NationStates Jolt Archive

So, the US keeps saying it's not a civil war yet in Iraq...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4756911.stm

Over 1000 people killed in April alone due to sectarian violence has me thinking otherwise.
Should people recognize that almost 35 people dying per day due to their religious affiliation is sounding like it IS a civil war?

War isn't civil.

Well, to be brutally honest, 35 a day isn't that many.

In India, about 165 people are killed on the roads everyday. Is there a civil war between motorists?

EDIT: The poll options are awful and leading. Who says there will ever be a civil war?

35 people dying per day in a country of 25ish million people?

EGADS!

i wonder what the daily rate was during the US Civil War, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.

It'll be a civil war when they start sending out invitations to the battles, and have tea and crumpets afterwards, as well as pauses for casualties to be taken out, changing ends at half-time so that every gets a chance to be attacking and defending, and play extra time so that there isn't a replay next week/month/year...
Meh, it ain't a full-scale civil war yet.

I'd like to add that those dead are the totals from the bodies found on the streets and brought to the morgue. I doubt that takes into consideration all of the dead.

35 people dying per day in a country of 25ish million people?

EGADS!

i wonder what the daily rate was during the US Civil War, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.
Well, in the Irish Civil War, there might have been as few as two casualties a day, and certainly no more than ten (from the war). So, let's say when the casualty rate goes over 80/90 a day, it'll be a civil war? :p

35 people dying per day in a country of 25ish million people?

EGADS!

i wonder what the daily rate was during the US Civil War, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.

No, 35 people are being killed every day, because of sectarianism, thats a big difference from what you said.

I don't think the body count is the only consideration. Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq just don't get along. The only thing preventing an all out war is the presence of coalition troops. I'd call what's going on now a low intensity civil war.

I don't think the body count is the only consideration. Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq just don't get along. The only thing preventing an all out war is the presence of coalition troops. I'd call what's going on now a low intensity civil war.

Agreed.

I should add that we assume all too easily that the state of civil war is bad for us.
The low intensity ( think tongue-in-cheek here ) contention between various muslim-groups means that it is plain for all to see that muslims are not a united group. A lot of 'em are now our de facto allies. And we couldn't have done it without those dunderheads of al qaeda in mesopotamia...

See, it ain't just Dubya who believes you can accomplish a mission through boasting. :P

it's only a war if there are nuclear weapons involved, otherwise it's just a "conflict"

it's only a war if there are nuclear weapons involved, otherwise it's just a "conflict"

Well, a civil 'conflict' just sounds so.....

civil.

it's only a war if there are nuclear weapons involved, otherwise it's just a "conflict"


World Conflict I, and not World War One, wot?

Sorry mate, but that is just sophistry.

Well, to be brutally honest, 35 a day isn't that many.

Iraq has 25 Million inhabitants. USA has 300 Million.
So, if in April there had been 13'000 US-Americans killed in the USA because of a conflict between two religious groups, what would you say? It isn't that many?

Iraq has 25 Million inhabitants. USA has 300 Million.
So, if in April there had been 13'000 US-Americans killed in the USA because of a conflict between two religious groups, what would you say? It isn't that many?

No, silly. They'd be white.

Iraq has 25 Million inhabitants. USA has 300 Million.
So, if in April there had been 13'000 US-Americans killed in the USA because of a conflict between two religious groups, what would you say? It isn't that many?
You have extrapolated a figure with no evidence or basis for that extrapolation.

No, silly. They'd be white.
Not necessarily. Americans come in many different colors.

http://i2.tinypic.com/xnubu8.jpg

See?

World Conflict I, and not World War One, wot?

Sorry mate, but that is just sophistry.

sorry, I should amend that.

It's only a war if there are nuclear weapons (or large numbers of men on horseback, preferably in fancy uniforms or shining armor) involved.

Not necessarily. Americans come in many different colors.

http://i2.tinypic.com/xnubu8.jpg

See?

Please. We all know those are the offspring of the Roswell crash in the 50's.

