NBC News says it will call Iraqi conflict 'civil war'

[KidRocks]

If it walks like a duck...

No, I'm not talking about President Bush I'm talking about the appalling and atrocious situation we find ourselves in Iraq today. It's called a civil-war pal, a war within a war if you will. Good for NBC News!

Get those helicopters ready!













NEW YORK (AP) — NBC News on Monday began referring to the Iraq conflict as a civil war, adopting a phrase that President Bush and many other news organizations have avoided.

Matt Lauer said on the "Today" show that "after careful consideration, NBC News has decided that a change in terminology is warranted, that the situation in Iraq with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas can now be characterized as civil war."

The network's cable news outlet, MSNBC, drummed the point home repeatedly by using the phrase "Iraq: The Civil War" on the screen.

There are different criteria for defining a civil war. Webster's New World College Dictionary defines it simply as "war between geographical sections or political factions of the same nation." Some political scientists use a threshold of 1,000 dead, which the current conflict has long since passed...

 

[aquapub]

I forgot my liberal to English dictionary, but I'm pretty sure that when liberals say "Iraqi civil war" they really mean to say, "Iranian instigated terrorism in Iraq."

:roll:

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Remember folks, if it's bad news for America and especially if it puts our soldiers in further harm, Kidrocks will start a thread to celebrate it.

 

[WI Crippler]

Yes, finally the vindication of what we are really fighting comes down from the almighty know-it-alls at NBC. What would we do without NBC to lead us?? Maybe these elites can actually come up with a better solution for Iraq instead of just bitching about it. :roll:

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

Um...good for you NBC.Someone might actually watch your channel.Call it what you want and say GOP is dodging calling it that, but it's not like you don't need to come up with a strategy other then leaving Iraq or anything now.This isan't a special pardon.

 

[shuamort]

Yes, finally the vindication of what we are really fighting comes down from the almighty know-it-alls at NBC. What would we do without NBC to lead us?? Maybe these elites can actually come up with a better solution for Iraq instead of just bitching about it. :roll:

Colin Powell says Iraq in a 'civil war'

I guess Colin Powell is an "elite" too, eh?

Republicans made the mess and know they're blaming the dems for not having a plan to clean it up.

Remember folks, if it's bad news for America and especially if it puts our soldiers in further harm, Kidrocks will start a thread to celebrate it.

How does your post add to any debate? It seems this is just an ad hominem attack that belong in the basement. Maybe you can keep these opinions down there instead.

 

[1069]

All of which raises the question of how "deep" the "strife" in a sectarian conflict must be before we can call it a war. Or, as CNN's Ware implies, if it is not a civil war, what is it?

President Bush continued to dodge the term Tuesday, following Iraq's deadliest week of sectarian fighting since the American occupation began in March 2003. Iraq's sectarian violence is not from civil war, Bush said, but "fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by Al Qaeda causing people to seek reprisal." Yet, our president did not explain why, after centuries of feuds, Iraq's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would need Osama bin Laden to goad them into fighting each other now.

Spurious George "explains" it all.
Who would've guessed that Al Qaeda is actually responsible?
Yep; according to Bush, those rascally terrorists are at it yet again. :roll:
What's next? Al Qaeda diddled the Diebold machines? Al Qaeda left the toilet seat up? Al Qaeda placed dog poop on the White House lawn, and forced our Glorious Christian Leader to step in it? :roll:
Maybe Ted Haggard and Mark Foley are both undercover Al Qaeda operatives who somehow infiltrated the Grand Old Party.
Too bad Bush vetoed federally funded stem cell research; maybe it could've offered hope for his rapidly deteriorating mental condition.

 

[WI Crippler]

Colin Powell says Iraq in a 'civil war'

I guess Colin Powell is an "elite" too, eh?

Republicans made the mess and know they're blaming the dems for not having a plan to clean it up.

Well I have a higher opinion of Colin Powel than I do NBC news, but it doesn't mean I would necessarily agree with him at this point. My point is that NBC if its ok for NBC to call this war in Iraq a civil war, then it should be ok if Fox News wants to go ahead and call the war on terror the third world war ( which even though some of their Op-ed shows have had guests on and commentators saying this, its not the official stance of the organization as I know it ).

Sure republicans made a mess of things, but the democrats ran on a platform against this war and, so far, have not offered a viable solution to the situation. I know it takes a little time, but this is the problem I have with our politicians, and our media. Its always about all the wrongs in the world, its always about using the negatives stories for ratings, or negative ads to run against the incumbents. Or its all just bash Bush. Its never about offering viable solutions to problems. Thats the only way forward IMO.

 

[Cremaster77]

Sure republicans made a mess of things, but the democrats ran on a platform against this war and, so far, have not offered a viable solution to the situation. I know it takes a little time, but this is the problem I have with our politicians, and our media. Its always about all the wrongs in the world, its always about using the negatives stories for ratings, or negative ads to run against the incumbents. Or its all just bash Bush. Its never about offering viable solutions to problems. Thats the only way forward IMO.

Why is it that now that the Democrats have won Congress back, the conservatives here are now complaining that not enough has been done to help Iraq? The Dems haven't even taken office yet, but they should already have gotten us out of the mess in Iraq? Huh?

Look, there are no good solutions to Iraq. But certainly, the "stay the course", we can do no wrong approach of the Bush administration the first 3 years of the war was one of the worst approaches that could have been taken. Let's see what the Dems do once they ACTUAL TAKE OFFICE before complaining that they haven't done enough.

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

Neither a fan of the GOP or Democrats; I find it amusing on how Iraq in definition term is a civil war; and yet refused as the definition. Typical Orwell wordflip. I'm sure some Democrat thinks that this could lead to a possible Dem prez come next two years and it can--if the puppet manipulators want--not the Iraq civil war issue.

 

[WI Crippler]

Why is it that now that the Democrats have won Congress back, the conservatives here are now complaining that not enough has been done to help Iraq? The Democrats haven't even taken office yet, but they should already have gotten us out of the mess in Iraq? Huh?

I am not saying they should have fixed the problem already. I realize they haven't taken office yet, and I am not a conservative BTW. But I do understand where you are getting that perception with conservatives.
What I am saying is that they ran, and won, by focusing on the problem, rather than running because they had a better solution.
And our media only talks about rapes, abductions, death tolls, racists, murderers, missing people, whenever Bush stumbles around the english language.

 

[hipsterdufus]

The CIA was calling Iraq a Civil War in Jan 2004. Better late then never I guess NBC. :2wave:

I'll kick it up a notch and say that the situation in Iraq is closer to ethnic cleansing. It lloks like Maliki and company are trying to do away with the Sunni entirely.

Look for the MSM to pick up on this some time in 08 or 09 :doh

 

[oldreliable67]

The CIA was calling Iraq a Civil War in Jan 2004. Better late then never I guess NBC.

I'll kick it up a notch and say that the situation in Iraq is closer to ethnic cleansing. It lloks like Maliki and company are trying to do away with the Sunni entirely.

Look for the MSM to pick up on this some time in 08 or 09 :doh

For once, I have to at least partially agree with you: it does look more like attempted "ethnic cleansing" than a civil war. This attempted ethinic cleansing started a number of centuries ago, and is probably the longest-running attempt at such in history.

As for the "civil war" label, a recent editorial in the WSJ got it pretty well right when the editors asserted that the spectacle of the Walter Cronkite wannabes at NBC and the L. A. Times patting themselves on the back for declaring the Iraq war is a "civil war" strongly suggests that today's media point seems to be to declare the war unwinnable - as if this were actually desirable. This editorial also made the following rather cogent points:

he alleged "civil war." The term seems to have acquired a totemic meaning in Iraq, although the U.S. has intervened successfully in civil wars before: the Balkans and Afghanistan, most recently. Regarding Iraq, the goal of the "civil war" chorus seems to be to delegitimize the war by painting what is a false picture of the balance of power and legitimacy between the Iraqi government and the terrorists.

The sectarian violence is a horrible problem. But by any reasonable definition, a "civil war" implies at least two militarily strong factions with a popular claim on political leadership. Neither of those conditions exists in Iraq.

The country's elected, pan-sectarian government and its several hundred thousand security forces remain the only legitimate power center. The Sunni insurgents, meanwhile, are a mix of Islamists and Baathists who enjoy little support and are capable only of terrorist-style attacks. They hold sway only through murder and intimidation in areas where the government lacks enough troops to assure public safety. Shiite militia leaders are also divided and what support they enjoy is due to the perception among ordinary Shiites that the government has been unable to protect them. Few Shiites would be eager to see Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical cleric, in Mr. Maliki's chair.

The next Iraqi or American official to be asked about "civil war" might want to reply by asking the journalist who, precisely, is fighting whom, and why Iraqi security officers of all backgrounds continue to risk their lives for the elected Baghdad government.

IMO, the current sectarian conflict in Iraq is much more of an attempt at ethnic cleansing than a civil war. Just my opinion - YMMV.

 

[hipsterdufus]

For once, I have to at least partially agree with you: it does look more like attempted "ethnic cleansing" than a civil war. This attempted ethinic cleansing started a number of centuries ago, and is probably the longest-running attempt at such in history.

As for the "civil war" label, a recent editorial in the WSJ got it pretty well right when the editors asserted that the spectacle of the Walter Cronkite wannabes at NBC and the L. A. Times patting themselves on the back for declaring the Iraq war is a "civil war" strongly suggests that today's media point seems to be to declare the war unwinnable - as if this were actually desirable. This editorial also made the following rather cogent points:



IMO, the current sectarian conflict in Iraq is much more of an attempt at ethnic cleansing than a civil war. Just my opinion - YMMV.

Hey - some common ground. Cool.

I hardly consider Matt Lauer a Walter Cronkite wannabe. He's more like a grocery clerk / errand boy.

The WSJ had a poll stating that 68% of Americans also believe Iraq is in a Civil War.
Majority of Americans Believe Iraq Is in 'Civil War', Poll Finds - WSJ.com