Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Wars civil and uncivil

What we're seeing in Iraq, however, is nothing more than a bunch of angry Islamists (is there any other kind?) that think blowing up children is an acceptable form of dissent. I dunno what it should be called, but in my book it's a very uncivil war.


I think this is a great point, O in C, and I've been thinking about this ever since P-Zero kicked off our new site by pointing out

how can there be a Civil War in Iraq when you do not have two sides wearing different uniforms (blue and grey, for instance)? Gettysburg is not just a big field, you know. Our brave troops fought and died there to preserve the Union. The Liberals dishonor their memory with their specious comparisons to a Civil War in Iraq, when there is not one at all, in Iraq.


It may be that a lot of liberals are confusing the American Civil War with the Vietnam War, because of the fact that in both cases the North side attacked the South and divided the country in two. That would explain why they keep wanting to call Iraq a "quaqmire." (In reality, of course, almost none of the land in Iraq is soggy. It's physically impossible!) But has it occured to anyone to tell the liberals that you don't only need different uniforms for a civil war, you need different national anthems and a whole different currency too? The South had them. The Confederate states even had a capital! So did South Vietnam! In fact, many South Vietnamese didn't even speak the same language as the North Vietnamese. Nothing like that is happening in Iraq today. And the sooner the MSM realizes these facts, the readier they'll be to begin broadcasting the good news from Iraq.