Rumsfeld says potential exists for Iraq civil war

[sabra]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07377711.htm

Rumsfeld says potential exists for Iraq civil war


WASHINGTON, March 7 (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday there has always been a risk Iraq could slip into a civil war but he accused the news media of exaggerating the severity of the current situation.

"I do not believe they're in a civil war today," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon briefing. "There's always been a potential for a civil war. That country was held together through a repressive regime that put hundreds of thousands of human beings into mass graves."

"It was held together not by a constitution, not by a piece of paper, not by respect for your fellow citizens of different religious faiths. But it was held together through force and viciousness," Rumsfeld added.

...

"From what I've seen thus far, much of the reporting in the U.S. and aboard has exaggerated the situation," Rumsfeld said.

[tatertop]

1. Out of Iraq, into Iran

[havocmom]

2. Well, if HE says so... must be true now.

:eyes: The man is so not in control.

[savemefromdumbya]

3. Rumsfeld made it worse

this incompetent fool should be fired forthwith

[liberal N proud]

4. Not today maybe yesterday but not today, maybe tomorrow

There is potential and maybe there isn't
held together through force and viciousness LOL!

Tell me rummy, when will you determine if they are at civil war? NEVER?

[underpants]

5. Stop living in the past Rummy they and we need to know what you are

going to do about it.

That being said-does anyone take him seriously anymore?

[yellowcanine]

6. Proly just the "last throes" of a civil war. Not to worry.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. that's like saying in 1873, that a US civil war might lead to casualties.

"assclown" is the perfect term for Rummie.

[Mithras61]

8. Hey Rumfillled... here's a definition for you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

A civil war is a war in which the parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).

Looks to me like a civil war using the first sentence and the last sentence as a definition. The remainder is mostly qualifications which may or may not apply depending on the specific conflict.

[rodeodance]

13. i will take this definition

....Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).

[Mithras61]

15. I agree, but was including the first sentence...

to state up front that it is usually an internal conflict for political control of the state, not one involving external parties (for example, when Allies fought Germans in Luxembourg in WWII, it was not "internal").

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

9. yep, that's rumnmy for ya... first to go, last to know

[KurtNYC]

10. Yes and "potential exists for sun to rise tomorrow morning"

He is only 3 years too late with this.

[rodeodance]

11. yes, rummy and you just could not imagine that this might happen (pre-

war)--you conjured up cake and roses------now eat your 'cake"

...."It was held together not by a constitution, not by a piece of paper, not by respect for your fellow citizens of different religious faiths. But it was held together through force and viciousness," Rumsfeld added.

[rodeodance]

12. but Rummy--your RW buddies have said--Would it be so bad? (Fox)

...."From what I've seen thus far, much of the reporting in the U.S. and aboard has exaggerated the situation," Rumsfeld said.

[Massachusetts]

14. Rumsfeld says potential exists for Iraq civil war

INFAM (Ignorance Not Funny AnyMore)

[brooklynite]

16. I guess he "wouldn't put a smiley face on it"...

I wouldn't put a great big smiley face on it, but I'd say they're going well General Peter Pace (3/5/06)

[Amonester]

17. The "2302 " credibility "gap" in Rumsfailed's war criminal mind...

http://icasualties.org/oif

2302 (+??) :cry: :grr: :mad:

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Out of touch, out of (over)sight, out of mind...

[coalition_unwilling]

20. "There are things that we don't know that we don't know . . .

those are the unknown unknowns."

I wonder into which philosophical school to place Rumsferatu as an epistemologist. Suggestions?

[megatherium]

18. Not "civil war." Instead, "the present unpleasantness between

the provinces."

[rman]

19. what are they going to do? fight one another -and- fight the invaders?

somehow that doesn't make sense.

[Up2Late]

21. "I do not believe they're in a civil war today..." This from the guy...

...who also doesn't think what we are doing to the "enemy combatants" the we are holding is illegal and that it is not torture either. :banghead: :grr: