This was my first response to the question in this thread. It is a legit response and I stand by it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I guess it depend on how you define civil war. If you use the traditional definition - two sides having a government, territory and an army, the answer is no. But there is clearly a fight for power between groups in the country.
I supported our preemtive strike against Iraq and removing Sadaam from power. I am now at the point of believing it is time to bring our troops home. Iraqis need to get their own house in order, they need to take a more active role in defining their future. They need to decide what they are willing to fight for - good people need to take a stand against those who promote death, destruction and terrorism. I am concerned that they will forever rely on our military if they know it is available and that they will alway have an excuse by blaming America for death and destruction of Iraqi against Iraqi - Muslim against Muslim.
|
I am accused of ignoring facts or not presenting facts. I have never disputed any facts presented here, and I thought we all knew the facts that lead us to our preemptive strike against Iraq. I do take issue on the materiality of some of those facts, and how those facts should affect the future. If it is out of place to discuss the materiality of facts and the affects. I am cool with that, I can debate that stuff elsewhere.
On another note - occasionally a discussion will drift, because of a need for fundemental understanding of specific points that relate to a more general question. If we are responsible for the acts of Sadaam, then we have a greater obligation to Iraq and the prevention of civil war than if we are not responsible for his actions. To me that is very material to the question in this thread.