user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes, the I agree with the General
I believe Iraq has been in a low-grade civil war since 2003.
I disagree. Sectarianism does not always equate to civil war. There needs to be more separate political organisation on both sides of the militancy.
Lack of political organisation of militas means it is not a civil war, but merely relatively disorganised sectarian clashes.
What Cathexis said Iraq has been in a low grade civil war since 2003.To pretend that the sectarian violence is not a part of a civil war would be silly.
Corrupt- point out the political organisation of the militias in question. Lack of such organisation equates to no civil war. If it is to attributed as 'civil war', then so is Thailand and many other countries. Several terrorist cells does not make up a civil war. A civil war must have two or more politically organised armies. Let us not exaggerate the sectarianism and terrorist violence in Iraq to be of that nature.
If anything, Afghanistan is much more engaged in a civil war than Iraq is- as the oppositional Taliban are very organised, are more than just terrorist cells, and contitute a guerilla army.
3,000 people are dying per month in Iraq through military violence - Iraqi killing Iraqi - but it's not a civil war because you can't make organizational charts of the groups involved?
Some very interesting comments here.
I do find it strange that a nation like Colombia has 3,000 to 4,000 terrorist homicides a year and is considered a 'civil war', while Iraq (with 80% less people) has over 3,000 a month and isn't considered so.
Voted : Yes, the I agree with the General
Give that man a rubber cookie!
^I think the reason conservatives are sensitive to the term "civil war" is because to admit that Iraq is now in a state of civil war means putting another failure stamp in Bush's passport.
^That's probably true.
Socrates your defintion of a civil war is far to narrow to be applied to the real world.A civil war is not limitted to a war between two different political organizations in the same nation.A more reasonable definition of a civil war would be a sustained conflict between two or more factions (religious,political or ethnic) in the same nation.Let us not play down the sectarian violence using semantics and incorrect definitions.
Corrupt - If we apply your definition of "a civil war would be a sustained conflict between two or more factions (religious,political or ethnic) in the same nation.", then one could say that Iraq is having a civil war. However, using your definition it can also be argued that Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, India, Russia, China, and many more are also having civil wars. In fact, using your definition, Iraq was already having a civil war under Saddam- that is Baghdad Vs. Kurds. Of course, such a loose definition of 'civil war' does kind of play down the label.
cranky- "I think the reason conservatives are sensitive to the term "civil war" is because to admit that Iraq is now in a state of civil war means putting another failure stamp in Bush's passport."
I don't think so. Firstly, I am not conservative. Secondly, I am not a fan of Bush. Thirdly, I was against the Iraq war from the beginning.
If anything, it seems to me that some anti-Bush groups are overly-enthusiastic about the label 'civil war' so that they can put another failure stamp on Bush's record. Although I am not a fan of Bush or the Iraq war, I honestly do not see it as being a civil war. Even the American General you have quoted did not say it is a civil war. What he said was that it "could move toward a civil war". That pretty much sounds like my point of view: that it currently is not a civil war, but that it is increasingly having the potential to become one.
As to your dismissal of my point about organisational factors: Organisation is not important for just civil wars, but any 'war' requires organisation of at least two sides. Conflicts between nation-states clearly fit this. The Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is clearly a war. The Chinese civil war between the KMT and the CCP was clearly a civil 'war'. However, random terrorist attacks, as brutal as they are, do not necessarily constitute a civil war. Anyway, the terrorist groups in question in Iraq, are increasingly becoming organised and politicised. So a potential does exist for a civil war to take place some time in the future.
Socrates:
I understand what you are saying, but, I also think that Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. are soft-pedaling the present situation in Iraq. By saying it's not a civil war, they are saying that things aren't really that bad there, that a civil war would necessarily be worse. I'm saying that even if you don't call it a civil war, 3,000 dead per month is a horrible situation, regardless of what it is labeled.
cranky- "I also think that Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. are soft-pedaling the present situation in Iraq."
- I am not American, and do not hear their speeches often at all. So you would know better than myself.
|
|
