"All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?" (Fox News)

I wouldn’t have believed it if I wasn’t looking at it. Hell, I’m not sure I believe it, while I’m staring right at it.

What alternate universe do they live in, where this is even an interesting ‘devil’s advocate’ position?

’ “Upside” to civil war? ', indeed. Maybe we should relocate the offices of Fox News to the middle of Baghdad, so they can find out for themselves.

Final proof, if you needed it, that the far right wing of America is officially insane.

well it appears to be official then, the “cut and run” option is back on the table.

This is going to be an interesting one for people to defend. I suspect Martin Hyde may be along with his “compassion and empathy are not virtues” argument.

What disturbs me most about this is that i’m not that surprised - apperently i’ve come to accept that Fox would say things like this.

What exactly are their arguments for it being potentially good?

Dunno on the show, but this is one of the comments from the OP’s linked webpage:

Goddam left wing media nuts.

Several of us raised the question of civil war, and were pretty much told it was just left leaning, America hating, unpatriotic, blahblahmeeblemeeble. Now, it seems the ones who were so in favor of “staying the course” are latching onto a spin that it is a good thing (?). How can anyone seriously listen to these guys anymore?

Because to admit this whole thing is going down the tubes is to find some(or a massive amount of) fault with the way the adminstration had handled this whole thing.

And there are still people who refuse to do it, because it will prove the “unpatriotic Saddam-Huggers” correct.

Hey if a civil war in Iraq is good, then a global thermonucular battle between the USA and China would be even better. I mean, it’s gonna happen sooner or later, so let’s do it now and start the rebuilding process.

But they have too many protective mineshafts! Their is a mineshaft gap!

Wouldn’t you perfer a nice game of chess? :wink:

America had a civil war. Britain had a civil war. France had a civil war. Germany? I dunno, but if it has to do with war, they probably had 2 or 3. Italy just recently stopped having civil wars. Russia had a civil war. China had a civil war, though the Japanese ruined that party for a while. If Iraq does have a proper civil war, it just means they are all grown up, and are ready to take their place among modern industrialized nations.

Or maybe not?

This is edging really, really close to either a “kill them all and let God decide” or a literal interpretation of Darwinism.

Not entirely happy with the idea that survival of the fittest should be re-interpreted as a good idea for the middle east!

This from ETF’s post:
"I have said for a long time that the countries of the Middle East need to fight it out amongst themselves. **The borders are unnatural. They were created from an imperialist power to keep control of the region afterwards. *Until the peoples of the Middle East determine their own destinies, there will always be friction amongst the factions."

<bolding mine>

I’m not here to engage in a fight as time is limited; I just wanted to point this out as it sounds like another “blame America” (or at least blame a western alliance) statement which intimates that Middle East strife is the result of the realignment of the area that occurred after WWII. I would just like to point out that the people in that region have been fighting each other since before the time of Jesus (or for more than two thousand years, if you’re so predisposed). :wink:

I would point out to irishgirl also that “kill 'em all and let God sort it out” is pretty much the path that they’re on already. I don’t believe this sort of attitude is nearly as prevalent on the part of the West as it has been in the Middle East itself for centuries. The scary part is that now WMDs give them the ability (or else it will shortly) to actually carry it out.

I’ve always felt that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. should have entered into a pact shortly after WWII that forbade other countries from developing nuclear weapons. (Unfortunately, the Russians were more than willing to sell this technology to the highest bidder – and of course we had to counter accordingly – so the point is probably moot.) Still, the power to cause mass destruction is finally coming to fruition in the Middle East and I see very little to stand in the way of its use once it does.

Never in my lifetime have I seen such huge percentages of a given nation’s populace so happy, eager and willing to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of their loved ones as long as it means they can kill their enemies in the process. “Kill 'em all and let God sort it out” may very well be the ultimate occurrance over there no matter what anybody else does.

I would just like to point out that the people of Europe have been fighting each other since before the time of Jesus, but that were allowed for the most part to define their own borders. Not perfect, but better than, say the Mongols, coming in and imposing their own borders.

You’re going to have to clarify who you’re talking about; this could apply equally to the Shias, the Sunnis, or several posters who still think our Iraq adventure was a good idea.

Or, “I want to post inflammatory shit without being expected to defend it.”


You should at least get your history straight: Iraq’s present boundaries were drawn just after the First World War.

I also think it’s kinda pointless of you to attack a post on a blog somewhere else that ETF posted in hopes that it would shed some motivation on what Fox News’ commentators had in mind. It’s not like anyone’s here to defend that post, and there’s no evidence that that post is representative of any larger group’s outlook.

And this makes them different from those of us of European descent how?

The thing is, in the absence of WMDs, the surviving public argument for the legitimacy of our invasion is that our invasion was a humanitarian intervention. As SteveG1 points out, lots of us, writing in the run-up to war, could see the potential for the deposing of Saddam leading to an Iraqi civil war. And the history of Sunni-Shiite strife and Arab-Kurd strife gave us plenty of reason to expect such an outcome. We figured that while Saddam (being the thug he was) was undoubtedly killing a few thousand Iraqis every year, Iraqis just might kill each other a lot faster than that if he was out of the way.

Given that people like you, trying to justify the war, were ridiculing such arguments back then, it’s silly for you to use 'em now. Of course they’ve been killing each other for a long time. That’s why the invasion was a bad idea from a humanitarian standpoint.

They weren’t on that path three years ago. We enabled it to happen.

Since they didn’t have WMDs before we invaded, exactly whose fault is that? Sheesh.

Actually, there was such a pact, and technically still is. It also includes Britain, France, and China as nuclear powers, but same basic idea. It’s called the Nonproliferation Treaty, and has 187 signatories.

But of course, our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with that.

We broke it, then we blame the victim. Seems to be the right-wing meme that crops up every time things start looking bad over there. :rolleyes:

The point is, in most regions of the world, peace reigns among neighboring nations. Regardless of how many times countries such as France and England have been at war, no current conflict is taking place wherein one country is determined to conquer the other and force it to accept the ways of life of the aggressor country. France and Italy are not engaged in such a conflict; Germany and Sweden are not; Mexico, Chili and Argentina are not; etc., etc.,…virtually all over the globe. Even the nations of Africa aren’t nearly as disputatious and committed to the absolute destruction of their neighbors as is the case in the Middle East.

There is no other region in the world in which so many neighboring countries are continually at odds with one another and determined to conquer or destroy one another as is the case in the Middle East. I don’t know why this is and frankly I don’t care – if thousands of years of conflict haven’t resolved the situation over there, I doubt there’s any insight I could gain that would make much of a difference.

But the point remains, these countries are acquiring nuclear weaponry and in my opinion, unless some outside source imposes its will by dint of force to prevent it (and undoubtedly resulting in great anguish, hand-wringing and condemnation on the part of those who would claim that no such country has the right to do so) “kill 'em all and let God sort it out” is going to be the ultimate result – and we won’t be the ones who will do it; it’ll come from within the region itself.

In both cases, we aren’t really talking about nations, we are talking about ethnic divisions that transcend borders. So you have that ‘out’ going for you. Other than that, you are… well, I’ll be nice and just say misinformed.