24/06 04:17 AM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: There would have been no civil war if the USA never would have gone into Iraq.
Saddam stopped anyone who tried to disturb the peace, he created a country where Sunnis and Shiites could co-exist. Granted he did to some pretty messed up things, but Iraq was a lot better off stability wise with Saddam in power.

Totally agree. This was well understood before the war started. It's chiefly why a lot of countries don't want anything to do with the Iraq invasion.

"You can lead a camel to an oasis, but you can't make it drink from a mirage" - Dredd.

[MutantPyroZombies]

I don't think this is just a civil war, i thing it could get much worse. The hate that is going around right now is huge and if war really breaks out, it won't be just in iraq. All the other middle-eastern countries will end up aiding one side or another depending on what type of musslims are dominent in that piticular country. The civil war would turn into a war between the two branches that could spread worldwide.

[darklad]

At 2/24/06 07:09 PM, Tal-con wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. You're funny. Ya, there was absolutely no oppression by the sunni minority under Saddam's rule. Spare me.

yeah there wasn't, there was the oppresion of saddams family, not the sunni's, common error. About all the goverment was made up of people who are related to saddam, that were sunni's but were not appionted because of that. Saddam even removed family names so their wouldn't be any tribal wars.

[MarkyX]

At 2/24/06 04:17 AM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: There would have been no civil war if the USA never would have gone into Iraq.

We are not sure if this is going truly lead civil war to Iraq. For all we know, it might lead to Iraq splitting into several countries. It just might happen and it might be better, or worse.

Saddam stopped anyone who tried to disturb the peace, he created a country where Sunnis and Shiites could co-exist.

Pfft, sunnis were opressed and Saddamn was nothing more then a crazy dictator. He had several copies of himself and several palaces, held one-party elections, and many of his people were either starved to death or tortured. I've seen the Saddam torture videos where people were blindfolded then their hands get cut off or heads chopped off. Or iraqis tied on poles and shot to death or put into pits with explosives planted.

I would link to these videos, but I will be probably breaking the rules doing that. I got banned from one political forum already.

Granted he did to some pretty messed up things, but Iraq was a lot better off stability wise with Saddam in power.

If stability wise you mean "lots of people dying due to saddam's hitmen or starving to death". There were a few human qualities of Saddamn, for example the man like romance stories and even tried to write one, although many local writers thought he was bad (but never mentioned it due to concerned of being killed)

However, just remember that a good 60% of iraqis voted, meaning that there is probably another chuck that don't care much for democracy but rather live peaceful lives, then the small minority that are dumb enough to believe killing americans is going to make them go away faster.

Good thing that those who rebel against the new system are turning their guns toward the foreign invaders now, so at least we know that they aren't just pissed off at the states, but love their country as well. I guarantee you that many soldiers probably do want to leave iraq, but they are only going to leave if the place is secure, and causing more explosives and car bombs does not make that work.

[x-Toadenalin-x]

At 2/25/06 07:49 AM, MarkyX wrote:

Granted he did to some pretty messed up things, but Iraq was a lot better off stability wise with Saddam in power.

If stability wise you mean "lots of people dying due to saddam's hitmen or starving to death".

No, he means 'stability' as in 'stable' as in 'no rioting, car bombings and Sunni-Shi'ite violence'. For all its faults, Nazi Germany was extremely stable. You can't say pre-war Iraq was unstable without some kind of evidence other than "Bu-bu-but Saddam was a bad man!"

However, just remember that a good 60% of iraqis voted, meaning that there is probably another chuck that don't care much for democracy but rather live peaceful lives, then the small minority that are dumb enough to believe killing americans is going to make them go away faster.

Just because people vote does not mean the country is stable. More importantly, that vote was a year ago, and the country is only spiralling into a civil war recently.

[callofdutyfreak]

ok, yes Iraq was stable... IN SOUTHER IRAQ! in the north, sadam's soldiers were systematically wiping out the kurds, with wmds . yes, he had them for all of you who don' t think so. He gassed his own people like crazy.