The military merely shoved them into Las Vegas cabarets to lessen their credibility.

New York has more murders per day than 35. (or used to... at some point in time).

sorry, I should amend that.

It's only a war if there are nuclear weapons (or large numbers of men on horseback, preferably in fancy uniforms or shining armor) involved.

I think you're trying to imply the idea of 'scale' or 'size' here. ( which makes a lot more sense than your original suggestion. )

My personal view would be that the existence of civil war would depend first and foremost on the brekadown of civil authority, due to ( largely ) domestic and violent opposition.
And that is certainly the case in Iraq today.

You have extrapolated a figure with no evidence or basis for that extrapolation.
I've just adjusted the figures to the scale of the country. Because you choose to ignore the scale, and so you arrive to a comparison which is uttelry stupid. But to make clear the importance of scale:
If in Wilmington, Delaware, a gang war kills 1100 People in a month, will you still say, it isn't that many?

I've just adjusted the figures to the scale of the country.
Precisely my point. You have assumed that in America a constant of, say, 0.01% of the population would be killed per day, when there is no evidence that it wouldn't remain at 35. Therefore your argument is deeply flawed and unsustainable from the outset.

New York has more murders per day than 35. (or used to... at some point in time).
Nope. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm
Worst year: 1993, 2'400 murdes in the whole year, for a population of 18 million.

War isn't civil.

Precisely my view. "Civil War" is an oxymoron.

Precisely my point. You have assumed that in America a constant of, say, 0.01% of the population would be killed per day, when there is no evidence that it wouldn't remain at 35. Therefore your argument is deeply flawed and unsustainable from the outset.
It's you who brought the "flawed" argument of scale in the discussion: you compared the death toll of the Iraq civil war to the death toll of Indias road traffic: road traffic death numbers are proportional (cet. par.) road traffic, which is proportional (cet. par.) to population.

Anyway, in a civil war, the death toll *is* proportional to population, as you have, by definition, entire parts of the poulation fighting against each other.

It's you who brought the "flawed" argument of scale in the discussion: you compared the death toll of the Iraq civil war to the death toll of Indias road traffic: road traffic death numbers are proportional (cet. par.) road traffic, which is proportional (cet. par.) to population.
Actually, road traffic deaths in India are massively disproportional to the size of the population and it has one of the worst road safety record of any nation.

Anyway, in a civil war, the death toll *is* proportional to population, as you have, by definition, entire parts of the poulation fighting against each other.
I would not be so constrained by a definition as to say 'it must be a civil war because x number of people are dying'. Civil wars can have a hell of a lot of the population dying, or as someone highlighted earlier in this thread, not that many people at all.

of the 35 killed per day how many are simply "crime victims" vs "war casulties" 5500 people die in the US per day due to drug and alcohol abuse . Are we at war with them?

The Homicide rate in the US is about 45 per day are we fighting a civil war?

For a bit of perspective http://machiasprivateer.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-vs-iraq-murder-rates.html

Actually, road traffic deaths in India are massively disproportional to the size of the population and it has one of the worst road safety record of any nation.

Nope. If India's population would be half of what it is, nuber of deaths would be half too.
I didn't say, that the ratio population/road deaths is the same for the entire world. I said, if all other factors remain constant, the ratio population/road deaths remains constant.

Civil wars can have a hell of a lot of the population dying, or as someone highlighted earlier in this thread, not that many people at all.
Correct this way. But the other way round, it's not.
If you have a high proportion of people killed because of a nation wide conflict, then it is a civil war.
1100 per month *is* a high proportion for a country of 25 million, as is 13'000 per month for a country of 300 million.

Actually, road traffic deaths in India are massively disproportional to the size of the population and it has one of the worst road safety record of any nation.


Of course - unless you are implying that road traffic accidents in India are the expression of deep seated religious or political antagonism, your point would be entirely irrelevent anyway...

Crowded city streets, and incompetent drivers have no significance on a question about sectarian violence.