Can we call this duck...by its name now? (1 Viewer)

[tecoyah]

Personally, I have seen this as a civil war for a couple months now but have refrained from saying so in public. Ehat do you all think as of today?

"NEW YORK For months, the media have been torn over use of the term "civil war" to describe the descent into outright murder and torture in Iraq. Apparently the utter chaos and carnage of the past week has finally convinced some to use "civil war" without apology -- with NBC News and MSNBC joining in today in a major way -- but many still hold back, an E&P survey today shows.

The Los Angeles Times was one of the first newspapers to flatly describe the conflict as a "civil war" -- without the usual qualifiers of "approaching" or "near" -- in the first paragraph of a news report on Saturday. The Christian Science Monitor today refers to a "deepening civil war."

Turning Point: Media Starting to Describe Iraq Conflict as 'Civil War'

 

[Kandahar]

Of course it is. I can't begin to imagine how anyone could possibly disagree. The ideologues of the Bush Administration (and their apologists) remind me of Kevin Bacon in Animal House, standing in the middle of a riot screaming "All is well!" as people are screaming and stampeding all around him.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Yarr, me hearties (sorry; I have my pirate hat on at the moment). :2razz:

Organized groups of Iraqis are killing their countrymen with the intention of advancing the goals or agendas of a particular segment of the population; I think that qualifies. "Sectarian violence" is a way of describing it, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that an extended outbreak of such violence qualifies as civil war.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Civil War - A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status:

A) The contestants must control territory,

B) Have a functioning government,

C) Enjoy some foreign recognition,

D) Have identifiable regular armed forces,

E) Engage in major military operations.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm

Nope at the most they only qualify for 2 out of the 5 both A and E even though they don't actually control territory they hide like cowards amongst the civilian population, and they don't engage in major military operations they attack soft targets and kill innocent unarmed civilians I wouldn't consider planting a bomb in a civilian sector like a coward a major military operation. The factions don't have functioning governments, no foreign government recognizes either side of the sectarian strife as legitimate, and they don't have identifiable regular armed forces.

Now let's look at the definition of sectarian violence:

Sectarian Violence - Sectarian violence is violence or confrontation/conflict inspired by sectarianism, that is, between different sects of one religion. In contrast, religious violence (or inter-religious violence) is between separate and distinct religions. In many cases, sectarian violence is caused not only by sectarian differences but is often also a result of a power struggle or has social, economic, or nationalistic aspects -- as is, likewise, frequently true of inter-religious conflicts. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence

Yep that is a better definition of what is going on in Iraq.

 

[jfuh]

It's been a civil war for quite some time now. I don't understand why anyone would argue against it or claim it isn't.
The sooner that we're all on board and admit this is a civil war, the sooner we can all be on board to deal with it united.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

It's been a civil war for quite some time now. I don't understand why anyone would argue against it or claim it isn't.
The sooner that we're all on board and admit this is a civil war, the sooner we can all be on board to deal with it united.

Unity like you describe would have been much appreciated from the beginning. Fighting terror and the terror apologists in this country has been an uphill struggle.

 

[jfuh]

Unity like you describe would have been much appreciated from the beginning. Fighting terror and the terror apologists in this country has been an uphill struggle.

You're stating there was no unity on 9/12? 9/13? 9/14? of 2001? There was incredible unity.
Yet when this administration decided to coo thier base again and polarize the nation that's when the unity stopped. Instead of a united front, it became an elephants are patriots and donkey are terrorist apologetics.
Name a group that is a terrorist apologetic. Hell name me one person on this site that is one. You will find none, there are none.
Just because anyone's opinion on how to deal with terrorism is not identical to yours does not mean that they then are a terrorist apologetic.
However, what do terrorists have anything to do with the civil war now in Iraq.
There are only but a spoonful of Iraqi's that actually support AQ or it's cause.

