• 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?

Before anyone else tells me there is a civil war going on, please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

I'm tired of getting a migraine from hearing "i saw a bomb go off on TV" as justification for this thinking. You need to know who these people are, what are their motivations, and how much more complex Iraqi violence is than you thought before. Some of you are approaching useful idiot status and its embarassing.
 
daredelvis said:
Let me fix your post for you.





There you go.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

Please explain why you believe that that is a dishonest statement. Evidence would also be nice unless pulling a cyber drive-by is all you're about.

-z
 
rikzilla said:
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
Click to expand...
Within your own frame of reference, I am sure that makes sense. But your assumption that Iraq is not yet in a civil war is not one I share, so whatever flows forth from that assumption is not validated to me.

That is why I stated in a post above that if people disagree about whether what is going on in Iraq is a civil war or not, then if they want to get to the things they can talk about reality outside the context of whether you will call it such -- otherwise you can wallow around in definition wars for 10 pages of nonsense.

As for 1) calling "civil war" a left-wing meme, 2) calling those who disagree with you dishonest at best, you are just venturing into irrelevant, well-poisoning territory.
 
rikzilla said:
Please explain why you believe that that is a dishonest statement. Evidence would also be nice unless pulling a cyber drive-by is all you're about.

-z
Click to expand...
Your statement that this is all the "same old insurgency with different targets" seems a little far from what is going on now. No doubt the insurgency sparked the current wave of violence, but they are not the only ones involved now.

Taunt away,

Daredelvis
 
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...

How, pray tell, is calling someone dishonest, simply because you disagree with them, civil?

Civil behavior goes far beyond choice of words.
 
hgc said:
Within your own frame of reference, I am sure that makes sense. But your assumption that Iraq is not yet in a civil war is not one I share, so whatever flows forth from that assumption is not validated to me.

That is why I stated in a post above that if people disagree about whether what is going on in Iraq is a civil war or not, then if they want to get to the things they can talk about reality outside the context of whether you will call it such -- otherwise you can wallow around in definition wars for 10 pages of nonsense.

As for 1) calling "civil war" a left-wing meme, 2) calling those who disagree with you dishonest at best, you are just venturing into irrelevant, well-poisoning territory.
Click to expand...

#1. There is no active civil war in Iraq.
#2. Anyone saying that a civil war exists when it clearly does not is at the very least being intellectually dishonest.

Aside from things blowing up on the telly...(and things have been blowing up on the telly for a long time)...what evidence is there of a civil war? Is Talibani leading troops against al-Jafari or Chalabi? No? Then it sounds like the government (such as it is) is hanging together even though the insurgency has decided to foment sectarian violence with a goal of civil war.

From the cia world factbook:
an insurgency against the Iraqi Transitional Government and Coalition forces is primarily concentrated in Baghdad and in areas west and north of the capital; the diverse, multigroup insurgency is led principally by Sunni Arabs whose only common denominator is a shared desire to oust the Coalition and end US influence in Iraq
Click to expand...

In other words we have an insurgency which has re-tasked itself to attack the organs of the Iraqi government. A softer target. And if successful they suppose a full-on civil war would force the US and coalition out of Iraq even though their insurgency itself failed to do this.

-z
 
rikzilla said:
That's pretty damned dishonest to say the least.

-z
Click to expand...

Let's see:

Are there factions in Iraq? Check!
Are they armed? Check!
Are they shooting at each other? Check!

Ok, what's that but a civil war?
 
jj said:
How, pray tell, is calling someone dishonest, simply because you disagree with them, civil?

Civil behavior goes far beyond choice of words.
Click to expand...

Why don't you ask the mods? They and I seem to be in perfect accord.
-z
 
jj said:
Let's see:

Are there factions in Iraq? Check!
Are they armed? Check!
Are they shooting at each other? Check!

Ok, what's that but a civil war?
Click to expand...

Riiight...

Therefore southeast DC is in a state of civil war! (and has been for years) Glad we cleared that up. Now how has that helped us understand anything?
-z
 
If there was a civil war in Iraq there would be violence between factions.
There is violence between factions in Iraq.
Therefore Iraq is having a civil war.

Next fallacy please.
 
I'm not going to get into arguing definitions, but I would throw out one or two examples of what is going on in Iraq now from American history...

