• 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?

corplinx

JREF Kid
corplinx
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
8,952
The latest big media meme on Iraq is civil war. This strikes me as odd since factional violence is nowhere near the scale of death as it was in old Iraq.

First lets clear the air about the main factions.
You have two ethnic groups in Iraq: Arab and Kurd
The Arab group is comprised of Sunni and Shi'a religious groups.

The current "civil war" is an inter-arab problem going back to the Sunni Caliphs of Baghdad. However, the Kurds are no stranger to faction vs faction violence.

Source Wikipedia:
The Kurds and other non-Arabs living in the North were subjected to Iraq's worst instance of minority persecution in 1987-89, in what is now referred to as the Al-Anfal campaign. Anywhere from 100,000 to 182,000 were massacred in a genocidal offensive mostly in and around the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, and elsewhere in Iraqi Kurdistan.
Click to expand...

Now, why do the Sunni and Shi'a not get along? Well, it goes back to a fellow named Muhammad. When he died, everyone ◊◊◊◊ themselves wondering who would be in charge of Islam. The Shi'a and Sunni claimed different successors to Muhammad. And well, they haven't gotten along well since then. (mental note, these factions evolved over time, this was a really short schism for dummies recap)

Iraq is about 85 years old and was artificially formed. Baath rule of Iraq is about 20 years old and includes oppression of non-Sunni/non-Arab peoples including purges of a few Shi'a areas.

Sectarian/Ethnic Violence Pre-Occupation: Government sponsored, sometimes genocidal
Sectarian/Ethnic Violence Post-Occupation: Committed by small groups facilitated by anarchy

A civil war at this point would be something along the line of Al-Sadr's followers openly warring with the Sunni population west of Baghdad to the Syrian border. My only word of warning is to stay away from buzzword news (Fox/CNN/Time/Networks/Newsweek) and try to hit some real sources sometime.
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
*yawn* Keep spinning.

It's still civil war.
Click to expand...

Then so were the Watts riots, considering they're proportionally close to the level of carnage. Talk about spin... at least Corplinx knows WTF a civil war is, not what he wishes it was.
 
Cleon said:
*yawn* Keep spinning.

It's still civil war.
Click to expand...

In your mind you mean.

As I said before...it's only a civil war when the government splinters and starts warring on itself. If that hasn't happened yet; then you're merely repackaging Zarqawi's insurgency into the civil war meme that AQ is propagating.

I never thought I'd see you being credulous Cleon...you've always been above that...but asserting that Iraq is in civil war when it isn't is just pure dishonest crap. You gonna start talking to the dead next?

-z
 
varwoche said:
Not sure what you mean by "proportionally close" but 70 people died in the Watts riots.
Click to expand...

I know. Sorry, let me elaborate: What percentage of LA's population amounts to 70 people?

And what percentage of Iraq's 25 million people do the post-mosque bombing dead amount to?
 
varwoche said:
Not sure what you mean by "proportionally close" but 70 people died in the Watts riots.
Click to expand...

Concur, and when you take into account that the population of Iraq is about 1/11 the size of the USA (27M vs 297M), then I wonder what proportions Jocko is talking about.

Crunched a couple of Corp's numbers, if 182,000 is used, then that represents about 253 dead/day (over 2 years) and 168 dead/day (over 3 years). Using the lower end of 100,000, it's 138 dead/day (2 years) and 92 dead/day (over 3 years). While Iraq may not approach that rate yet (IIRC, it has been running 50-60 a day recently, but I have no quotable statistics for that).

The question to those who say Iraq is not in a state of Civil War, then what do you call it? To put it on an American Scale (1 to 11), if 600-700 Americans were dying each day for being either Protestant or Catholic, and about 150 or so Police were being shot or blown up every day, and in many areas the only rule of law was by militia, just what would it be called, unfractured Central Government or no?

Press on.
 
From the other thread.

Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said:
Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who heads the secular Iraqi National List party that took 25 seats in the December elections for the 275-seat parliament, said yesterday that the sectarian violence is threatening to spin out of control.

"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more,'' Allawi said on the BBC's "Sunday AM'' program. "If this isn't civil war, then God knows what civil war is.''

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on ABC's "This Week'' program yesterday that he agreed with Allawi and that Iraq has been in the midst of "a low-grade civil war'' for at least six months. "Our own generals have told me that.
Click to expand...
I hope you wont be offended if I defer the semantics argument to someone directly involved (not to mention Hagel) over Bush apologists.
 
Lets just get it clear a tip-toe through some of the greatest hits from the last couple of years:

Saddam has WMDs.

Saddam was connected to 9/11

We will be welcomed as liberators

Mission accomplished

The insurgency is in its last throes

And there are tons of others.

I don't know if there is a civil war or not (looks like one may be emerging but what do I know?), it does seem to me that the Administration's denial that there is one however, should be judged in terms of its previous pronouncements and performance.


When the President says "There is no civil war.." I hear "I have this beach property in Florida I'd like to sell...."

But, that's just me.
 
DavidJames said:
From the other thread.

I hope you wont be offended if I defer the semantics argument to someone directly involved (not to mention Hagel) over Bush apologists.
Click to expand...


These people wouldn't know a civil war if a bomb exploded right in downtown Bahgdad and killed a couple of dozen people.
 
Jocko said:
I know. Sorry, let me elaborate: What percentage of LA's population amounts to 70 people?
Click to expand...

The Watts riots were spread over several days and were a one-time occurence. Having a Watts riot daily for several years is closer to the mark IMHO.

And what percentage of Iraq's 25 million people do the post-mosque bombing dead amount to?
Click to expand...

I don't have the numbers handy, but lets say 2,500 (someone will come along and give better figures--but it probably won't be the US Army--we're not counting, IIRC). True, that's only 1 in 10,000...but if we use the US parallel, if 27,500 Americans died in rioting and bombings in a couple of months time, I think, even if not a single person you knew was involved, Jocko, you might be a wee bit worried about the security and viability of the nation to survive.

Especially if it showed no real signs of abating...and aye, that is, in the end, the operative question.

IMHO as always
 
rikzilla said:
In your mind you mean.
Click to expand...
Hower you like to spin it.

As I said before...it's only a civil war when the government splinters and starts warring on itself.
Click to expand...
And your repitition of this doesn't make it so.

I never thought I'd see you being credulous Cleon...you've always been above that...but asserting that Iraq is in civil war when it isn't is just pure dishonest crap. You gonna start talking to the dead next?
Click to expand...
Oh, please, skip the apologetics. This is just ridiculous.

Every time there's another cluster**** related to the War On Terror (tm), we're given another bout of word-parsing and twisted logic to make it seem not as bad as it seems.

Troops torturing prisoners? Well, it's not *really* torture.

Tens of thousands dead? Well, they were "terrorists."

No WMDS found? Well, that wasn't *really* what the war was about.

Multiple factions killing each other, an unstable "government," and no end to occupation in sight? Well, it's not *really* civil war.

Please. If there's anyone who's "credulous," it's not me--it's the people who keep trying for the best possible spin. Skip the word-parsing and twisted logic, then MAYBE I'll be concerned about your calling me "credulous."
 
I'm half tempted to suppose the Bush administration would jump at the idea of calling it a civil war, if it could be reasonably argued. Whup! Civil war, let's get the heck out. It's the perfect exit strategy.
 
Just because there isn't a civil war doesn't mean I don't believe that one isn't possible. Let's not start drawing Hannity/Franken lines in the sand and taking partisan views (no hope for DavidJames or Cleon here).

If this is a civil war:
Who is warring?
Where are the battle lines?

There is a difference between sectarian violence and a civil war. Of course, pointing this out means you are some sort of Bush apologist.
 
corplinx said:
Just because there isn't a civil war doesn't mean I don't believe that one isn't possible. Let's not start drawing Hannity/Franken lines in the sand and taking partisan views (no hope for DavidJames or Cleon here).
Click to expand...
Well, once again your stunning brilliance astounds us all. :rolleyes:

Keep spinning, Corpy. Maybe one day reality will sink in.

(edited to fix really bad mixed metaphor.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom