Political Crossfire Forums

[Kilo Tango]

The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

[beachbum bob]

Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday....

[Kilo Tango]

beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

[beachbum bob]

Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

coordinate attacks that killed 250 people is pretty much a civil war tactic...you may not want to accept the fact that Iraq is pretty much out of control and there is no Iraqi govt entity that can do anything about it...another indication of civil war....

[Mr. Sunshine]

beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

coordinate attacks that killed 250 people is pretty much a civil war tactic...you may not want to accept the fact that Iraq is pretty much out of control and there is no Iraqi govt entity that can do anything about it...another indication of civil war....

Serial reprisal attacks, no matter how well coordinated, do not define a Civil War. I can see how the term can fit certain political agendas of those who crave failure in Iraq, though. 8:)

[beachbum bob]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

coordinate attacks that killed 250 people is pretty much a civil war tactic...you may not want to accept the fact that Iraq is pretty much out of control and there is no Iraqi govt entity that can do anything about it...another indication of civil war....

Serial reprisal attacks, no matter how well coordinated, do not define a Civil War. I can see how the term can fit certain political agendas of those who crave failure in Iraq, though. 8:)

I can see how sailing down the river of denial make some more comfortable with the debacle at hand

[Chymical]

Two actions in the same nation fighting and killing by the thousands is in no way a Civil War.

That's Logic, That is.

[beachbum bob]

Chymical wrote: Two actions in the same nation fighting and killing by the thousands is in no way a Civil War.

That's Logic, That is.

that obvious???

[Heinz]

beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

coordinate attacks that killed 250 people is pretty much a civil war tactic...you may not want to accept the fact that Iraq is pretty much out of control and there is no Iraqi govt entity that can do anything about it...another indication of civil war....

He says that there's violence, but due to the fact that they aren't doing things that are usually done in a civil war, like taking out the other's resources and stating obvious and public goals. They seem to have the appearance of merely just wanting to kill eachother for the hell of it. What are the expressed goals of the Sunni insurgents? What about the Shia?

I think the one thing that holds many back from calling it a civil war is the clear lack of coordination from both sides. What do they want? The country or merely revenge for 40 years of Saddam? This makes all the difference. I think it has the potential to be a full blown civil war, but right now it is simply the useless killing of different cultural groups for no reason. Civil wars have a purpose. Your's was to end slavery in the US.

What is the purpose here?

[beachbum bob]

Heinz wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

coordinate attacks that killed 250 people is pretty much a civil war tactic...you may not want to accept the fact that Iraq is pretty much out of control and there is no Iraqi govt entity that can do anything about it...another indication of civil war....

He says that there's violence, but due to the fact that they aren't doing things that are usually done in a civil war, like taking out the other's resources and stating obvious and public goals. They seem to have the appearance of merely just wanting to kill eachother for the hell of it. What are the expressed goals of the Sunni insurgents? What about the Shia?

I think the one thing that holds many back from calling it a civil war is the clear lack of coordination from both sides. What do they want? The country or merely revenge for 40 years of Saddam? This makes all the difference. I think it has the potential to be a full blown civil war, but right now it is simply the useless killing of different cultural groups for no reason. Civil wars have a purpose. Your's was to end slavery in the US.

What is the purpose here?

control....
control of a neighborhood
control of a town
a province
a country

its resources

[The American]

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.

Thank you. It went pretty well.

Now, I will do my best to answer you, and a few other posters within the page 1 of this thread. First let us examine your statement that brought forth my reaction.

Quote: 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.

We have 140,000 soldiers in Iraq. A significant stand down reduction in troop level would be sending a wrong message to both sides, those who oppose us, and those who wish us there. You have claimed the government will not acknowledge civil war until we withdraw a significant amount of force. Note the word withdraw, which is the same as reduction in this subject. Based on your next statement, I would say you have a mindset of quitting, as you lay responsibility for anything else bad being blamed on the Iraqi government and Iraqi forces.

Now, in Blaming the Iraqi government and Iraqi forces, you said it was essential which tells me you expect the bad things to happen, what bad things would that be Alizard? More death and destruction. In recognizing your mindset, I do not withdraw the following statement or apologize for it, as you inspired it from me;

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

If this is not what you meant, you should have carefully worded it better. However, after taking your statement apart, your mindset is recognized.

I still apologized however, for calling you son

Thanks to capn queasy for your supportive statement of thought, it does not go unappreciated.

:wink:

Now the explaining has been done, I will address other questions. What makes me think disaster will take place if we withdraw force? Based on support of the opposition in Iraq, in which we look back this past year and last, civil war was threatened. What we see is not civil war, it is instigation only, and why do you suppose I think that way? Because it is a low percentage of population that is in opposition. 10 % and you can quote me on it. Look it up and check it out before you disagree. Facts are facts.

Now one other issue that puzzled me, brought forth in this thread. Beach Bob, you stated, 250 casualties in one day made you think civil war in place? I tend to disagree. Why? Again, low percentage. Let me explain and give example from past Oklahoman experience. We had an internal terror attack here that took the lives of 168 innocent people. The attack on the Federal Murrah Building was an attack directed at government and authority. From, someone who was in opposition. It was not civil war then. Or would 168 people be sufficient enough number? It was politically backed, as you see opposition in Iraq today.

You leave me confused. Please explain.

Trig.

[The American]

Nevermind Bob, I see your above post.

[beachbum bob]

Heinz wrote: Your's was to end slavery in the US.


American civil war was a little more complex than just about slavery...

[The American]

beachbum bob wrote: Heinz wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

coordinate attacks that killed 250 people is pretty much a civil war tactic...you may not want to accept the fact that Iraq is pretty much out of control and there is no Iraqi govt entity that can do anything about it...another indication of civil war....

He says that there's violence, but due to the fact that they aren't doing things that are usually done in a civil war, like taking out the other's resources and stating obvious and public goals. They seem to have the appearance of merely just wanting to kill eachother for the hell of it. What are the expressed goals of the Sunni insurgents? What about the Shia?

I think the one thing that holds many back from calling it a civil war is the clear lack of coordination from both sides. What do they want? The country or merely revenge for 40 years of Saddam? This makes all the difference. I think it has the potential to be a full blown civil war, but right now it is simply the useless killing of different cultural groups for no reason. Civil wars have a purpose. Your's was to end slavery in the US.

What is the purpose here?

control....
control of a neighborhood
control of a town
a province
a country

its resources

By the significant number of force outside Iraq supporting this movement through the Sunni, you could catagorize it as a "backed civil war". However, I still believe, number of casualties inflicted has nothing to do with the label.

Trig.

[beachbum bob]

The American wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Heinz wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

coordinate attacks that killed 250 people is pretty much a civil war tactic...you may not want to accept the fact that Iraq is pretty much out of control and there is no Iraqi govt entity that can do anything about it...another indication of civil war....

He says that there's violence, but due to the fact that they aren't doing things that are usually done in a civil war, like taking out the other's resources and stating obvious and public goals. They seem to have the appearance of merely just wanting to kill eachother for the hell of it. What are the expressed goals of the Sunni insurgents? What about the Shia?

I think the one thing that holds many back from calling it a civil war is the clear lack of coordination from both sides. What do they want? The country or merely revenge for 40 years of Saddam? This makes all the difference. I think it has the potential to be a full blown civil war, but right now it is simply the useless killing of different cultural groups for no reason. Civil wars have a purpose. Your's was to end slavery in the US.

What is the purpose here?

control....
control of a neighborhood
control of a town
a province
a country

its resources

By the significant number of force outside Iraq supporting this movement through the Sunni, you could catagorize it as a "backed civil war". However, I still believe, number of casualties inflicted has nothing to do with the label.

Trig.

granted...a number of dead isn't the definitive sign of civil war...but the the impotence of a govt to instill safety and security is....Iraq has no govt entity that can do either...
ie...they are in a civil war

[Dookiestix]

Heinz wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

coordinate attacks that killed 250 people is pretty much a civil war tactic...you may not want to accept the fact that Iraq is pretty much out of control and there is no Iraqi govt entity that can do anything about it...another indication of civil war....

He says that there's violence, but due to the fact that they aren't doing things that are usually done in a civil war, like taking out the other's resources and stating obvious and public goals. They seem to have the appearance of merely just wanting to kill eachother for the hell of it. What are the expressed goals of the Sunni insurgents? What about the Shia?

I think the one thing that holds many back from calling it a civil war is the clear lack of coordination from both sides. What do they want? The country or merely revenge for 40 years of Saddam? This makes all the difference. I think it has the potential to be a full blown civil war, but right now it is simply the useless killing of different cultural groups for no reason. Civil wars have a purpose. Your's was to end slavery in the US.

What is the purpose here?
Control of the country and it's resources due to the result of a power vacuum. The anger between Shiia and Sunni only intensifies this conflict, IMHO. And both sides know that the U.S. is after their oil.

Imagine our civil war, but with a foreign occupier hungry for our resources and with superior fire power adding to the mess.

The majority of the violence is between Sunni and Shiia. These two warring factions are generally p*ssed at each other, so it's hard not to recognize the civil discourse and war-like actions that is currently taking place.

[Alizard]

Dookiestix wrote: Heinz wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

coordinate attacks that killed 250 people is pretty much a civil war tactic...you may not want to accept the fact that Iraq is pretty much out of control and there is no Iraqi govt entity that can do anything about it...another indication of civil war....

He says that there's violence, but due to the fact that they aren't doing things that are usually done in a civil war, like taking out the other's resources and stating obvious and public goals. They seem to have the appearance of merely just wanting to kill eachother for the hell of it. What are the expressed goals of the Sunni insurgents? What about the Shia?

I think the one thing that holds many back from calling it a civil war is the clear lack of coordination from both sides. What do they want? The country or merely revenge for 40 years of Saddam? This makes all the difference. I think it has the potential to be a full blown civil war, but right now it is simply the useless killing of different cultural groups for no reason. Civil wars have a purpose. Your's was to end slavery in the US.

What is the purpose here?
Control of the country and it's resources due to the result of a power vacuum. The anger between Shiia and Sunni only intensifies this conflict, IMHO. And both sides know that the U.S. is after their oil.

Imagine our civil war, but with a foreign occupier hungry for our resources and with superior fire power adding to the mess.

The majority of the violence is between Sunni and Shiia. These two warring factions are generally p*ssed at each other, so it's hard not to recognize the civil discourse and war-like actions that is currently taking place.

It always amazes me that everybody pushing the "stay the course" policy or it's variations such as "stay the course until the dems take over then blame them for everything that happens".......

fail to see what would be obvious to anyone with a working brain: this mess is an Arab problem and the only chance of a long term solution would be an Arab solution. We can't go in with guns and install a puppet regime and expect everybody to accept that.

I don't think there is going to be a smooth transition: I see as a long term "solution" a partitioned Iraq with Sunnis on their parent country (Saudi Arabia) side and the Shiites next to their parent state (Iran). That would put buffer zones between SA and Iran and ratchet down the level of hostilities.

Of course, the oil revenue and resources will have to be divided up... and that will not be easy. And the Arab states will continue to squabble and fight over oil, who is producing too much, who is angle-drilling into their neighbor's pools, etc.... as they always have been.

But, the point is these are Arab problems that require Arab solutions... if they want to fix them at all. In this case, I think when we leave, the Arab states will act simply because the chaos in Iraq threatens their wealthy life style.... and they might give a little to preserve that.

Time will tell.

[The American]

beachbum bob wrote: The American wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Heinz wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

coordinate attacks that killed 250 people is pretty much a civil war tactic...you may not want to accept the fact that Iraq is pretty much out of control and there is no Iraqi govt entity that can do anything about it...another indication of civil war....

He says that there's violence, but due to the fact that they aren't doing things that are usually done in a civil war, like taking out the other's resources and stating obvious and public goals. They seem to have the appearance of merely just wanting to kill eachother for the hell of it. What are the expressed goals of the Sunni insurgents? What about the Shia?

I think the one thing that holds many back from calling it a civil war is the clear lack of coordination from both sides. What do they want? The country or merely revenge for 40 years of Saddam? This makes all the difference. I think it has the potential to be a full blown civil war, but right now it is simply the useless killing of different cultural groups for no reason. Civil wars have a purpose. Your's was to end slavery in the US.

What is the purpose here?

control....
control of a neighborhood
control of a town
a province
a country

its resources

By the significant number of force outside Iraq supporting this movement through the Sunni, you could catagorize it as a "backed civil war". However, I still believe, number of casualties inflicted has nothing to do with the label.

Trig.

granted...a number of dead isn't the definitive sign of civil war...but the the impotence of a govt to instill safety and security is....Iraq has no govt entity that can do either...ie...they are in a civil war

Thank you. You have acknowledged the right wing base idea of the importance of staying in Iraq until the job is finished. That job my friend, is strengthening the existing government and armed forces who defend the Freedom of the people of Iraq. The majority of the country desires it based on percentage and voter turnout.

:wink:

[beachbum bob]

The American wrote:
Thank you. You have acknowledged the right wing base idea of the importance of staying in Iraq until the job is finished. That job my friend, is strengthening the existing government and armed forces who defend the Freedom of the people of Iraq. The majority of the country desires it based on percentage and voter turnout.

:wink:

3 1/2yrs after the fall of saddam and the US has not gotten the Iraq govt any closer to being "capable", the iraqi army is a joke the iraqi security forces are a joke.....and may never be improved until the US pulls out....
the decisions made by the bush administration on Iraq has been disastrous from the getgo
with little hope of improving the outcome for either our forces or the iraqi people

[Alizard]

The American wrote: beachbum bob wrote: The American wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Heinz wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

coordinate attacks that killed 250 people is pretty much a civil war tactic...you may not want to accept the fact that Iraq is pretty much out of control and there is no Iraqi govt entity that can do anything about it...another indication of civil war....

He says that there's violence, but due to the fact that they aren't doing things that are usually done in a civil war, like taking out the other's resources and stating obvious and public goals. They seem to have the appearance of merely just wanting to kill eachother for the hell of it. What are the expressed goals of the Sunni insurgents? What about the Shia?

I think the one thing that holds many back from calling it a civil war is the clear lack of coordination from both sides. What do they want? The country or merely revenge for 40 years of Saddam? This makes all the difference. I think it has the potential to be a full blown civil war, but right now it is simply the useless killing of different cultural groups for no reason. Civil wars have a purpose. Your's was to end slavery in the US.

What is the purpose here?

control....
control of a neighborhood
control of a town
a province
a country

its resources

By the significant number of force outside Iraq supporting this movement through the Sunni, you could catagorize it as a "backed civil war". However, I still believe, number of casualties inflicted has nothing to do with the label.

Trig.

granted...a number of dead isn't the definitive sign of civil war...but the the impotence of a govt to instill safety and security is....Iraq has no govt entity that can do either...ie...they are in a civil war

Thank you. You have acknowledged the right wing base idea of the importance of staying in Iraq until the job is finished. That job my friend, is strengthening the existing government and armed forces who defend the Freedom of the people of Iraq. The majority of the country desires it based on percentage and voter turnout.

:wink:

Of course, the glaring and fatal defect in your argument is that there is a course that will lead to a stable Iraq under the "defense" of it's internal military and police forces...... both of whom are riddled with members of the various Shia militias and currently carry out death squad genocide.

Further, this scenario ignores the fact that the Sunnis will never accept Shiite dominance and will continue to wage the civil war they are currently carrying out since they will be excluded both from the control of the country and shres of it's wealth.

Yes, we all wish that there was a magic wand we could wave that would unite the factions engaged in civil war and lead to a peaceful Iraq.

But some of us are not so brain dead as to think it is going to happen once the Shiite forces are given control of the country. All hell is going to break loose and nothing is going to stop it. About 180,000 of the finest military forces on earth can not even secure 10% of that country and the capitol is constantly in turmoil..... tell us the fairy tale again about how a corrupt force of hardly trained soldiers are going to do better?