On-line Opinion Magazine…OK, it's a blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

The Southern Insurgency

Given the definition used by the Shrubbery’s agitprop people we did not have a civil war in the United States from 1861 to 1865. It wasn’t The War Between the States or The War of Northern Aggression, it was an insurgency.

The incident at Fort Sumter wasn’t really a battle. There were only four casualties, and they were the result of an equipment malfunction, so it doesn’t count as a real battle.

Since the current Iraqi military and police units are derived from Shi’ia militias it is little difficult to discern Shi’ia on Sunni violence. This was the obvious result of Bremer’s “de-Ba’athification” program as the Ba’ath party was a Sunni organization.

Let me spare Secretary Rice the trouble of saying: “No one could have imagined an Iraqi civil war.” Yeah, right.


1 larkohio { 03.28.06 at 9:36 am }

No one could have imagined a civil war because they did not do their homework, and actually study Iraq, as a country, before they started the darn thing. If they had studied it, they would have known about the Kurds, Shites, and Sunnis, and soon deducted that if Saddam was not there, these groups, (the Kurds not so much), would be soon duking it out. My goodness, the Sunnis and Shites have been arguing and fighting about stuff since right after the death of Mohammed which was 1400 years ago!

So baloney, it is a civil war, and it became one the day that Saddam lost power!

2 Bryan { 03.28.06 at 11:30 am }

That’s right, Lark, the civil war was obviously going to occur which is why George H.W. Bush didn’t take Saddam out in the first Gulf War. Every one in the area knew this would happen, and knew that it would benefit Iran.

The Kurds are going to start a regional war if they decide to set up an independent state, as the Turks won’t allow it. Large chunks of Turkey, Syria, and Iran have majority Kurdish populations in the areas that border northern Iraq.