 

[DeeJayH]

Yet when this administration decided to coo thier base again and polarize the nation that's when the unity stopped. Instead of a united front, it became an elephants are patriots and donkey are terrorist apologetics.

you are a little premature on your revisionist history
the dems have not taken power yet, atleast in congress

the Dems, not Bush, turned this United country after 9/11 into a bitterly divided one using OBSTRUCTIONISM, among other partisan acts, hamstringing the LEGALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT from doing what it deemed necessary, and legal, to protect the people

 

[saggyjones]

Civil War - A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status:

A) The contestants must control territory,

B) Have a functioning government,

C) Enjoy some foreign recognition,

D) Have identifiable regular armed forces,

E) Engage in major military operations.

I agree that they don't meet all of this criteria, but I found something that contradicts that. I went to wikipedia and this is a source from there:

Though the Bush administration continues to insist that it is not, a growing number of American and Iraqi scholars, leaders and policy analysts say the fighting in Iraq meets the standard definition of civil war.

The common scholarly definition has two main criteria. The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.

American professors who specialize in the study of civil wars say that most of their number are in agreement that Iraq’s conflict is a civil war.

A Matter of Definition: What Makes a Civil War, and Who Declares It So? - New York Times

According to this and wikipedia, a civil war only needs two criteria, and both have been met. It involves at least two sides fighting for power and more than 1000 people have been killed.

The ideologues of the Bush Administration (and their apologists) remind me of Kevin Bacon in Animal House, standing in the middle of a riot screaming "All is well!" as people are screaming and stampeding all around him.

:rofl I love that movie

 

[Kandahar]

the Dems, not Bush, turned this United country after 9/11 into a bitterly divided one using OBSTRUCTIONISM, among other partisan acts, hamstringing the LEGALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT from doing what it deemed necessary, and legal, to protect the people

Several points:

1. President Bush does not equal "the government."

2. The President alone does not have the right to act on whatever whim enters his head just because HE deems it necessary and legal. That's why we have checks and balances.

3. The Democrats you are referring to were democratically elected as well. If they weren't, they wouldn't be able to obstruct anything.

4. Most of the things the Democrats have opposed, they were certainly JUSTIFIED in opposing. This administration has shown nothing but contempt for any check and balance on its own power, even in theory.

 

[Justagurl]

Civil War - A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status:

A) The contestants must control territory,

B) Have a functioning government,

C) Enjoy some foreign recognition,

D) Have identifiable regular armed forces,

E) Engage in major military operations.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm

Nope at the most they only qualify for 2 out of the 5 both A and E even though they don't actually control territory they hide like cowards amongst the civilian population, and they don't engage in major military operations they attack soft targets and kill innocent unarmed civilians I wouldn't consider planting a bomb in a civilian sector like a coward a major military operation. The factions don't have functioning governments, no foreign government recognizes either side of the sectarian strife as legitimate, and they don't have identifiable regular armed forces.

Now let's look at the definition of sectarian violence:

Sectarian Violence - Sectarian violence is violence or confrontation/conflict inspired by sectarianism, that is, between different sects of one religion. In contrast, religious violence (or inter-religious violence) is between separate and distinct religions. In many cases, sectarian violence is caused not only by sectarian differences but is often also a result of a power struggle or has social, economic, or nationalistic aspects -- as is, likewise, frequently true of inter-religious conflicts. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence

Yep that is a better definition of what is going on in Iraq.

There are other sources that define Civil War differently.



Wikipedia

MSN Encarta

The Free Dictionary

Websters

And by their definitions it is a Civil War.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Several points:

1. President Bush does not equal "the government."

2. The President alone does not have the right to act on whatever whim enters his head just because HE deems it necessary and legal. That's why we have checks and balances.

3. The Democrats you are referring to were democratically elected as well. If they weren't, they wouldn't be able to obstruct anything.

4. Most of the things the Democrats have opposed, they were certainly JUSTIFIED in opposing. This administration has shown nothing but contempt for any check and balance on its own power, even in theory.

3 facts and 1 opinion. Nice job.

 

[Kandahar]

Civil War - A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status:

A) The contestants must control territory,

B) Have a functioning government,

C) Enjoy some foreign recognition,

D) Have identifiable regular armed forces,

E) Engage in major military operations.

By those standards, the American Civil War wouldn't qualify as a civil war. The Confederacy didn't have any foreign recognition.

 

[Kandahar]

3 facts and 1 opinion. Nice job.

Ya, always getting in the way of your talking points. Better to just disdainfully dismiss them as "facts" instead of bothering to refute them. After all, what could I possibly have been thinking, bringing FACTS (of all things) into the debate. :roll:

 

[jfuh]

you are a little premature on your revisionist history
the Democrats have not taken power yet, atleast in congress

the Dems, not Bush, turned this United country after 9/11 into a bitterly divided one using OBSTRUCTIONISM, among other partisan acts, hamstringing the LEGALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT from doing what it deemed necessary, and legal, to protect the people

Revisionist history? Who's saying anything about the dems in control of congress after 9/11? quite dishonest of you.
Obstructionism? I recall little if not no "obstruction" from the dems against fighting the taliban or AQ.
And it is the duty of the minority party to be obstructionists when the majority party is abusing their power. It is the DUTY of congress to maintain checks and balances on the executive branch which this administration is in opposition to - signing statements - warrantless wiretaps - ect. The majority party did nothing but to allow the bush admin to take all the power it wants.
Would you be comfortable if Hillary were the president and were grabbing all this unchecked power?

Next, Bush does not equate the government, it was the Bush administration that said if the dems take power the terrorist win all throughout the elections and into this last election when finally getting called on bullshit by the general populace.
So if you want to call my statement as revisionist you're going to need to point out just what parts of it are revisionist.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

By those standards, the American Civil War wouldn't qualify as a civil war. The Confederacy didn't have any foreign recognition.

Actually it said enjoy some foreign recognition which they did:

In November 1863, Confederate diplomat A. Dudley Mann met Pope Pius IX and received a letter addressed "to the Illustrious and Honorable Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.” Mann, in his dispatch to Richmond, interpreted the letter as "a positive recognition of our Government" and some have viewed it as a de facto recognition of the C.S.A. Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin, however, interpreted it as "a mere inferential recognition, unconnected with political action or the regular establishment of diplomatic relations" and thus did not assign it the weight of formal recognition.[9] For the remainder of the war, confederate diplomats continued meeting with Cardinal Antonelli, the Vatican Secretary of State. In 1864, Catholic Bishop Patrick N. Lynch of Charleston travelled to the Vatican with an authorization from Jefferson Davis to represent the Confederacy before the Holy See.

They also recieved full recognition from one European country:

Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was the only European country to appoint a diplomatic consul to the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. The consul was named Ernst Raven, assigned to a position in the State of Texas. Raven applied to the Confederate Government for a diplomatic exequatur on July 30, 1861 and was accepted.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

There are other sources that define Civil War differently.



Wikipedia

MSN Encarta

The Free Dictionary

Websters

And by their definitions it is a Civil War.

Their definitions do not meet international standards.

How can it be a civil war when both of the fighting sects have representation in the same government? Once the Sunni's or the Shia withdrawal from the coalition government I will agree that it is truly a civil war as of now it is a sectarian strife.

 

[saggyjones]

3 facts and 1 opinion. Nice job.

Better than no facts and 1 opinion...

 

[saggyjones]

Their definitions do not meet international standards.

How can it be a civil war when both of the fighting sects have representation in the same government? Once the Sunni's or the Shia withdrawal from the coalition government I will agree that it is truly a civil war as of now it is a sectarian strife.

Hmm that's a good point. I looked at globalsecurity.org because I thought it might be a government sponsored site, but I didn't see anything that says it is, so it's a valid definition and probably better than the ones in most dictionaries. I think civil war can be defined a number of ways, as shown by the many encyclopedia/dictionary website links on this thread and this nytimes link, earlier posted by me:
A Matter of Definition: What Makes a Civil War, and Who Declares It So? - New York Times