Is the Bush Administration spreading Democracy or Civil War in the Middle East?
105186
Here are some of the justifications for invading Irak:\n\nThreat From Saddam Hussein \nIraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction \nTerrorism and Terrorist Links \nHuman Rights Abuses \nIraq's Oil \nSpreading Democracy In the Middle East \nIraq's United Nation Security Council Resolution \nViolations Preemption \nIntelligence \n\nAll of them have been proven worng.  All of them were excuses made by the Bush administration.\n\nWhen Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, says, "It was a serious crisis. I believe that Iraq came to the brink and came back," the swiftness of his prognosis sounds like little more than wishful thinking. Less than a week after an event that has already resulted in 1,300 deaths, it seems way too early to be declaring that Iraq has clearly pulled back from the brink of civil war. Moreover, when US military spokesman, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, says, "The violence did not escalate, because of the measures [the Iraqi government] took. We had forces standing by if needed. Fortunately, that need wasn't realized," he is exaggerating the influence of elected officials, overestimating the capabilities of Iraqi and US forces, and minimizing the role of clerics in controlling the violence. While the US military and Iraqi government clearly want to sustain the impression that they have everything under control, a much more credible view of the situation comes from Capt. Gregory Stone, who said, "It felt -- at times -- like someone else's war."\n\nThe short answer is yes, civil war is the result of the Bush administration intervention in the Middle East.  But that's exactly what they expect.
985361
In light of Bush's insistence that we should stay the course it seems plausible that the USA also conducted sectarian bombings to drum up domestic support for a bogus 'war'.\n\nSaddam understood what some cannot  - that  democracy is almost impossible to achieve in 'tribal' nations.  Military rule is the most effective.  Something that Bush, as commander in chief,  should have known. \n\nI think he deliberated went in to cause civil strive but not a full blown war as a distraction from and justification of his true intent - control of the oil fields.  \n\nThen he tried to control the escalation of discord and with the cooperation of the media hide it from the American public. \n\nNow we know but we still don't grasp the full extent of what this man did to the Middle East and more importantly -  world stability.\n\nAnd no, I'm not paranoid - I'm analyzing.
687100
I'm sure there will be several posts to suggest that the recent violence in Iraq this month, and certainly during April, are evidence of a brewing civil war in Iraq, but the reality based upon fact, is simply not there.\n\nSati al-Husri, considered the 'father of modern Iraq,' purported before his death that there would be struggles within the frame of the Iraqi State because of the religious factions existing within her borders.  This is a fundamental issue, and the West has come to recognize it all too well.  \n\nHowever, despite Iraq's cultural/religious inequity, Sati taught his children and grandchildren, that Sunni Muslims of which sect he belonged, could equally coexist with the Shi'a and Kurds. There was no conflict in his family's inner circle.  He proved that enlightened intellectual thought could countermand extremist ideology without compromising religious piety.\n\nBut although al-Husri's ideas are easy to agree with, especially from a Western point of view, they are not so easy to implement, especially in the current climate of terrorism.\n\nThe underpinning to all of the conflict in Iraq is not a brewing civil war among its Muslim factions, but rather an insurgency that cannot see the value of peace in the Middle East.  They tend to look through their extremist eyes with a 'jihadi' philosophy.  The insurgents will attempt to insight the Iraqi people into warring with each other.  This is not for the gain of the Iraqi people; it merely creates the atmosphere of unsettled violence for them. And the insurgents could care less about an Iraqi unified state either. Instead, they want their terrorist agenda to move forward...at all costs.\n\nTo that end, they will foment unrest, spatter the media with words of 'Civil War,' and create a masterful stroke of using the West against itself.  Fortunately, the Iraqi people are resolved to follow Sati al-Husri's example:  Freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of commerce are the seeds to grow an independent state.  Violence and terrorism have no place in such a united country.  Democracy is the manifold weapon against al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, and the insurgents simply can't stand it.\n\nAs to the $4.00 gallon of gas, I doubt this will come to fruition, much as the media seems to hope it will.  We cannot discount those politicians who have a stake in the November elections either.  They seem to throw out this vague threat as though it were a weapon.\n\nThere is no doubt that we may come close to the mark in some sections of the country, especially over the summer months. But Americans in general will not accept this increase, and the government knows it.  So do the oil companies and our allies producing oil.  It is not in their best interests to price themselves out of the market.  There will likely be caps before the $4.00 per gallon rate is reached.  After all, once again, this is an election year.  Politicos have a reason to make sure the voters are looking at their names with favor. The first place the voter’s feel the pressure of Washington is at the pump.  You may be assured that the first place Washington will compromise is also at the pump.
54059
We are in a global war on Terror. \nWe are taking action.  \n\nUnfortunately our president thought it was best to "Sell" this war piecemeal "war in Iraq, followed by war in Afghanistan" etc.\n\nHad he been more forthcoming, more people would be in support. \n\nThe truth is: we are in a global war on terror that will last decades or until every Islamic country has a stable government that can police their own fringe radicals.\n\nIt needs to be done, and it is being done.\n\nThough I'm not so sure it is being done the right way.  I'm a bit more cynical.  \n\nI say:\n\nInstall friendly dictators in every nation that poses a risk (They know how to deal with these problems) Democracy is beyond the abilities of most of the populations we're talking about.\n\nDevelop an alternative form of Energy and embargo all mid-east oil.\n\nGive Israel free reign to defend themselves as they see fit. \n\nYou'll see a mid-east that begs for our presence, our moderating effect on Israel and our $$ !
882804
There is definately the possibility of 3 civil wars in the Middle East, but that is not the only problem, there also threatens a number of international confrontations. King Abdullah II is a very well informed man, much more so than any of the Western leaders could hope for, and his being in the region is a big help as well. \n\nThe three civil wars to which he refers all unfortunetly would be unlikely to remain civil wars if they were to begin. \n\nA civil war in Iraq would involve, short of a massive shift in policy, the US and most of the rest of the coalition. In addition, it is likely that in some aspect Iran and Iraqs other neighbours (Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and Kuwait) would have an involvment as all have vested interests in the outcome a civil war. Be they religious, economic, militarily or otherwise.\n\nPalestine errupting into civil war between Hamas and Fatah would almost guarantee levels of involvement from Israel (and probably the US), which would then draw in Hezbollah and its patrons (primarily Iran and Syria), which would in turn open the conflict up to virtually all the Middle East.\n\nAnd if Lebannon were to fall into civil war btw Hezbollah and the ruling govt then Israel would almost certainly seize its chance to attack Hezbollah, which would then bring Hamas in on the side of Hezbollah and it would spiral from there.\n\nAll three possible conflicts are inextricably linked. there is the real and plausable possibility that if one were to happen then the rest would domino into chaos as well. The other unfortunate side effect is that as each would involve outside influences and parties, it would no doubt become more than just a civil war.
538207
It doesn't.  President Bush just claims it does, to get a reason to get suspicious about Iraqis and Arabs.  Any wrong word, even though it's a free country, the president will get suspicious.  And, there's no way of knowing if the system will be abused, the president has already lied to us enough.
696213
Unfortunately there is not definition for Civil War in any Military Dictionary in the United States, and the CIA won't say because the information is classified. Experts say that due to the level of violence, the death toll and the way the Country is splitting up, it has already reached civil war status. The death toll has exceeded that of a number of civil wars in recent history although I can't remember which ones. Other experts say that if it isn't a civil war than it is much worse because instead of just two groups fighting there is fighting between the Sunni's and Shittes, different groups of Shiites fighting each other as well as Kurds fighting the Arabs. So to answer your question, our Republican Government will never admit it's in civil war until they are out of office and can blame it on the Democrats because there is no definite definition of what classifies a Civil War. But what is clear is that it is a terrible situation that could have been avoided had we had responsible people running our Government.
319728
The Arab world See's the US as the big evil and Israel as the little evil.  The US has favorable foreign policy to Israel over the Arab world.  People say that they are our puppets.
46782
I think you mean: what is the general view of people in the islamic Middle East of the USA (America for me is the continent from Alaska to Chile). I haven't been in the Middle East myself, but if you look at the news, I think this is the picture they give:\nMedias are very hostile towards Israel, like many governments. And as Israels strongest supporter, the USA will be identified with a negative position. But I also see that the protests are directed against the government of the USA, not the people as such. And that even Bush was elected twice.\nMany Middle East government are corrupt, tyrannic, despotic, and those regimes normally got to have an outer enemy to keep people down. \nBut many some Middle East expert can teach you better.
600416
Bush administration is following wrong policies.\nThey may not be on a crusade but all their present targets are unfortunately Muslims who are rich in natural resources but far behind in technology, hence an easy prey.\nIn the ultimate analysis/conclusion USA will never win since their stance is based on in-justice, inequality and double standards.
844158
There are a great number of ways that the Bush Administration could mishandle the Iraq conflict even more. Here are just a few:\n*Declare war on Iran as well\n*Use Nuclear weapons (tactical or otherwise)\n*Use chemical weapons\n*Remove all troops imediately without training the Iraqis first\n*Get Israels help in Iraq\n*Inflame the Sunni/Shia divide even more\n*impose some form of govt that will not work (like a traditional democratic govt)\n*Refuse to accept advice from people with half a clue of what is going on.\n\nThere are just a few of the many ways that this situation could get worse, now lets just hope that it doesn't...
455851
world domination, Bush Administration
91581
NO!!! This is the same evidence I have used in recent months for reasons NOT to support the Iraq War. It gets worse friend.\nIt seems that America's continued interest in Iraq may have sparked a civil war for the "democratic" powers of the Iraq country. Now, America must spend billions more in building a better Iraqi military to avert any new war. This event continues to return again and again for the US.\n\nLet's recall:\n\n1) The rebellion of US military forces in Mexico during the early 20th century.\n\n2) The resistance of American diplomacy in the Phillipines in 1898. (Imperialism)\n\n3)The disaster in Vietnam during the Nixon administration.\n\nThe results always ends with American taxpayers paying for the problems that a Republican administration makes and the Democratic Party's occupancy in the White House. \n\nSomehow (probably in 2009) America will once again fix the problems that are prevalent now. But, our next problem will be Venezuela as it continues to be a nuissance to our sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere. Just call this the Neverending Story.
165693
No, I thnk the US is behaving like the Roman Empire and I believe we will suffer the same fate Rome did in 456 A.D.\n\nThis war is a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.\nHas to be about oil - self aggrandizement, will-to-power, and money. I do not support Bush's Crusade. Never did.
702393
Yes, Iraq is in the civil war now.
485183
Iraq is in a civil war.  The United States does not need to declare it for it to be true.
671224
While not all terrorism emanates from the Middle East, the way things are today, the majority of it does.  \n\nAutocratic regimes (dictators, presidents for life, etc.) tend to breed poverty, dissent, and violence.\n\nIraq was not only brutal to its own people, but was providing itself as a staging area for terrorism.\n\nDemocracies do not attack each other.\n\nSo the United States gains:\n\n1.  The loss of a staging area for the terrorists\n\n2.  A democracy in an area without one\n\n3.  Possibly, the impetus to get the peoples of the surrounding countries to demand democracy for themselves