Civil War?

[Dr Adequate]

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.

As usual, when a rightwing woowoo can't argue with what is actually being said, he invents a Sooper Secret Magical Invisible Meaning which his Magical Powers Of Making Stuff Up tell him that the people who disagree with him really mean. Secretly. Without saying so.

And then he whines about other people being "dishonest".

 

[Mephisto]

The term itself: "Civil War" carries special negative connotations for Americans...and when one hears this term it inevitably conjures up images of death and chaos on a massive scale.-z

Actually the term "Civil War" brings to mind several nerdy "reinactors" I've known who are still fighting the American Civil War.

. . . as for negative connotations and images of death and chaos on a massive scale . . . what's different in Iraq? If this whole situation were a sandwich, we'd be the baloney.

(edited to add) "On September 22, 2005, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said that he had warned the Bush administration in recent days that Iraq was hurtling toward disintegration, and that the election planned for December was unlikely to make any difference. United States officials immediately made statements rejecting this view." from Zakur's 1st link.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Anyone working hard to re-define this conflict so that it becomes both more difficult and deadly to my brothers in the Army is no friend. In fact they would be the opposite thing.

And, shrieking and twitching with hysteria, rik retreats once more into his pathetic revolting Magic Secret World Of Magical Paranoid Fantasy. 'Cos that's the only place where he's right.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Translation:

I can't contribute to the dialogue based on facts or definitions, but I don't think we need to apply thought and reason to the issue if we can just agree that we all hate Bush.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Translation:

I can't contribute to the dialogue based on facts or definitions, but I don't think we need to apply thought and reason to the issue if we can just agree that we all hate Bush.

Oh look, another nutjob with Imaginary Magical Powers.

I think that headscratcher mean what he said, not what the Imaginary Magical Invisble Headscratcher told you he really meant by Magical Telepathy in the Land Of The Paranoid Pixies.

 

[Darat]

Translation:

I can't contribute to the dialogue based on facts or definitions, but I don't think we need to apply thought and reason to the issue if we can just agree that we all hate Bush.

Your response does not address the reasonable and rational point headscratcher4 raised i.e. if someone has been proved to have repeatedly lied about something it becomes reasonable to consider anything they then say about that subject is another lie. Obviously this is not proof but is a perfectly rational stance to take given the past history.

So the approach to have taken, if you had wanted to challenge the argument rather then the person would have been to ask for proof that in the past (in this instance) the administration had lied about this issue because obviously if that is not true headscratcher4 argument fails.

 

[Mycroft]

Your response does not address the reasonable and rational point headscratcher4 raised i.e. if someone has been proved to have repeatedly lied about something it becomes reasonable to consider anything they then say about that subject is another lie. Obviously this is not proof but is a perfectly rational stance to take given the past history.

So the approach to have taken, if you had wanted to challenge the argument rather then the person would have been to ask for proof that in the past (in this instance) the administration had lied about this issue because obviously if that is not true headscratcher4 argument fails.

I certainly could have phrased my objection better.

I don't believe proof of past lies or misstatements matter. The issue is if the current situation is a civil war or not. To resolve the issue you come up with an objective definition and apply the facts.

The issue of Saddam having WMDs or not doesn’t change if the current situation is a civil war or not.

The issue of Saddam’s connection (or not) to 9/11 doesn’t change if the current situation is a civil war or not.

The issue of us being welcomed as liberators or not doesn’t change if the current situation is a civil war or not.

And so on.

Following headscratcher’s logic, we should consider facts that have nothing to do with the actual definition of what is or isn’t a civil war.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Following headscratcher’s logic, we should consider facts that have nothing to do with the actual definition of what is or isn’t a civil war.

I don't see how that follows - can you explain that chain of logic?

 

[Dr Adequate]

It also sounds like Columbia, Spain, Peru, Palestine, Lebanon, and East LA. The term itself: "Civil War" carries special negative connotations for Americans...and when one hears this term it inevitably conjures up images of death and chaos on a massive scale.

The American Civil War involved the breakdown into factions of the US Government. Elements of the US Government formed a new government. Other elements of the old government fought them. This my friends is what most Americans regard as "Civil War".

Woowoo, woo, woo, wibble.

Are you serious?

You seem to be claiming that it's misleading to use the term "civil war" unless in certain respects it's like the American Civil War ... because Americans are so ... so what, rik? ... so dumb? ... so insular? ... that they'll suppose that "civil war" must mean something just like you guys had?

So Ayad Allawi, an Iraqi, can't call his nation's problems a "civil war" because American history is to be the yardstick for English usage?

I don't think so.

Incidentally, how would you respond if I, being English, told you that the American Civil War wasn't really a civil war because it wasn't fought between the King and Parliament? After all, that's the connotation "civil war" has for me. But it is only a connotation, rik, and if I said that I'd be a moron.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Using such a loaded term to describe Iraq (a place where the government is not split and warring on itself) is indeed a dishonest repackaging of the insurgency. The only possible benefit of which is to the terrorist enemy.

Now if you guys are interested in aiding Zarqawi, et al through your loaded rhetoric go ahead, but don't expect to get a free pass. We get it that most of you guys hate GWB...it's just weird that you'd let such hatred lead you into useful-idiothood in behalf of dangerous religious nuts who'd just as soon cut off your head as look at you.

Er ... when the magical imaginary invisible people in your imaginary fantasy world do things that even you find incredible, then this is a sign that your delusions have become completely ridiculous.

Obviously, I do not support dangerous religious nuts who wish to decapitate me. That would indeed be weird, and more than weird. So obviously, you have completely flipped your lid.

Don't you ever listen to what you're saying. Even you can see there's something "weird" about the content of your paranoid daydreams. There is something weird about them, yes. Actually, "completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ crazy" would be a more accurate term.

If you are truly caring of the troops then you would not want to craft a label which so undermines the mission of said troops. However; if you cared more about making GWB look bad by making the Iraq situation look untenable than you did for "the troops" then indeed one could expect you to push this label.

Simply put, that's the only real reason one would try to call Iraq a civil war. It's simply a good way to discredit the effort of a POTUS you despise. If the troops are put in a worse situation that's too damned bad eh?

More Amazing Magical Made-Up Mind-Reading. You know, you can keep imaginary people from beaming thoughts into your head if you wear a tinfoil hat.

 

[Mephisto]

I don't believe proof of past lies or misstatements matter. The issue is if the current situation is a civil war or not. To resolve the issue you come up with an objective definition and apply the facts.

The issue of Saddam having WMDs or not doesn’t change if the current situation is a civil war or not.

The issue of Saddam’s connection (or not) to 9/11 doesn’t change if the current situation is a civil war or not.

The issue of us being welcomed as liberators or not doesn’t change if the current situation is a civil war or not..

But you'd have to agree that, based on past accuracy we're under no obligation to believe the Bush administration when they say, "Iraq isn't in a civil war," right?

 

[fishbob]

I don't believe proof of past lies or misstatements matter.

So you are the one that encourages those Nigerians to keep sending e-mails.

 

[WildCat]

So when wasn't Iraq in a civil war, by the broad definition advocated by some here?

 

[CapelDodger]

So when wasn't Iraq in a civil war, by the broad definition advocated by some here?

There was no internal conflict going on before the recent invasion. The Kurds were effectively independent in the north and while there was repression in the rest of Iraq it was pre-emptive rather than a response.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't see how that follows - can you explain that chain of logic?

I believe I already have. Perhaps we could come to an understanding of minds better if you were to describe how you believe if Saddam had WMD's or not has anything to do with if Iraq is in a civil war right now?

 

[Mycroft]

But you'd have to agree that, based on past accuracy we're under no obligation to believe the Bush administration when they say, "Iraq isn't in a civil war," right?

Is anyone suggesting we should take only President Bush's word for it? I thought the issue in this thread was to judge the issue by objective data, not by agreement with any political figure.

 

[Mycroft]

Er ... when the magical imaginary invisible people in your imaginary fantasy world do things that even you find incredible, then this is a sign that your delusions have become completely ridiculous.

It's too bad you so often choose to make ad hominem attacks on those you disagree rather than substantial debate.

Obviously, I do not support dangerous religious nuts who wish to decapitate me. That would indeed be weird, and more than weird. So obviously, you have completely flipped your lid.

I believe Rik made an elegant argument for his points, and your only response is to say, "look at what you've said!" Do you have an actuall refutation?

 

[Darat]

I believe I already have. Perhaps we could come to an understanding of minds better if you were to describe how you believe if Saddam had WMD's or not has anything to do with if Iraq is in a civil war right now?

I can see no post where you have set out any logic - can you link me to it?

 

[WildCat]

There was no internal conflict going on before the recent invasion. The Kurds were effectively independent in the north and while there was repression in the rest of Iraq it was pre-emptive rather than a response.

So all those bodies found in mass graves are not the result of civil war?

 

[Darat]

So all those bodies found in mass graves are not the result of civil war?

It's one of the problems when using a term that has such a wide usage. By some definitions you can quite accurately claim that the UK was in a state of civil war for 40 years because of the Troubles or that the UK is now in a state of civil war because some British nationals blew themselves and others up or the USA because of Timothy McVeigh's actions. To me the latter two of those examples seems too broad a definition, but the first I think has some legitimacy.