Political Crossfire Forums

[Alizard]

It would seem that there has been a transition, at least among the educated, to no longer debate whether Iraq is in a civil war.... but to look back and see when it became one.

It will be interesting how long it will be before there is an acknowledgement by our government.

IMHO, there will not be one until we get a significant "stand down" reduction in US forces from Iraq. That will be essential, because thereafter, everything bad can be blamed on the Iraqi government and Iraqi defense forces.

The same principle applies to the new democratic congress. :lol:

Quote: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/world/middleeast/26war.html?ref=world

A Matter of Definition: What Makes a Civil War, and Who Declares It So?
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Single Page Reprints Save

By EDWARD WONG
Published: November 26, 2006
BAGHDAD, Nov. 25 — Is Iraq in a civil war?

Though the Bush administration continues to insist that it is not, a growing number of American and Iraqi scholars, leaders and policy analysts say the fighting in Iraq meets the standard definition of civil war.

The common scholarly definition has two main criteria. The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.

American professors who specialize in the study of civil wars say that most of their number are in agreement that Iraq’s conflict is a civil war.

“I think that at this time, and for some time now, the level of violence in Iraq meets the definition of civil war that any reasonable person would have,” said James Fearon, a political scientist at Stanford.

While the term is broad enough to include many kinds of conflicts, one of the sides in a civil war is almost always a sovereign government. So some scholars now say civil war began when the Americans transferred sovereignty to an appointed Iraqi government in June 2004. That officially transformed the anti-American war into one of insurgent groups seeking to regain power for disenfranchised Sunni Arabs against an Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and increasingly dominated by Shiites.

Others say the civil war began this year, after the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra set off a chain of revenge killings that left hundreds dead over five days and has yet to end. Mr. Allawi proclaimed a month after that bombing that Iraq was mired in a civil war. “If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is,” he said.

Many insurgencies and ethnic or sectarian wars are also civil wars. Vietnam and Lebanon are examples. Scholars say the Iraq civil war has elements of both an insurgency — one side is struggling to topple what it sees as an illegitimate national government — and a sectarian war — the besieged government is ruled by Shiites and opposed by Sunni Arabs.

In Iraq, sectarian purges and Sunni-Shiite revenge killings have become a hallmark of the fighting, but the cycles of violence are ignited by militia leaders who have political goals. The former Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosovic, did this during the wars in the Balkans.

The civil strife in Iraq largely takes place in mixed Sunni-Shiite areas that include the cities of Baghdad, Mosul and Baquba. In Anbar Province, which is overwhelming Sunni Arab, much of the violence is aimed at American troops. Large swaths of Iraq have little violence, but those areas are relatively homogenous and have few people.

Governments and people embroiled in a civil war often do not want to label it as such. In Colombia, officials insisted for years that the rebels there were merely bandits.

Some Bush administration officials have argued that there is no obvious political vision on the part of the Sunni-led insurgent groups, so “civil war” does not apply.

In the United States, the debate over the term rages because many politicians, especially those who support the war, believe there would be domestic political implications to declaring it a civil war. They fear that an acknowledgment by the White House and its allies would be seen as an admission of a failure of President Bush’s Iraq policy.

They also worry that the American people might not see a role for American troops in an Iraqi civil war and would more loudly demand a withdrawal.

But in fact, many scholars say the bloodshed here already puts Iraq in the top ranks of the civil wars of the last half-century. The carnage of recent days — beginning with bombings on Thursday in a Shiite district of Baghdad that killed more than 200 people — reinforces their assertion.

Mr. Fearon and a colleague at Stanford, David D. Laitin, say the deaths per year in Iraq, with at least 50,000 reportedly killed since March 2003, place this conflict on par with wars in Burundi and Bosnia.

Iraq’s president and prime minister avoid using the term, but many Iraqis say extremists have thrust the country into civil war, even as moderates have struggled to pull back from the brink.

“You need to let the world know there’s a civil war here in Iraq,” said Adel Ibrahim, 44, a sheik in the Subiah tribe, which is mostly Shiite. “It’s a crushing civil war. Mortars kill children in our neighborhoods. We’re afraid to travel anywhere because we’ll be killed in buses. We don’t know who is our enemy and who is our friend.”

[The American]

Alizard wrote: It would seem that there has been a transition, at least among the educated, to no longer debate whether Iraq is in a civil war.... but to look back and see when it became one.

It will be interesting how long it will be before there is an acknowledgement by our government.

IMHO, there will not be one until we get a significant "stand down" reduction in US forces from Iraq. That will be essential, because thereafter, everything bad can be blamed on the Iraqi government and Iraqi defense forces.
The same principle applies to the new democratic congress. :lol:



It would be just fine with you, to see countless people slaughtered, and a country taken over becoming a terrorist state? What a promising life that would be. Blaming it all then on the Iraqi, not by your consequences of pulling out before the job is complete? Good lord son. Be responsible.

Trig.

[Alizard]

The American wrote: Alizard wrote: It would seem that there has been a transition, at least among the educated, to no longer debate whether Iraq is in a civil war.... but to look back and see when it became one.

It will be interesting how long it will be before there is an acknowledgement by our government.

IMHO, there will not be one until we get a significant "stand down" reduction in US forces from Iraq. That will be essential, because thereafter, everything bad can be blamed on the Iraqi government and Iraqi defense forces.
The same principle applies to the new democratic congress. :lol:



It would be just fine with you, to see countless people slaughtered, and a country taken over becoming a terrorist state? What a promising life that would be. Blaming it all then on the Iraqi, not by your consequences of pulling out before the job is complete? Good lord son. Be responsible.

Trig.

You are lucky for two reasons: I don't engage in personal attacks such as you just did, and I don't report threads where people like you engage in such behavior.

What I said was that it is this admin who will CONTINUE to play eyes wide shut as Iraqi civilinas are killed at a rate of 4000 per month as they claim there is no civil war, for the political motive of pretending what they are doing is anything less than an absolute failure and catalyst to the violence which is there.

And Bush et al are going to find a way to blame the Iraqis for the civil war that is already going on.

But you already know what I said and why I said it, and you also know I am right.

And the proof of that has been so conveniently provided by you in your post, which is 100% devoid of anything addressing the thread topic (the civil war in Iraq, the admin's refusal to address it, and the resulting chaos)..... and just a pathetic pile of crap sculpted into a personal attack aimed at me.

Pathetic doesn't cover it, but (unlike you) I stay within the bounds of forum rules.

[Chymical]

The insurgency is in it's last throws, soon the US will leave (supposedly)

[The American]

Alizard wrote: The American wrote: Alizard wrote: It would seem that there has been a transition, at least among the educated, to no longer debate whether Iraq is in a civil war.... but to look back and see when it became one.

It will be interesting how long it will be before there is an acknowledgement by our government.

IMHO, there will not be one until we get a significant "stand down" reduction in US forces from Iraq. That will be essential, because thereafter, everything bad can be blamed on the Iraqi government and Iraqi defense forces.
The same principle applies to the new democratic congress. :lol:



It would be just fine with you, to see countless people slaughtered, and a country taken over becoming a terrorist state? What a promising life that would be. Blaming it all then on the Iraqi, not by your consequences of pulling out before the job is complete? Good lord son. Be responsible.

Trig.

You are lucky for two reasons: I don't engage in personal attacks such as you just did, and I don't report threads where people like you engage in such behavior.

What I said was that it is this admin who will CONTINUE to play eyes wide shut as Iraqi civilinas are killed at a rate of 4000 per month as they claim there is no civil war, for the political motive of pretending what they are doing is anything less than an absolute failure and catalyst to the violence which is there.

And Bush et al are going to find a way to blame the Iraqis for the civil war that is already going on.

But you already know what I said and why I said it, and you also know I am right.

And the proof of that has been so conveniently provided by you in your post, which is 100% devoid of anything addressing the thread topic (the civl war in Iraq, the admin's refusla to address it, and the resulting chaos)..... and just a pathetic pile of crap sculted into a personal attack aimed at me.

Pathetic doesn't cover it, but (unlike you) I stay within the bounds of forum rules.

Personal attack? Not so fast. You did say we could blame the Iraqi for anything bad afterwards? The statement is irresponsible. Leaving before finishing any work is irresponsible, especially if you blame a shortcoming to the next person who has to pick up where you quit.

I addressed your statement. You based it on an article from the NYT. Which in my opinion, has no credibility.

My apologies in pointing out the irresponsibilities in that statement. Unless, you can show it being responsible?

Trig.

[The American]

Maybe irresponsibility was not what you meant. In that case, I apologize for calling you my son.

:wink:

[cap'n queasy]

The Shi'ite/Sunni conflict is about to erupt over the entire Middle East, if we leave before the job is done it will only exacerbate the situation.

Trig is right, leaving a big mess and thinking the Iraqis will be a convenient scapegoat to shift the blame onto is not only irresponsible, it is reprehensible. And to see nothing wrong with that attitude shows an extreme lack of character IMHO.

[Chymical]

cap'n queasy wrote: The Shi'ite/Sunni conflict is about to erupt over the entire Middle East, if we leave before the job is done it will only exacerbate the situation.

Trig is right, leaving a big mess and thinking the Iraqis will be a convenient scapegoat to shift the blame onto is not only irresponsible, it is reprehensible. And to see nothing wrong with that attitude shows an extreme lack of character IMHO.

so it's going to happen anyway...
US UK troops will be in the middle...
And this is a good thing...
You still supporting the war?

Wow, Die Hard never seemed so apt a description.

Once again America paints hereself in an unwinnable situation due to misbegotton proportions of national ego. Pride comes before a fall.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: so it's going to happen anyway...
US UK troops will be in the middle...
And this is a good thing...
You still supporting the war?

Why do you think it is better for the entire Muslim world to become a slaughterhouse than to continue our military presence in Iraq?

The only thing keeping this contained at all is the US/UK presence there. If we leave like it is now there will be a power vacuum that will have to be filled by someone. And something tells me there won't be any elections.

[Chymical]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: so it's going to happen anyway...
US UK troops will be in the middle...
And this is a good thing...
You still supporting the war?

Why do you think it is better for the entire Muslim world to become a slaughterhouse than to continue our military presence in Iraq?

bit of a false dichotomy dontcha think? You said it will be a slaughterhouse anyway, perhaps it's up to you to describe that cusal link between US/UK troops in Iraq and spreading violence in the general region?

[quote="cap'n queasy"] Quote:
The only thing keeping this contained at all is the US/UK presence there. If we leave like it is now there will be a power vacuum that will have to be filled by someone. And something tells me there won't be any elections.

that's really contradicting yourself, or is it doublethink? lets find out...

[Alizard]

The American wrote: Alizard wrote: The American wrote: Alizard wrote: It would seem that there has been a transition, at least among the educated, to no longer debate whether Iraq is in a civil war.... but to look back and see when it became one.

It will be interesting how long it will be before there is an acknowledgement by our government.

IMHO, there will not be one until we get a significant "stand down" reduction in US forces from Iraq. That will be essential, because thereafter, everything bad can be blamed on the Iraqi government and Iraqi defense forces.
The same principle applies to the new democratic congress. :lol:



It would be just fine with you, to see countless people slaughtered, and a country taken over becoming a terrorist state? What a promising life that would be. Blaming it all then on the Iraqi, not by your consequences of pulling out before the job is complete? Good lord son. Be responsible.

Trig.

You are lucky for two reasons: I don't engage in personal attacks such as you just did, and I don't report threads where people like you engage in such behavior.

What I said was that it is this admin who will CONTINUE to play eyes wide shut as Iraqi civilinas are killed at a rate of 4000 per month as they claim there is no civil war, for the political motive of pretending what they are doing is anything less than an absolute failure and catalyst to the violence which is there.

And Bush et al are going to find a way to blame the Iraqis for the civil war that is already going on.

But you already know what I said and why I said it, and you also know I am right.

And the proof of that has been so conveniently provided by you in your post, which is 100% devoid of anything addressing the thread topic (the civl war in Iraq, the admin's refusla to address it, and the resulting chaos)..... and just a pathetic pile of crap sculted into a personal attack aimed at me.

Pathetic doesn't cover it, but (unlike you) I stay within the bounds of forum rules.

Personal attack? Not so fast. Trig.

I don't have to be fast. I simply say I will not descend to personal attacks such as yours:

"It would be just fine with you, to see countless people slaughtered,"

No, it would not be fine and I have never said, intimated, or implied anything of the sort. You pulled that out of your ass.

So I will simply go on record as pointing that out and call you the liar you are for making that statement about my post, and then not waste anymore time on you.

If you wish to keep tap dancing and side stepping and BS slinging, please proceed. I won't be reading it.

Have a nice day.

[Alizard]

cap'n queasy wrote: The Shi'ite/Sunni conflict is about to erupt over the entire Middle East, if we leave before the job is done it will only exacerbate the situation.

That statement recycles an admin assumption which is being abandoned at an exponentially accelerating rate by knowledgable people: that the US presence in Iraq is a stabilizing influence, when in reality, evidence suggests it is the primary catalyst and propulsion system of the expanding conflict.

I do not dispute that you have a right to cling to that opinion, I simply point it it may not be asserted as a universal truth that our presence is a stabilizer and then conclude that "leaving before the job is done" would automatically be worse than the present course of staying until "victory" is achieved..... when many familiar with the dynamics of the area agree victory in the traditional sense never was, and certainly no longer is, even possible.

The point of this thread is that for any positive action to follow, the fundamental step for the admin would be (at minimum) to accept reality of where we are now...... and hopefully, stop lying about it.

[BornedAgainandAgain]

The American wrote: It would be just fine with you, to see countless people slaughtered, and a country taken over becoming a terrorist state? What a promising life that would be. Blaming it all then on the Iraqi, not by your consequences of pulling out before the job is complete? Good lord son. Be responsible.

Trig.

please define 'the job is complete'

[Timmytour]

If the Americans withdrew and things continued exactly as they were, I think not many people would hesitate to call it a civil war.

However for some reason, the presence of American troops assists people in denying the reality.

I don't understand the logic of this. But if I take it as given, then I understand why some people don't want the US to withdraw.

Because then Bush would look wrong. And what are the lives, physical and mental wellbeing of a few more hundred US troops when compared to that catastrophe :roll:

[Trajan]

We don't need to be caught in the middle of a civil war. And just who is going to support the anti gov't side anyway? The Saudis? I doubt it. The Iranians? They're seeking closer ties with Iraq.

So that leaves...... who?

[cool_chick]

Alizard wrote: The American wrote: Alizard wrote: The American wrote: Alizard wrote: It would seem that there has been a transition, at least among the educated, to no longer debate whether Iraq is in a civil war.... but to look back and see when it became one.

It will be interesting how long it will be before there is an acknowledgement by our government.

IMHO, there will not be one until we get a significant "stand down" reduction in US forces from Iraq. That will be essential, because thereafter, everything bad can be blamed on the Iraqi government and Iraqi defense forces.
The same principle applies to the new democratic congress. :lol:



It would be just fine with you, to see countless people slaughtered, and a country taken over becoming a terrorist state? What a promising life that would be. Blaming it all then on the Iraqi, not by your consequences of pulling out before the job is complete? Good lord son. Be responsible.

Trig.

You are lucky for two reasons: I don't engage in personal attacks such as you just did, and I don't report threads where people like you engage in such behavior.

What I said was that it is this admin who will CONTINUE to play eyes wide shut as Iraqi civilinas are killed at a rate of 4000 per month as they claim there is no civil war, for the political motive of pretending what they are doing is anything less than an absolute failure and catalyst to the violence which is there.

And Bush et al are going to find a way to blame the Iraqis for the civil war that is already going on.

But you already know what I said and why I said it, and you also know I am right.

And the proof of that has been so conveniently provided by you in your post, which is 100% devoid of anything addressing the thread topic (the civl war in Iraq, the admin's refusla to address it, and the resulting chaos)..... and just a pathetic pile of crap sculted into a personal attack aimed at me.

Pathetic doesn't cover it, but (unlike you) I stay within the bounds of forum rules.

Personal attack? Not so fast. Trig.

I don't have to be fast. I simply say I will not descend to personal attacks such as yours:

"It would be just fine with you, to see countless people slaughtered,"

No, it would not be fine and I have never said, intimated, or implied anything of the sort. You pulled that out of your ass.

So I will simply go on record as pointing that out and call you the liar you are for making that statement about my post, and then not waste anymore time on you.

If you wish to keep tap dancing and side stepping and BS slinging, please proceed. I won't be reading it.

Have a nice day.

Trig, you have to admit, that is a horrible thing to say about another......

You don't honestly believe he yearns to see countless people slaughtered, it's a promising life for him, etc., do you?

[Timmytour]

The American wrote: It would be just fine with you, to see countless people slaughtered, and a country taken over becoming a terrorist state?

It goes without saying that I think this is an appalling statement, all the more disappointing as it is not so very different in its way from that made by another poster whose "side" you were on in another debate that you nevertheless rightly, in my opinion, condemned.

That said, leaving the inferred slander to one side, why is that those who think leaving Iraq automatically assume that it will become a terrorist state?

Besides betraying a complete lack of trust in the Iraqis, I'm interested to know what makes them believe how a group of people without much of an infrastructure and with the eys on the world constantly upon them, will go on to achieve everything Saddam wanted but got absolutely nowhere near getting?

[baleyg]

Alizard wrote: (...)to no longer debate whether Iraq is in a civil war.... but to look back and see when it became one.
Or, for some, to suggest that if there's a civil war, then it started long ago - and therefore it's just more "bad news" from Iraq. Against a lot of political noise designed to pin the Bush- administration on semantics.

.. what I'd like to know is how "Civil war" somehow was decided would describe the situation in Iraq. There's so many unexplained presumptions included in that, it's not so easy to tell.

[beachbum bob]

baleyg wrote: Alizard wrote: (...)to no longer debate whether Iraq is in a civil war.... but to look back and see when it became one.
Or, for some, to suggest that if there's a civil war, then it started long ago - and therefore it's just more "bad news" from Iraq. Against a lot of political noise designed to pin the Bush- administration on semantics.

.. what I'd like to know is how "Civil war" somehow was decided would describe the situation in Iraq. There's so many unexplained presumptions included in that, it's not so easy to tell.

not so easy to tell for some people...not for others. Iraqi is screwed and the US can not unscrew it, only the iraqis can.

[Rankor and Pissing]

Alizard wrote: The American wrote: Alizard wrote: It would seem that there has been a transition, at least among the educated, to no longer debate whether Iraq is in a civil war.... but to look back and see when it became one.

It will be interesting how long it will be before there is an acknowledgement by our government.

IMHO, there will not be one until we get a significant "stand down" reduction in US forces from Iraq. That will be essential, because thereafter, everything bad can be blamed on the Iraqi government and Iraqi defense forces.
The same principle applies to the new democratic congress. :lol:



It would be just fine with you, to see countless people slaughtered, and a country taken over becoming a terrorist state? What a promising life that would be. Blaming it all then on the Iraqi, not by your consequences of pulling out before the job is complete? Good lord son. Be responsible.

Trig.

You are lucky for two reasons: I don't engage in personal attacks such as you just did, and I don't report threads where people like you engage in such behavior. :rotf: That's the most pleasant personal attack I've ever read! For those who only live to criticize the current administration, it's just more same old same old blame game tactics.

Alizard wrote: What I said was that it is this admin who will CONTINUE to play eyes wide shut as Iraqi civilinas are killed at a rate of 4000 per month as they claim there is no civil war, for the political motive of pretending what they are doing is anything less than an absolute failure and catalyst to the violence which is there. And?

Alizard wrote: And Bush et al are going to find a way to blame the Iraqis for the civil war that is already going on. Justification that you're right and Bush is wrong... more blame game.

Alizard wrote: But you already know what I said and why I said it, and you also know I am right. You're always right Alizard... always. :lol:

Alizard wrote: And the proof of that has been so conveniently provided by you in your post, which is 100% devoid of anything addressing the thread topic (the civil war in Iraq, the admin's refusal to address it, and the resulting chaos)..... and just a pathetic pile of crap sculpted into a personal attack aimed at me. Hardly a personal attack.

Alizard wrote: Pathetic doesn't cover it, but (unlike you) I stay within the bounds of forum rules. Oops. I thought you weren't going to engage in personal attacks? Tsk tsk. Couldn't help yourself eh?