I don't really think that the Prime Minister makes an apt analogy. The American Civil War was caused by a progressive move against slavery and a question of whether or not states had the right to secede from the Union. The Iraqi civil war was caused by the complete dismantling of infrastructure and the reawakening of hundreds of years of religious and ethnic tensions in the area. The American Civil War was fought using traditional tactics, whereas the Iraqi Civil War is being fought with guerrilla and terrorist tactics. The American Civil War was fought between two highly organized factions, whereas the Iraqi Civil War is fought by an amalgamation of loosely related and poorly defined groups, including both nationalist and international terrorist groups (and an ineffective government and the US). I think you get a grasp of the differences.

A few more problems I have with this article:

--Nouri asserts that a century and a half after the American Civil War, Iraq was being colonized by the British and the current borders were being drawn. Apparently, he doesn't realize that a century and a half after the American Civil War would place the era of British colonization sometime around 2015, and, unless our friends from across the pond go insane, Britain won't colonize the Middle East again.

--The oil bill that is touted in the article is actually being pushed through the Iraqi Parliament by allies of the Bush Administration. It gives much of Iraq's oil to western (mainly American) companies. It casts doubt on the "we didn't go to war for the oil" line.

Nouri should learn that he should use correct analogies and understand history before he makes an appeal to the American people. Most of us are quite smart, and, if some aren't, we have wikipedia.

Rana - so as a side note, is it legal to secede from the union? Some in Vermont want to now.

Also, to become a state that is made up from another state, you must have the permision of the parent state. OK? So, during the Civil War West Virginia (who had wanted to split) broke away from Virginia. It was immediately recognized as a state. But wait. Virginia had not agreed to that.

The answer? After the war and after being accepted as a state there was an election to decide. Armed Union troops manned all of the polling stations and it was less than a "secret ballot". Great.

You may want to read up on guerilla tactics used by both sides, the shelling of civilian targets in Atlanta by Sherman, and the awful conditions in POW camps on BOTH sides. Children from military schools in the South were used in the field - a crime now. Oh, and both sides summarily executed spies (American Citizens) in the field without trial.

So maybe you should read up on using analogies.

--- looks around for a post on Bush's immigration bill disaster and the GOP rejection of his plan---

---sees nothing---

---shrugs, walks away---

Prime MInister Maliki goes on to note that the images of war, as transmitted to the United States via the news media, are not showing that underneath the spectacular and cruel attacks by the enemy, a new Iraq is emerging - an Iraq of people who are willing to fight (and die - in higher numbers than we are) for liberty; an Iraq of people who have placed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor at the service of a free Iraq.

How dare PM Maliki, who's only there all the time, slander the drive-by media. We need more objective reporting, the kind we get from that unbiased Michael Ware(sp) from that bastion of objective reporting, CNN.

Shame on Maliki--he only risks his life every day in a troubled nation...

The oil bill that is touted in the article is actually being pushed through the Iraqi Parliament by allies of the Bush Administration. It gives much of Iraq's oil to western (mainly American) companies. It casts doubt on the "we didn't go to war for the oil" line.

So, Rainman, the Russians, the Chinese, the French, and whoever else declined to help us in Iraq should be rewarded with the oil conracts? You libs amaze me, always bitching about how much this war costs us, yet you whine when we try to get a little back. Idiot.

Hi folks--keefer here, checkin' in. I'm on semi-hiatus, and I know you all miss me. I'll stop in from time to time, just to get my two cents worth, and to read the stupid post of the day from kblockhead or colon, our two resident a$$hats.

Cheers!!!

The American Civil War was fought between two highly organized factions,.....Rana

This statement is just ignorant. Our civil war was fought by boys as young as 14 years old who barely knew how to hold a weapon. The war was responsible for nearly 1 million deaths, almost 3% of the entire population. Lincoln was crucified for nearly the entire war for his mis-calculations and for the war itself. The US gov't was nearly torn apart at the seams.

You don't don't grasp anything.

A few more problems I have with this article: Rana

A few problems I have with you is your liberal arrogance in questioning Maliki's timeline, as if that is even relevant. And the notion that you seem to have a better handle on what is best for his countries oil revenues than he, or the Iraqi gov't does.

If only everyone were as ignorantly smart as a liberal, huh?

keefer, how the hell are ya?

---shrugs, walks away---Cyberactor

BYE!

As each day passes you become more and more insane Neocon.

You're trying to tell me that the Civil War wasn't fought between two highly organized factions? It doesn't matter how old their soldiers were---the fact of the matter is both the Union & the Confederacy were very organized, had their own congresses & everything. They had uniforms, ranks, etc. These weren't organized factions?

Once you return from Planet Dumbass, I'll be waiting with the scissors to cut off your blindfold.

keefer-

Well, if the Iraqis want to reward those countries with oil contracts, that's their right. It's their oil; they shouldn't be forced to give rights to their oil to anyone, despite how much the recipient has helped them in the past. The fact that the US is exerting their political influence to rush a flawed bill through the Iraqi Parliament just so we can get a piece of the oil presents a few problems to me... If this bill originated in the Iraqi Parliament, I would have no problem with it, however, it was written in large part by US oil interests... Perhaps they didn't have the best results for the Iraqis in mind...

neocon-

Yes, the two sides in the American Civil War were actually well organized... They both had capitals, Presidents, Legislatures, Laws, Generals, Colonels, wore military uniforms, and organized their armies into battalions, units, companies, platoons, and squads. Tell me, what is the capital of the Iraqi insurgency? Anbar? Bagdhad? Iraqi Kurdistan? How many factions are there fighting over there?

There is also another problem with you guys... You assume that correcting an error means that one is arrogant. If you were to assume that 1+1=5, would it be arrogant of me to tell you that 1+1=4?

lol, I meant to right 2+2=4... perhaps I should sleep more...

In 1862 large, bloody battles began, causing massive casualties as a result of incompatibility between new weapons and old battlefield tactics........Grant fought a number of bloody battles with Lee in Virginia in the summer of 1864. Lee's defensive tactics resulted in extremely high casualties for Grant's army, but Lee lost strategically overall as he could not replace his casualties and was forced to retreat into trenches around his capital,...

So uniforms and capitals are the designation of a well organized army? I thought your screed all along has been how unorganized and misdirected the Iraq war is? Well, we have uniforms and a capital, so everything must be "well organized" according to your current argument right morons?

The civil war was a bloodbath of which both of you would have folded up tents in the first couple of days.

Secondly, to correct Maliki on his "timeline" of American history is just blatantly arrogant and self important.

Colin - weren't they just two mafia families?

Kahn -- can you go one post without coming off as an arrogant dipsh*t? Nope, didn't think so.

Neocon, just because the war hasn't been managed well, does not mean that the US army isn't well organized. The fact that you can't recognize that both sides of the Civil war were HIGHLY organized pretty much proves that you don't have a shred of logic or reason in that thick skull of yours. Even when proven wrong, you continue to make claims with no evidence, that bold quote you gave...had absolutely nothing to do with the organization of both sides. Nothing at all.

Will you please admit that you were wrong now? I had the courage to admit when I was wrong during the Vietnam debate we had a while ago. Then again, it takes courage to admit when you're wrong, something you don't have a shred of.

Rana,

maybe if you could provide some factual information to back up your assertion:

so we can get a piece of the oil presents a few problems to me... If this bill originated in the Iraqi Parliament, I would have no problem with it, however, it was written in large part by US oil interests... Perhaps they didn't have the best results for the Iraqis in mind...

I would like to investigate it further. The following is what I found published this April that directly opposes your assertion.

By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
April 5 2007: 1:42 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

While Iraqi lawmakers struggle to pass an agreement on exactly who will award the contracts and how the revenue will be shared, experts say a draft version that passed the cabinet earlier this year will likely uphold agreements previously signed by those countries under Saddam Hussein's government.

colin,

My argument was not that the North and the South were unorganized, my argument is that the CIVIL WAR itself was an unorganized, free-for-all bloodbath.

Try and stay focused.

neocon - focus is bad for the liberals when debating. They need to shift the subject quickly before we can completely shred their crazy statements and arguments.

Notice how Colin has shifted to just calling me arrogant. Pitiful.

