• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Civil War?

I wanted to go back and address this:

rikzilla said:
do you have any evidence that there is "(no) government at all really" in Iraq?
Click to expand...

Rik, no government has been formed. A parliament has been elected, it has met for 30 minutes, but it has not formed a government. News reports are implying that forming a government will be a long, painful process--I don't know if that's true or not, but as it stands now, Iraq does not have a government.
 
Cleon said:
ok, point taken. Corpy and rik will continue spinning, evidence be damned.
Click to expand...

That's what right-wing fanatics do. The only people still supporting Bush and his rosey picture of Iraq at this point are the kool-aid drinkers. I'm surprised there are so many of them on a skeptic forum.
 
When the terorrists were attacking US forces, it was evidence the US army is being defeated by the terorrists and is killed for nothing. When they terrorists were attacking Iraqi forces, it was evidence of civil war.
 
Skeptic said:
Well, I suppose this mean you won't provide any evidence.
Click to expand...

See my previous post to Corpy.

You're welcome to continue participating in the spin-a-thon, but it is getting rather tedious. And you're really not fooling anyone except yourselves.
 
A civil war is a signifigant sustained violent conflict between various factions within a country. There is a sustained violent conflict between various factions within Iraq. Whether it is "signifigant" enough to be a civil war is of course debatable due to the extremely loose definition of the word "war," but calling people who say it is dishonest seems rather unfair.
 
jj said:
What part of calling a dissenting position "dishonest" is civil?
Click to expand...
Well per dictionary.com:
2 entries found for dishonest.

dis·hon·est Audio pronunciation of "dishonest" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ds-nst)
adj.

1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.
2. Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.

1 entry found for screw you.

screw you

Go to hell, as in You won't help after all? Well, screw you! A euphemism for the still ruder (rule8) you, this slangy term dates from the mid-1900s.
Click to expand...

As you can see these two terms are not equal. One is an adjective. The other is an obscenity that is in violation of rule 8.

-z
 
UserGoogol said:
A civil war is a signifigant sustained violent conflict between various factions within a country. There is a sustained violent conflict between various factions within Iraq. Whether it is "signifigant" enough to be a civil war is of course debatable due to the extremely loose definition of the word "war," but calling people who say it is dishonest seems rather unfair.
Click to expand...

It is dishonest because it's the same old insurgency with different targets. Just because the enemy has decided they will live longer attacking the Iraqi police and army than they would while attacking ours does not a civil war make.

The term "civil war" carries the connotation that the effort in Iraq is spurious and unwinnable...which is why the usual suspects of the leftist variety are pushing the term. They are attempting to craft the debate by coloring it in terms of their own (and Zarqawi's) choosing.

That's pretty damned dishonest to say the least.

-z
 
Tony said:
That's what right-wing fanatics do. The only people still supporting Bush and his rosey picture of Iraq at this point are the kool-aid drinkers. I'm surprised there are so many of them on a skeptic forum.
Click to expand...


Show me where I have supported a rosy view of Iraq in this thread. I acknowledge violence, death, and sectarian attacks. The problem you, Cleon, and DavidJames have is you view Iraq thoughts as black and white. Either someone is a Bush fanatic/apologist or they "get it".

Whether or not there is a civil war in Iraq isn't a question of whether or not you supported the regime change or the man who pushed it through. Its an analytical one. It isn't based on the latest car bomb you saw on cable news.

I started this thread by stating that I don't see any sort of war between say the Al Anbar province and the Al Sadr militia, much less a full war between Shi'a and Sunni. Now thats just pure bush apology right there. The much more rational "i see people kill each other on TV" definitely sounds like a good reasoning behind one thinking there is a civil war, but I'm afraid this is a skeptic forum and that just doesn't breach the threshold of evidence.

I think there is a pretty clear line in this thread alright. There are people like myself and headscratch4 and then there is Cleon/Tony/etc. The only civil war I see is between the reasonable and unreasonable.
 
rikzilla said:
Well per dictionary.com:


As you can see these two terms are not equal. One is an adjective. The other is an obscenity that is in violation of rule 8.

-z
Click to expand...
Let's make a deal: you get to play monkeyshines with the definition of civil war, and I get to play with the definition of civility. :p
 
rikzilla said:
...
The term "civil war" carries the connotation that the effort in Iraq is spurious and unwinnable......
-z
Click to expand...
More wild imaginings from our newest dictionary author. When you're done making up new provisos so that "civil war" doesn't match reality, then let us know.

PS, and let me add: how in the hell does a negative and undesirable connotation impact on the correctness of the term used to describe the situation?
 
Last edited:
hgc said:
Let's make a deal: you get to play monkeyshines with the definition of civil war, and I get to play with the definition of civility. :p
Click to expand...

How 'bout you simply comply with established forum rules? I will do the same. We will sometimes agree and sometimes not, but if we can remember that we all here have more in common with each other than not...well maybe that bit of knowledge kept in the forefront of one's mind will help to soften the vitriol that this funky subject of politics is wont to engender...

IOW; [rodney king]can't we all just get along?[/rodney king]

-z
 
Since some people refuse to provide evidence for Iraq being in a civil war to support their assertion that it is, I will name 3 countries internationally recognized to have had recent civil war.
Georgia
Ivory Coast
Somalia

You can feel free to relate Iraq to these civil wars so I can admit that I was wrong in saying there isn't evidence that Iraq is in a civil war.
 
rikzilla said:
It is dishonest because it's the same old insurgency with different targets. Just because the enemy has decided they will live longer attacking the Iraqi police and army than they would while attacking ours does not a civil war make.

The term "civil war" carries the connotation that the effort in Iraq is spurious and unwinnable...which is why the usual suspects of the leftist variety are pushing the term. They are attempting to craft the debate by coloring it in terms of their own (and Zarqawi's) choosing.

That's pretty damned dishonest to say the least.

-z
Click to expand...


Let me fix your post for you.


rikzilla said:
it's the same old insurgency with different targets.


That's pretty damned dishonest to say the least.

-z
Click to expand...


There you go.

Daredelvis
 
hgc said:
More wild imaginings from our newest dictionary author. When you're done making up new provisos so that "civil war" doesn't match reality, then let us know.

PS, and let me add: how in the hell does a negative and undesirable connotation impact on the correctness of the term used to describe the situation?
Click to expand...

Easy; when was the last time you heard of a PRO-ABORTION movement? When was the last time you heard from the ANTI-CHOICE people?

The words we choose always carry baggage. There's a great deal of baggage that comes with the term "Civil War". It's unnecessary to pile that into a debate at this time. Maybe tomorrow the civil war will begin? I don't know...but if it hasn't happened yet; I don't see how we can make the situation better by assuming that it already has.

-z
 
rikzilla said:
How 'bout you simply comply with established forum rules? I will do the same. We will sometimes agree and sometimes not, but if we can remember that we all here have more in common with each other than not...well maybe that bit of knowledge kept in the forefront of one's mind will help to soften the vitriol that this funky subject of politics is wont to engender...

IOW; [rodney king]can't we all just get along?[/rodney king]

-z
Click to expand...
Like many things, Rule 8 is open to interpretation. I think I was perfectly within bounds, but then I operate under a looser standard than most. Depending on which moderator is on duty, I may or may not get warned, and I accept the judgement of the court.

I am sorry if I offended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom