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.

Don't listen to retired Generals, unless they are bashing Bush. Then they are completely credible.

Despite worsening violence in Iraq, the war-torn nation has not erupted into civil war because most of the bloodshed is sectarian-generated in and around Baghdad, said retired Gen. Carl Stiner. Stiner, a former four-star general in charge of the U.S. Special Operations Command who continues to work for the Pentagon, said Wednesday that much of the killing is Shiite against Sunni in a barrage of shootings, car bombs and suicide bombings all within the past few days. "All of this has been concentrated in Baghdad, the seat of government. It is a mixture of Shiite and Sunni, with jihadists and criminals, which is a bad combination," Stiner said. "But I do not think this is civil war. The new government is in charge. This is a complex situation with the extremists trying to make it as difficult as possible for the new government," he said. The majority of Iraqis do not support what is going on now, Stiner added. "They want their freedom, and there are others who don't want them to have freedom and to see a democratic nation in that part of the world." Stiner said he believes the Iraqi government is "making good progress in conjunction with the new Iraqi army." "We are performing combined operations right now and the Iraqi army has some units now that are doing good work and able to defend themselves," he said. American military advisers are with those units, Stiner said, and are working the operations with their Iraqi counterparts. The insurgency, he said, continues to receive help from Syria and Iran, which allow passage through their borders into Iraq. "The American people still have not come to understand that this is a long, complex war," he said. "It is unlike any war we have ever fought. If you look around the world, just (Tuesday) there were many people killed in India with the train explosions. "This threat is not going to go away based on wishful thinking. We have got to hang in there with our allies who are helping us. This is a long war, and we need to understand that."

OUR invasion was to establish a peaceful democratic Iraq. WHERE IS THAT PLACE?

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....

The fact of the matter is that the USA invaded a country and imposed its military on the country and encouraged a section of the Iraqi population against another, the Shiaas against the Sunnis and the net result is violence that has careened out of control. And what is Bush and the Bushmen doing except issuing statement s that a great Dawn of Freedom is at hand. It is that absurdity thast is at stake here.

The violence BEFORE we invaded was created by Saddam who attacked anyone that opposed him. Now the violence is between the factions that were kept in check under Saddam. The death and destruction is the same. OUR POLICY has killed over 2,500 Americans, Injured about 35,000 more and will end up costing a Trillion dollars we BORROWED to exchange one type of killing for another type of killing. Great POLICY King George!!!!!

A lesson in history Col: Saddam was a pet of the USA and during the days of Reagan and well into the days of the regime of George I Saddam was an American stooge in the region. Have you forgotten that when he invaded Iran on US prodding it was the USA thast supplied hom weapons and even chemicals for use in chemical weapons. The US regimes afetr the Iran Iraq War were quite happhy to let Saddam Hussein slaughter his own as long as it suited American interests. Thje mistake he made was to invade Kuwait and even here there is some evidence that the Americns hoped that there would be no furoe in the Arab world. The US administrations are quite complicit in the policies of Saddam Hussein and by demonising him today the guilt of the past cannot be wiped clean.

OUR invasion was to establish a peaceful democratic Iraq. WHERE IS THAT PLACE?

It's getting there col. I guess you believe in the liberal motto, if it's not perfect, it's just not worth it. If people like you would put half the energy into helping instead of obsessing over Bush, everything would be better. Now go write another useless article about Bush.

Have you forgotten that when he invaded Iran on US prodding it was the USA thast supplied hom weapons and even chemicals for use in chemical weapons.

How many times do I have to prove that you are wrong? That is one of biggest lies around. I have showed countries like France and Russia were the biggest suppliers of weapons to Iraq.

No wonder you are the ONLY person here that agrees with col. Both of your rely on bs and factless allegations.

{links:30