Why is Colon going on about the Civil War (War Between the States)? Everyone knows that James Buchanan destroyed the South’s weapons with pin-point bombing! It’s an historical fact that King George sold weapons to the southern colonists! I’ve seen the photo of Rummy shaking hands with Jeff Davis; no one can deny that Fort Sumter was a mafia “Gentleman’s Club” before the Unionists planted roadside bombs under the battlements.

Just admit you’re wrong, neocon so we can get back to the subject which is … uh … something about running with scissors, and blindfolds, and divergent arguments which are clearly off topic.

Kahn, Rathaven; very astute, very funny points.

Notice how the lefties have yet to address the substance of Malikis' speech, which is the Iraqis struggle to fight the minority factions within their country that are violently resisting the democratic change. And how many Iraqis aspire to what America represents.

Rather, the lefties choose to deflect and point to how absurd his analogies are, when in fact our struggle to become the country we are today was most likely a much easier process for us than it will be for them. And the left has deemed it impossible for them in just 4 years.

How benevolent they are.

Personally I think Maliki is pretty weak.
There is a reason the terrorist Mutaqda al Sadr is still running around free. That blow hard is still busy blowing up our soldiers and Maliki lets him get away with it.

Lets think about how tough Maliki is.
Can you imagine if Pres. Lincoln had fled to France before the civil war. Then after a foreign power defeated the south, he were to return and "risk' his life to lead our country?

Thats exactly what Maliki did. While other Shia's were risking there lives day in and day out living in Iraq, he was resting comfortably in Iran and then Syria.

The average shia has more respect to al-Sadr then Maliki. Thats part of the reason Maliki is ineffective and will always be.

Good points GOP. Unfortunately we don't have much choice with who we date on this adventure.

Deleted - hijacking another commenter's name, commenter banned

Here

I can also give the law in English if you would want it.

About the American Civil War (which was actually brought up by the post). Bloodbath I can agree with, and they did use new weapons with old tactics... That isn't what I was getting at... Insurgents don't wear uniforms, don't answer to any sort of government body, and only exist to oppose to democratic advancements in Iraq. Besides, I didn't say that the war itself was organized; I said that the factions involved were organized. No matter how organized a fighting force is, battle is, by definition, chaotic.

I concur whole-heartedly and also have family in the theatre. However, as tenuous as this adventure currently is, I am afraid that the removal of Maliki at this point would unalterably turn things for the worse.

Just my opinion.

Rana,

That was an interesting read, thank you for the link. However it certainly appears that the US is making every effort possible to have an arms length approach in crafting this law. As evidenced by the following excerpts:

"While we can't confirm it, there are enough reports out there that appear to indicate that undue, unfair preference and the influence of our oil companies are part of the Iraqi hydrocarbon law, and if that is true, that is not correct," says Rep. Joe Sestak (D) of Pennsylvania, a former admiral and defense adviser to the Clinton administration...

"It's very important, as we said in the [Iraq Study Group] report, that the US not be seen as trying to seek control of that oil," says Lee Hamilton, a cochairman of the Iraq Study Group. "But that will be very difficult to achieve because of the mind-set in much of the region today that we went in because of the oil.... Most of the critics will not be persuaded by any rhetoric of the US but by a law that is drafted and implemented fairly."

It is also quite evident that the Democratically controlled Congress is taking the lead on this effort, so I would assume you place 100% confidence in their ability to work out a fair and binding agreement with Iraq and the "international community". Right?

"They both had capitals, Presidents, Legislatures, Laws, Generals, Colonels, wore military uniforms, and organized their armies into battalions, units, companies, platoons, and squads. Tell me, what is the capital of the Iraqi insurgency? Anbar? Bagdhad? Iraqi Kurdistan? How many factions are there fighting over there?"

Deleted - off topic, commenter banned

By God; he's right; Iraq is not in a civil war.

Rathaven, YOU ROCK!

How did I overlook that.

ROTFLMAO

Wow... thinking that all Civil Wars are like The War Between the States just shows how how simple-minded you guys are...

