Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Aug 1, 2006.
The history books will probably refer to it as a 'civil war' when its still going on in 20 years.
There is a religious war going on in the greater Baghdad/Sunni Triangle area. That would be considered a local skirmish.
A civil war...is one where the entire couintry is at war due to weakened government. Most of Iraq is about as peacefull as one would expect for that region...they don't have police forces as we know them...all of those countries have much corruption in terms of who gets arrested as an example.
So...why IN YOUR OPINION IS IRAQ IN A CIVIL WAR? Sorry for coming on so strong here Mikey but I've read your posts when you choose to type them. You have made many good posts...why do you post links with no words?
I come here to discuss opinion and to learn. I can read Newsweek as well as the next guy. Just consider this...if everyone here posted links without opinion we would have NO FORUM...IMO, you are abusing the forum if you don't post your opinion....using it as a billboard...so come on...take the time to post some opinion...try some Viagra...if you need your fingers to be a little stiffer to enhance typing if needed.
wouldn't it be safe to say its just semantics at this point? Tens-Hundreds are dying and maimed and kidnapped every day in Baghdad...the "secure" area. You know for a fact that the rest of Iraq is about as peaceful as could be expected?? What basis for that claim do you have???
We are not securing those areas and sure as hell don't have reporters in the field there. So, if you define a civil war as you have, and you have an entire prefabricated-boundary nation of two sects that vow to kill each other (forget the Kurds autonomy for the sake of simplicity), with Baghdad a representative slice of that forced cohabitation....
...FBN, how can you make the claim that it is not a civil war, even by your own definition?
To quote the great Belichick, "It is what it is". Our language is not perfectly suited to identifying every nuance of real-world situations. Like AAB said, real people are dying - this is just semantics.
Because it is a power struggle within a city.
Because it is confined to the religious groups/tribes.
Because the public is not enlisting to fight what does not exist.
Because civil war is fought for who controls the government.
Iraq has elected officials...the skirmish will not change that.
Civil war is what is going on in Somalia...where one group who is not in power, fights to get power and run the country.
Civil wars are Liberia and the Ivory Coast that have recently ended.
Sri Lanka is in civil war Tamil Tigers vs Sri Lankan government.
An Iraq civil war...if it did exist would be the Shia, Sunni and/or the Kurds fighting for control of the country...this is not the case.
The city is the closest forced cohabitation and represents the larger conflict.
Confined to religious tribes which comprise almost the entirety of the population
The public is not enlisting? Are you high man?
This is not about Sunni control vs. Shia control?? The what do you think its about? Thats what sectarian violence IS!
If they are not fighting for control, then they are fighting for independance from a nation state. Is that what you are saying?
That started when the 1st Mosque was blown up and was then fueled by Al-Jazeera. Much of the secretarian violence is actually a turf war being fought for the control of illegal fuel sales...all of it is reported but the Mosque attacks are always sensationalized.
Al-Jazeera is very coy on how they report the news in the Arab world. Proof of this is how they will sensationalize smaller stories and barely report bigger stories that are not good fuel for anger and violence.
Agree with that or not it is certainly worth a thought or two.
That's okay...you are entitled to be wrong twice at the same time.
Separate names with a comma.