oh crap - is that the connection - i started the thread on his birthday? glynch, you ARE so sneaky - i never would have guessed that!
Well, we all know of Sigmund's influence on women's undergarments... the Freudian Slip being his most famous, of course. People tend to overlook his invention of the under-wire bra, the curse of women everywhere going through metal detectors at airports. (my own wife kept setting one off. when it became really embarrassing, being with several staff working for her, the security people offered to take her to a room, to give her privacy while getting undressed. being the feminist my sweetie is, she shook her head, and started to unbutton her blouse in from of everyone, cursing Freud under her breath. they waved her through. must have been the double Ds.) Freud was a genius in many respects. I wish he were alive today, to delve into the madness afflicting our President. It would serve the country well, and be a boost to women's fashions. Keep D&D Civil.
(Coming in late and didn't read everything.) Our revolution against the redcoats wasn't the civil war ...it was the American Revolution. Our civil war wasn't instigated by another country or was any of the others you mentioned, IIRC. That is one difference. Had the Iraqi's revolted againsts Sadaam, that would be a true civil war. (and I'm sure we would have inappropriately supplied them w/ weapons) What is happening now is simply a power struggle left in the artificially created vacume by the American invasion. Since the Iraqi's did not have the fortitude to rise up against Sadaam, we have to assume it wasn't that bad. Therefore you should ask the families of the dead Iraqi's whether they feel like civil war is a better outcome than Sadaam's dictatorship. They are the ones that are paying the price. We don't have any legitimate insight to make such an assessment on the question you are asking.
Uh, we were part of England. We fought to break away and form our own country. In 'the' civil war one part of the country fought to break away and form their own country. If Iraq has a civil war it will probably be to break up - sound familiar. Instigated puts the emphasis on beginning. The Kurds and Shiites had both been trying to throw Saddam's yoke off for quite awhile. Artificially created vaccuum....hmmmm...more like we removed the artificial impediment to the Iraqis deciding for themselves who would rule over them. Wow. I think that is just a horrific assumption to make. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds and hundreds of thousands of Shiites died in uprisings against Saddam. To claim that the absence of open warfare (which actually existed with the Kurds, btw) from the Shiites constitutes acquiesence to Saddam's rule is just ridiculous. Certainly what the Iraqis think is important - when this is all said and done I think we'll be better able to assess this question. However, we certainly have enough 'insight' around here to criticize, without first hand experience, so I think there is enough room on the bbs to speculate.
so do you call people in america pre revolution english or americans back then? US was only a colony of england.. how does the history books call it? revolution or civil war? when was the last time they tried? maybe not much support.. lets say american revolution was a civil war comparable to iraq right now, who removed the artificial impediment to the americans or english (since you still blindly believe that its a civil war) again please give numbers on the iraqi deaths 3 years after the war (2003-2006) and 3 years before the war (2001-2003).. TIA speculation is okay but your comparisons and assumptions are flawed..
A Freudian slip is when your words betray your unconscious, but not admitted desires. i.e civil war is not a bad thing for you theorizing in your armchair 7,000 miles away. For all I know, you are somehow reevaluating the war, like tens of millions of Americans, though you would find this threatening as being "inconssistent" It could just be that as some rightwingers switch to advocating a breakup of Iraq or encouraging a civil war, so the Iraqis can slug it out among themselves, rather than against we, the purported liberators, you are going along..
IIRC they were called English. Not sure - which history book are you talking about? True - support is more of an issue than willingness. The Kurds have been in a constant state of revolt, the Shiites haven't been able to since 300,000 of them were massacred by Saddam in '91. I'm not sure why 'blindly' is appropriate. I'm certainly open to other interpretations. In the end it doesn't even really matter - I could jettison the comparison all together and the point of the thread would still be intact. But anyway, I don't think that is the comparison I am making - I am not saying the American revolution is exactly the same as the Iraqi situation. I am using that to illustrate that people do risk their lives to overthrow a despot. In our case the security apparatus of the English was NOTHING comparable to Saddam's stranglehold in Iraq. So we removed that impediment to their own decisionmaking. Oh, goodness. Read the thread. Gee. Thanks for that insight, lol. You'll have to be a bit more specific.
He's trying to get you to react in just this way! It worked!! Of course he's accusing you of cross-dressing, and of a lot of other things. I can tell you this... no way am I standing in line behind you at the airport. Your underwire bra is outlandish! Keep D&D Civil.
vlaurelio, nice responses. I won't bother to respond to each since you did such a good job. Dictionary.com specifically mentions the US Civil War and the English Civil War and neither of those references is talking about the American Revolution. I'll concede if you can demonstate ANYTHING legitmate that says the American Revolution was in fact a "civil war." I didn't say you couldn't have your opinion. I was suggesting that your opinion means a lot less than that of the Iraqi's. You gotta always keep things in perspective. Sadaams was a bad man but the genocidal events occured around 20 years ago. At the time of invasion, genocide was ongoing in Darfur so the logic that we freed Iraqi's from the tyranny of Sadaam is thin at best. Since there was not genocide occuring anytime recent when we invaded them, who are we to say they are or will be better off post war vs. pre-war. If you want to know the answer, ask an Iraqi. Asking a bunch of shmo's on a BBS doesn't give you an accurate picture. But I will say, that thousands are currently dying that would not have otherwise. I doubt THEY feel like it was worth it.