And why do you guys assume that just because I hate Republicans I love Democrats? I hate both Republicans and Democrats; I just hate Republicans more than Democrats. In fact, my two least favorite Senators are Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Wow... thinking that all Civil Wars are like The War Between the States just shows how how simple-minded you guys are...

Oh c'mon now Rana. You have to admit that was funny and the door was left wide open for that comment.

Rathaven simply carpe diem.

The following is a recent post form one the most dishonest bloggers out there; Andrew Sullivan with the Daily Dish.

The Lies Of Tony Snow
13 Jun 2007 04:32 pm

Yes, they're lies - repeated and knowing recitation of an untruth:

Are you saying that detaining people who are plucked off the battlefields is an assault on democracy? Are you kidding me? You’re talking about the people who were responsible for supporting the Taliban, somehow detaining them is an assault on democracy?

Scott Horton reminds Snow of reality:

The battlefield that Al-Marri was "plucked off of" was an apartment complex in West Peoria, Illinois, where he had been living, under constant observation, for many months.
The battlefield is your living room. And King George can enter, arrest, and torture at any time. This, one recalls, is what the first Americans defined themselves as opposed to. Two centuries from freedom to despotism.

Now here's some information on Mr. Al-Marri:

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a citizen of Qatar who was arrested while studying at Bradley University in the United States.[1]

Al-Marri was arrested in December 2001 and held in civilian jails in Peoria, Illinois, and New York City as a material witness.

His brother, Jarallah al-Marri, was captured in January 2002 and transported to military detention at United States Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

In 2002, Ali was charged with financial crimes.[1] Al-Marri was charged with opening bank accounts with inadequate or forged identity documents.

Evidence has been disclosed that al-Marri was in possession of a telephone card that was previously used to call a number in Dubai linked to the reputed Al Qaeda finacier, Mustafa al-Hawsawi. After searching al-Marri's computer, a folder was found labeled "jihad arena", which according to the government, contained information on hydrogen cyanide, a poisonous gas used in chemical weapons, along with lectures by Osama bin Laden and a cartoon of planes crashing into the World Trade Center.

And they wonder why we despise the left!

The birth pangs of democracy in an area which has known very little of liberty over the course of 6,000 years is bound to be a painful experience.

Birth pangs? This is a back alley botched abortion of the 1950s and 60s. Republican talk of trusting what Maliki says vs U.S media is foolish. These people are insane, face it. We need to get our troops out of there. They will still want us to buy their oil.

Look at Iran. We get rid of their arch enemies the Taliban and Sadaam. And exactly how do these people thank us? They arm Iraqis and other foreigners to shoot our troops in the back.

Kahn -- can you go one post without coming off as an arrogant dipsh*t? Nope, didn't think so.

Colon, can you go one post without being an a$$hole? Of course you can't; that's why I call you "Colon..."

Colon, stop being a stupid a$$hole...

keefer, and all because I refuse to forget he thinks the Army and the mafia are the same.

plane,

Is your attitude based upon a racist hatred of Arabs, or a bigoted attitude towards Moslems?

Go read a book on the Civil War. Is a was mess. They had no communication other that humans on horses. Nobody knew where anybody was at any time. You libs arguing otherwise really shows how ignorant you truely are. Let me guess, if neocon says anything, you gotta argue it, right? Even if you don't know what your talking about? Morons.

Welcome back keefer!! We missed your hilarious comments on our resident leftists. Don't be a stranger my friend!

Posted by Mark Noonan at June 13, 2007 09:15 AM

Wow, Mark. That was really good. I wholeheartedly agree!

Is your attitude based upon a racist hatred of Arabs, or a bigoted attitude towards Moslems?

Posted by: Mark Noonan at June 14, 2007 12:18 AM

Good try Mark with the bigot angle. Fact is attitude is based on watching Israel struggle for forty years and now after six years of a misguided Iraq war with no end in site it is clear to me America as a Christian nation with its baseball, soccer and apple pie does not have a clue as to what makes this part of the world tick. And it is getting crazier with the arming of Sunnis with modern weapons and to have them sign a pledge they will only use them on only on Al Qaeda.

Mark it is you, a non Arab and non Moslem that is an elitist to think you know what is best for them.