You are wasting you time and effort trying to communicate with Ken.
He has shown everyone on many occasions that he does not have the mental capacity to absorb reason , logic or plain old common sense. I got a laugh when he said he was an American, All I have ever seen him say is to run America into the ground in favor of terrorists, dictators, killers and every other despot in the entire world.

Ken just don't get it and is still whining and crying over the 2000 and 2004 election results.

He will go absoloutly insane after the 2008 election.

...many Shiites lashed out at the United States as partly to blame.
Huh? The United States? Waitaminit. According to CNN, “A group of men dressed like Iraqi police commandos set off explosives.” And supposedly, suspects are now in custody, “Ten peop.....

A little over a year ago, I wrote an article for TCS arguing that civil war was unlikely. The arguments I made then still hold true.

No sir, no civil war here. The 30,000 civilians who have been killed since the invasion, I am sure, would have appreciated your analysis.

If you want to leave America and join those Iraqies you agree with, then go right ahead. America, love it or leave it, I've always said.

For the the rest of us however, we do not need to be dragged into a war that is none of our business.

..and who the hell is "us" Americans. I would bet greater than 50% of "us" support YOUR whacky views.

I suppose name-calling makes you feel better, too. O.k. you doo-doo head.

Iraq has never threatened America. But like I observed before you are indeed one of the dumbest persons alive so you would not know that.

Once again I have to educate you. (Watch me work without the use of any nicknames, profanity, or other derogatories...)

Would Iraq have attacked the U.S. in the traditional sense (i.e. paratroopers, amphibious landing, etc.)? Not very likely, as you so eloquently point out.

Was Saddam pissed about being ousted from Kuwait by the U.S., as well as the subsequent sanctions? Absolutely. He had a score to settle.

Did Saddam seek WMD?
Debatable, but I believe the evidence suggests he did. Otherwise, why waste so much time and energy playing shell games with the inspectors?

Did Saddam support terror? Absolutely and irrefutably.

Now questions for you:

Did we, by following pre-war diplomacy, give Saddam every opportunity to move, hide, or export his WMDs (hypothetically if easier for you to comprehend)?

Have we concluded without doubt, that NO WMD were exported to Syria or elsewhere?

Are YOU willing to bet your life on it?

So based on HIS actions, and what we've found in Iraq after the invasion, we have every reason to believe that Saddam would have supported terrorist action including providing material to terrorists who would attack the U.S. (as he did in Israel), including supporting terrorist training camps where they would learn how to do so, including financing their journey (as he did in Israel).

So back to the point: Civil War.

Your perspective is that the Iraqis do not have the right to fight for their independence. That brutal oppression under Saddam, including torture and rape rooms, was preferable to settling ethnic tensions. That if we just leave Iraq now, every one there will go back to loving one another and living in peace. That's about it right?

None of this would have happened if Bush had not launched his war on Iraq. That is obvious.

Obvious to whom, your omnipotence? Even if we stayed out of Iraq, there's no guarantee that tension between groups would not have resulted in the same outcome. What is guaranteed is that Saddam woould have continued his brutal ways, including the aqcuisition of WMD and an attack on the U.S.

The longer he persists the more tragic the inevitable defeat will seem.

By defeat, you refer to the elected government of Iraq? What is the alternative? Are you supposing a U.S. pullout would stop all this 'madness'?

What is not obvious is why Bush insists on continuing his war. There is nothing to be gained by it. The longer he persists the more tragic the inevitable defeat will seem. He should just declare victory and get out. I think we would all be willing to humor those whose egos require a 'victory' if that is what it took to put an end to this madness.

I am now waiting for the Shia Muslims to begin rioting at the blasphemy in Iraq.

First, the mark of a civilized society is recognition of the fact that criminals bombed this Mosque, not the conscious and collective decision of any one religious group. It was a bunch of criminals with a bomb (I thought it was reported as being Al Qaeda?). The willingness to engage in tit-for-tat attacks is very indicative of a society headed down the wrong path.

Second, look at what we have here. One group was previously in power, and supported and benefitted from the brutal tacics of the previous regime. Another group is supported by the maniacal religious aspirations of a neighboring country. Yet another recipe for conflict.

Some would tell you that things were better under Saddam. Well, I guess that depends on which end of the gun barrel you were on. We should not take any domestic troubles in Iraq to be a failure ofthe democratice experiment. These are growing pains, much like that experienced in our own Civil War. I don't think you'll find any one to argue for a divided America, in exchange for the enourmous amount of blood shed to form our Union.