One would be the "Bleeding Kansas" of the 1850's. For non-Americans (or americans who slept though this section of History class in High School), the territory of Kansas was left open to decide by popular vote if it would be a slave or a free state. Both "Free-Staters" and Slaveowners moved to Kansas, and folks from North and South sent money--and guns--to help thier side. It was the place that Osowatamie (sic) John Brown first came to the nations attention when he slaughtered five (IIRC) Pro-Slavery people. Not a lot of death, in the end, but plenty of burned buildings, political chicanery, and a hardening of feelings. It wasn't a "Civil War" per se, but it was another brick that helped to build up to one.

Perhaps an even better one would be the plight of Missouri during the American Civil War 1861-1865. The state was divided between North and South (indeed, the Legislature and Governor tried to take the state out of the Union and were driven into exile by Federal troops-if you see the Confederate Battle Flag, it has 13 stars, although only 11 states actually were considered the Confederacy--Missouri and Maryland were also "part" of the Confederate States, according to the South).

The fighting in Missouri, especially after 1862, was not one of major battles but of small skimishes, raids, and attacks on neighbors/residences that led to small, brutal little fights all over the state. It even had the Law (as represented by Northern troops) and Government (a newly elected legislature and governor) and outside agitators (Southern raiders from Arkansas and Kansas). It is hard to know exactly how many were killed in this conflict, but it was a smaller, and in some ways, nastier Civil conflict in the midst of a much larger one.

Is there a Civil War in Iraq? I think the point is has the killing, which may have begin with the insurgents, now self-sustaining between Sunni and Shia? Something that will take place even if we and the 'outside' influences were withdrawn tomorrow?

I think it will. I am not happy with that conclusion, but I think it will.

History is one tough Bastich to figure out--especially in reading the future. We'll all be around to see what comes next, I think--unless hgc doesn't cool down and get himself banned...

IMHO as always
 
jj said:
Are there factions in Iraq? Check!
Are they armed? Check!
Are they shooting at each other? Check!

Ok, what's that but a civil war?
Click to expand...

Were the Crips vs. the Bloods in LA a civil war? They satisfied every one of your criteria, and yet I certainly don't think that qualified. You need a lot more than that superficial list to qualify as a civil war, or the term is so meaningless that ANY internal conflict is a civil war. That's just stretching the term until it becomes useless as a descriptor.
 
rikzilla said:
Riiight...

Therefore southeast DC is in a state of civil war! (and has been for years) Glad we cleared that up. Now how has that helped us understand anything?
-z
Click to expand...
Right, so we have to escape from context now, eh?

We're talking about an entire country here, right? Southeast DC is an entire country, right? L.A. is an entire country, right?

You wanna get back into scope here, or are you still too busy spinning.
 
corplinx said:
If there was a civil war in Iraq there would be violence between factions.
There is violence between factions in Iraq.
Therefore Iraq is having a civil war.

Next fallacy please.
Click to expand...


Nice example ofa straw man. Next fallacy please, indeed.
 
I think it's time to ask the next question of our more left leaning friends;
If Iraq can be accurately (in your opinion, not mine) be described as a civil war, how does this change the occupation of Iraq by coalition forces?

-z
 
rikzilla said:
I think it's time to ask the next question of our more left leaning friends;
If Iraq can be accurately (in your opinion, not mine) be described as a civil war, how does this change the occupation of Iraq by coalition forces?

-z
Click to expand...

It becomes an even bigger disaster. Because at this point, Washington would have to decide which faction, if any, to back. Then they are no longer fighting one enemy, but multiple enemy forces that may or may not be working together. They also have to face the fact that whichever faction they support is probably going to be a minority faction--without the support of the majority leadership or population.

More to the point, though, it would prolong the occupation idefinitely.
 
Cleon said:
It becomes an even bigger disaster. Because at this point, Washington would have to decide which faction, if any, to back. Then they are no longer fighting one enemy, but multiple enemy forces that may or may not be working together. They also have to face the fact that whichever faction they support is probably going to be a minority faction--without the support of the majority leadership or population.

More to the point, though, it would prolong the occupation idefinitely.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. All of the things you say are true...and none of them are currently happening.

Which makes it plain and obvious that there is not currently a civil war in Iraq.

There is only a leftist's wet-dream of being able to cry "Bigger Disaster"...which is exactly why the left (and the enemy BTW) is behind repackaging this insurgency as a civil war.

Thanks for playing Cleon.

-z
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom