• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What does it take

Disagreeable

Well-known member
for a "civil war" to be acknowledged?
Excerpts; link below; my emphasis.

"The fighting erupted at a very combustible moment in Iraq, with sectarian tensions rising, leadership problems deepening, and dozens of mutilated bodies continuing to surface on Iraqi streets today."

"Security in Baghdad seems to be deteriorating by the hour, and it is increasingly unclear who is in control. Earlier today, the Iraqi Interior Ministry reported that American forces raided a secret prison and arrested several Iraqi policeman."

"American officials have been more overt in the past week than ever in blaming Shiite militias, in particular Mr. Sadr's Mahdi Army, for a wave of sectarian bloodshed that seems to have no end. This morning, authorities in Baghdad discovered the corpses of 10 more men, all bound, blindfolded and shot.
Iraqi television showed footage of what appeared to be a prayer room filled with more than a dozen bodies. Several of them looked well beyond military age. Some of the men were shown with identification cards lying on their chests, jagged bullet holes cut through the plastic.
American officials are now saying that militias are the No. 1 security problem in Iraq, more dangerous than suicide bombs or guerilla attacks. Earlier this evening, the bodies of 30 beheaded men were found on a main highway near Baquba, providing more evidence that the death squads in Iraq are operating out of control."

"It's too dangerous for us to go in there alone," an Iraqi Army commander, Tassin Tawfik, said."

The discovery of the 30 beheaded bodies, as well as the corpses of 10 other men found in Baghdad added to the hundreds of bodies that have recently surfaced on Baghdad's streets.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/middleeast/26cnd-iraq.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1143435600&en=11f970a707b1fe09&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
 

BBJ

Well-known member
So if someone....anyone.. acknowledges that there is a civil war going on over there what would that solve? I guess I don't really understand your emphasis.

So now the violence is more from "Shiite militias" rather than "suicide bombs or guerilla attacks". That tells me we are making progress. I know you have trouble seeing the positive because you are so blinded with hatred for your President but now that the "suicide bombs or guerilla attacks" are less dangerous (possible going away) and the "Shiite militias" are the hot topic at the moment, if we just hold our ground and stay the course all will be fine.

We can't be weak. Stay STRONG. :D
 

jigs

Well-known member
when one group waving the Stars and Stripes rushes the other sporting the Stars and Bars, and there are bluecoats and Johhny reb, then I guess I will acknowledge a civil war........

Can Hillary Clinton play the roll of Abe Lincoln at the theater????
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Really it doesn't take someone actually saying out loud the words CIVIL WAR to make it real.

Any time....any place... any where in the world that you have citizens of the same nation/country/ state/ city, etc. turning on and killing each other over internal issues....you have a CIVIL WAR!
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
I kind of think this is a big duh, too, kola... My dictionary apparently has the same defintion of civil war as yours.
confused-smiley-013.gif


Why no one is willing to admit it? I'm not sure. I have several theories, though.
-It might be that admitting that civil war has broke out would make the US occupation seem incompetant. Ie, we've lost control of the situation.
-Since Iraqui officials are equally hesitant to call it civil war, it might be due to the idea that hope would be lost if a civil war breaks out. (afterall, it was during Afghanistan's civil war that the Taliban gained control)
-It might be that were the Bush Administration to admit there's a civil war, they would jumped on more than ever by their anti-war opponents (from both sides of the aisle) for creating a colossal mess. No agreeing to this idea of civil war means that situation is avoided for the time being.

Frankly, I lean toward theory number two...
 

BBJ

Well-known member
OK HMW, you gave us reasons why people are hesistant to call it a civil war, but why are you and others so insistant on calling it that? What good would it do if our President came out today and said there is a civil war in Iraq?

please tell.....
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
frankly, I don't think it makes a lick of difference if it's called a civil war or not. I think people are deluding themselves if they actually think it's not, but in all honesty, I don't think it actually matters.

However, that doesn't change the fact that that's exactly what it is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civil%20war
civil war
n : a war between factions in the same country

(And I seriously doubt the president doesn't think Iraq has fallen into civil war, btw. He just doesn't want to say it for whatever reason.)
 

BBJ

Well-known member
theHiredMansWife said:
frankly, I don't think it makes a lick of difference if it's called a civil war or not. I think people are deluding themselves if they actually think it's not, but in all honesty, I don't think it actually matters.

However, that doesn't change the fact that that's exactly what it is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civil%20war
civil war
n : a war between factions in the same country

Uh I'm not sure why you are getting a little fired up at me and including the definition of civil war? I never said it wasn't a civil war over there, I simply asked the question what would it solve and why "some" were so hellbent on getting others to call it that? It's funny how you tell us how much of an independent you are but you never seem to take a conservative side to any issue. Not even a semi-conservative position. Just an observation though it doesn't really mean much :D


:wink:
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
"Fired up?"

Like I said, I don't think it matters one way or the other. Why would I be "fired up?" :???:
You asked why I was so insistant on calling it a civil war and I simply gave the definition so you would understand. Why ask a question if you don't want the answer?

you never seem to take a conservative side to any issue
Maybe you need to read more carefully. Shoot, Soapweed has gotten grumpy with me for not being a liberal enough liberal. :lol:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
BBJ ...it IS what it IS!!!!

If you put lipstick on a pig....it's still a pig!!!

You can't fix a problem till you completely and fully IDENTIFY the problem. It's a civil war and it's a problem!
 

BBJ

Well-known member
OK IT IS WHAT IT IS! Big deal now I"ll be the first to say it there is a civil war in Iraq as we speak.

Now what good does it do?



The two of you are again avoiding my questions.
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
BBJ said:
OK IT IS WHAT IT IS! Big deal now I"ll be the first to say it there is a civil war in Iraq as we speak.
Now what good does it do?
The two of you are again avoiding my questions.

That's what I thought. :roll:


Read my first post again. Particularly this part:
frankly, I don't think it makes a lick of difference if it's called a civil war or not.
You're just arguing to be argumentative.
speechless-smiley-022.gif
 

BBJ

Well-known member
theHiredMansWife said:
BBJ said:
OK IT IS WHAT IT IS! Big deal now I"ll be the first to say it there is a civil war in Iraq as we speak.
Now what good does it do?
The two of you are again avoiding my questions.

That's what I thought. :roll:


Read my first post again. Particularly this part:
frankly, I don't think it makes a lick of difference if it's called a civil war or not.
You're just arguing to be argumentative.
speechless-smiley-022.gif
:???: What's what you thought? :???:


Oh and I'm not trying to be arguentative, I think it was you that taught me to ask questions more, and so I am simply asking why is it so important we call it that?

So since it frankly doesn't make a lick of difference now I'll say there is no CIVIL WAR in Iraq. :)
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Now see....that didn't hurt one bit, did it???? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I thought I gave you an answer....you have to identify the problem and call it what it is BEFORE you can go about working on a solution.

It's like you said, I think to me once," I'm not a military commander and I'll leave decisions to them" or something close to that.......but I know my point was call "it" by what it is...period!


If you were sick with cancer and you called it a head cold , the treatment would for a cold would be totally wrong for what IS ailing you. If you identify it as CANCER then the right plan for treatment can be assessed.

That's about as many analogies I can crank out right now. I gotta go ck cows!!!!!.
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
Oh and I'm not trying to be arguentative, I think it was you that taught me to ask questions more, and so I am simply asking why is it so important we call it that?
Let's rephrase, then:

Don't ask the same questions over and over when they've already been answered.

So far as not wanting to acknoweldge it, you'll notice I also said:
think people are deluding themselves if they actually think it's not. You can say the world is flat if you want, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter if you think the world is flat, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not flat. :wink:
 

BBJ

Well-known member
theHiredMansWife said:
Oh and I'm not trying to be arguentative, I think it was you that taught me to ask questions more, and so I am simply asking why is it so important we call it that?
Let's rephrase, then:

Don't ask the same questions over and over when they've already been answered.

So far as not wanting to acknoweldge it, you'll notice I also said:
think people are deluding themselves if they actually think it's not. You can say the world is flat if you want, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter if you think the world is flat, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not flat. :wink:

I guess my asking the same question over and over again is a bad habit I must work on, :oops: it's just that I have grown acustomed to doing it because usually the resident libs miss them on the first two or three tries. :wink:

You see repeating them is them only way I can get answers anymore. :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
while some factions appear to be fighting other factions.....is it a civil war...

an old gangland, mafia, drug thugs, al-quiada tactic is to attack both sides in an effort to start problems.....

Shites and Sunnis both consider thier Mosques sacred,,,,attacking them is not a civil war tactic for them. but al-quiada seems to enjoy "using" them as a wedge. they hid in them, they used them to store weapons, and as a wedge between US and the Iraqi population.....now as the Iraqi population grows tired of the Al-quida, they stir up trouble by attacking mosques....because it will cause the most heated emotions in the Iraqi population......


it may appear to be factions fighting other factions, if so why is most of the factions leaders calling for calm?

"
In the southern city of Basra, an explosion wounded two civilians outside a Shiite holy site -- the Imam Ali shrine, an Iraqi military spokesman said.

The blast came shortly after a radical Shiite cleric visited the city to rally for Muslim unity.

Muqtada al-Sadr called on demonstrators to hold joint prayers next Friday at Sunni mosques hit by the past days' violence. He also renewed his call for U.S.-led coalition troops to withdraw from Iraq, according to Reuters.

More than 200 people have been killed in violence since Wednesday, when insurgents bombed Samarra's Al-Askariya Mosque, a Shiite shrine also known as the Golden Mosque. The mosque is considered one of the holiest of Shiite sites.

Many of the attacks have pitted Shiites and Sunnis against one another.

The bombing in Samarra triggered reprisals across Iraq, including the killings of Sunnis, attacks on their mosques and mass protests

best way to start a fight is attack a site that stirs emotions more then rational thought............then attack the other sides equally revered site....gee next thing both sides are shooting mad, and lo and behold, a fight has begun......terrorist do not want peace,,,,they want to kill others,,,by any means.....the latest round of Mosque attacks are just another tactic they will use,,,,the shift is more then likely to get "recruits" for more suicide operations....

(ever notice the blunt of the suicide operations are "targeted" at Iraqis).....

if you enemy was Americans why keep attacking Iraqis?
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
theHiredMansWife said:
frankly, I don't think it makes a lick of difference if it's called a civil war or not. I think people are deluding themselves if they actually think it's not, but in all honesty, I don't think it actually matters.

However, that doesn't change the fact that that's exactly what it is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civil%20war
civil war
n : a war between factions in the same country

(And I seriously doubt the president doesn't think Iraq has fallen into civil war, btw. He just doesn't want to say it for whatever reason.)

Makes about as much sense as you not admitting you are a liberal. The same old walk, talk, it must be a "duck" theory applies in both instances. Kind of like the "civil war" on Rancher.Net. Sorry that it is me turning it into that, but I guess a spade is a spade, if it throws dirt, right? :wink:
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
Giving a definition out of the dictionary is "throwing dirt"?

Don't you have someone else you could follow around and harrass, Soapweed? I'm more than a little tired of being the target of your juvenile behavior. If you have something to add to the conversation, please do so. But if you're just here to get in some snide comments, go away. :roll:


(ever notice the blunt of the suicide operations are "targeted" at Iraqis).....
if you enemy was Americans why keep attacking Iraqis?
Yeah, I have Steve. That's part of why I think "civil war", myself... If they were united against us (or any other outside force), it wouldn't be a civil war.

Shites and Sunnis both consider thier Mosques sacred,,,,attacking them is not a civil war tactic for them.
Their own mosques, sure. But attacking the other guy's mosque is game on.

an old gangland, mafia, drug thugs, al-quiada tactic is to attack both sides in an effort to start problems.....
True. But to say that this is only incoming Al Quaeda is probably oversimplifying the problem. There have been Shiite/Sunni tensions for centuries...
When you listen to reports, people seem to think they know who is doing it because they've seen people they recongnize. Whether it be Shia or Sunni.
But the fact that there are so many clerics and other leaders begging for peace renews the hope that there might be peace.
 
Top