NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070203165831

How sad that anyone would kill innocent people like this. I think it has already become a civil war and there is no way the US or anyone outside Iraq can stop it. Only the people of Iraq can stop this and I'm not so sure they want to. :(

Sadly Celtlund, there are people who would rather, and have, and will continue to deny this is a civil war and brush it off and make light of it rather than face an uncomfortable political truth.

I only half heard something the other day, might have been the UN or maybe not...I guess I could look it up, but anyway...

It was some sort of official assesment that it wasn't a civil war and I was having the same reaction, but then it turned out it wasn't a civil war because what was going was worse and more complex than simply a civil war. In that respect of denying it's a civil war I can see-sort of like calling a hurricane high winds-there are high winds but what's going on is so much more.

Something, too, about being the biggest displacement of people in the middle east since the formation of Israel...fantastic. I really should look this damn story up at this point...

Sadly Celtlund, there are people who would rather, and have, and will continue to deny this is a civil war and brush it off and make light of it rather than face an uncomfortable political truth.

QFT

Hum...yes, a civil war in Iraq. Quite. Let's consider the evidence. On the one hand we have a legitimate Iraqi government with the backing of the majority of the population. Whether or not this government is representative of the Sunnis or not is besides the point, as they make up a minority government and last I checked broad representation of all political and ethnic mixes was not a requirement for a government to be described as 'democratic'. If it was, the USA would fail.

So, the government is run by Shiites, with the Sunnis being given more than their electoral weight could possibly justify. That's fine, it's a way forward, and hopefully the various distinctions will vanish with time, if allowed to. Some of the Sunnis, however, want their old power back and are struggling to retake it. Perhaps violently, maybe that fits into the whole 'civil war' theme we've got going.

But wait! Hang on, who is it a civil war between? Because a civil war has to be between people. The Spanish Civil War was between a nationalist-facist government and a left-leaning coalition democracy. Sri Lanka? The tamils want their own independent country. The IRA spent the first part of the 20th century waging war against the United Kingdom and Eire (as it then was) in the name of communist ideals. The American Civil War split the country in two parts, with the confederacy having its own government and currency.

Where does Iraq fit in? It doesn't. Because the opponents of the government are not, for the most part, advocates of the Baathist regime. They've gone quiet because their leadership's vanished and some of them want to get their plush army jobs back. There might be one or two groups of die-hards roaming Iraq shooting at people in the name of a Baathist Iraq, but they're not the main opponent.

No, the main opponent for the Iraqi government is a coalition of extremists, many of them (but not all) from outside Iraq, who want...what? They haven't formed a provisional government. They haven't declared any laws besides Sharia. They're bandits, plain and simple. Religious bandits. Murderers, cowards, and worse. Let's be blunt. They're nihilistic. They want to destroy Iraq.

Remember, even the Taliban and Somali Islamic Council actually formed a government under which to 'advocate' Sharia. The Iranian Revolution was similar. The terrorists in Iraq have not. There have been no decrees. There are no soldiers. There are a bunch of men, some of them at cross-purposes with each other, working to overthrow the provisional government, and replace it with...well, nothing, really. The closest Iraqi extremism came to an actual alternative government was under Sadr, and that was a non-starter (due to external pressures, but that's besides the point).

So, no. This is not a civil war. It's a bunch of thugs and terrorists working to destabilise a government in the name of 'global islam'. The same rallying cry which has led to similar squads of murderers and thugs everywhere from Indonesia to Saudi Arabia. And almost the same impulse that led to the establishment of the Red Brigades in Italy. No one said that Italy was fighting a civil war when fighting the Red Brigades, did they? Well, no one intelligent.

Global anything eliminates the conflict as a civil war. The Taliban were very quiet on the topic of global Islamic revolution until it suited them not to be. The Somali Islamists insisted, right up until the Ethiopians bombed them, that they were working for Somalia and only Somalia. Leaving aside that Sharia is a better system than Somalia has right now, and indeed has had since the 15th century...

Anyway, the Iraqi conflict is not a civil war. It's more like the Malayan Insurgency.

Anyway, the Iraqi conflict is not a civil war. It's more like the Malayan Insurgency.

Or a bunch of people who want change gone bad. Kind of like a group of Iraq hippies. No offense to any hippies out there, but based on what I know about the hippie movement in the 60's, they just commited Civil Disobediance for a change in the system but didn't know what exactly the government should look like. Except the Iraqis commit more than civil disobediance. I would consider it a revolution at most, since the insurgency wants change, they just don't know what yet.

I only half heard something the other day, might have been the UN or maybe not...I guess I could look it up, but anyway...

It was some sort of official assesment that it wasn't a civil war and I was having the same reaction, but then it turned out it wasn't a civil war because what was going was worse and more complex than simply a civil war. In that respect of denying it's a civil war I can see-sort of like calling a hurricane high winds-there are high winds but what's going on is so much more.

Something, too, about being the biggest displacement of people in the middle east since the formation of Israel...fantastic. I really should look this damn story up at this point...

If it were happening on a larger scale, it would have a name: Genocide. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070203165831

How sad that anyone would kill innocent people like this. I think it has already become a civil war and there is no way the US or anyone outside Iraq can stop it. Only the people of Iraq can stop this and I'm not so sure they want to. :(

Fucking war. We've only made the situation worse than it is. Freedom over security sounds very noble, but it's really just bullshit.

Hum...yes, a civil war in Iraq. Quite. Let's consider the evidence. On the one hand we have a legitimate Iraqi government with the backing of the majority of the population. Whether or not this government is representative of the Sunnis or not is besides the point, as they make up a minority government and last I checked broad representation of all political and ethnic mixes was not a requirement for a government to be described as 'democratic'. If it was, the USA would fail.

So, the government is run by Shiites, with the Sunnis being given more than their electoral weight could possibly justify. That's fine, it's a way forward, and hopefully the various distinctions will vanish with time, if allowed to. Some of the Sunnis, however, want their old power back and are struggling to retake it. Perhaps violently, maybe that fits into the whole 'civil war' theme we've got going.

But wait! Hang on, who is it a civil war between? Because a civil war has to be between people. The Spanish Civil War was between a nationalist-facist government and a left-leaning coalition democracy. Sri Lanka? The tamils want their own independent country. The IRA spent the first part of the 20th century waging war against the United Kingdom and Eire (as it then was) in the name of communist ideals. The American Civil War split the country in two parts, with the confederacy having its own government and currency.

Where does Iraq fit in? It doesn't. Because the opponents of the government are not, for the most part, advocates of the Baathist regime. They've gone quiet because their leadership's vanished and some of them want to get their plush army jobs back. There might be one or two groups of die-hards roaming Iraq shooting at people in the name of a Baathist Iraq, but they're not the main opponent.

No, the main opponent for the Iraqi government is a coalition of extremists, many of them (but not all) from outside Iraq, who want...what? They haven't formed a provisional government. They haven't declared any laws besides Sharia. They're bandits, plain and simple. Religious bandits. Murderers, cowards, and worse. Let's be blunt. They're nihilistic. They want to destroy Iraq.

Remember, even the Taliban and Somali Islamic Council actually formed a government under which to 'advocate' Sharia. The Iranian Revolution was similar. The terrorists in Iraq have not. There have been no decrees. There are no soldiers. There are a bunch of men, some of them at cross-purposes with each other, working to overthrow the provisional government, and replace it with...well, nothing, really. The closest Iraqi extremism came to an actual alternative government was under Sadr, and that was a non-starter (due to external pressures, but that's besides the point).

So, no. This is not a civil war. It's a bunch of thugs and terrorists working to destabilise a government in the name of 'global islam'. The same rallying cry which has led to similar squads of murderers and thugs everywhere from Indonesia to Saudi Arabia. And almost the same impulse that led to the establishment of the Red Brigades in Italy. No one said that Italy was fighting a civil war when fighting the Red Brigades, did they? Well, no one intelligent.

Global anything eliminates the conflict as a civil war. The Taliban were very quiet on the topic of global Islamic revolution until it suited them not to be. The Somali Islamists insisted, right up until the Ethiopians bombed them, that they were working for Somalia and only Somalia. Leaving aside that Sharia is a better system than Somalia has right now, and indeed has had since the 15th century...

Anyway, the Iraqi conflict is not a civil war. It's more like the Malayan Insurgency.


They're trying to cast off the chains of heirarchy and appropriate the means of production, of course.

Why, they're anarchists!

The IRA spent the first part of the 20th century waging war against the United Kingdom and Eire (as it then was) in the name of communist ideals.

I'm sorry, but that actually made me laugh out loud.

Do it again :D

What civil war? We're making progress in Iraq. We got rid of Saddam. The elections turned people's fingers purple. We built a school or something. The liberal media only reports the negative.

Hum...yes, a civil war in Iraq. Quite. Let's consider the evidence. On the one hand we have a legitimate Iraqi government with the backing of the majority of the population.

This is where you went wrong, and since everything you argued follows from this flawed premise, the rest of your argument fails as well. You don't have a government with the backing of the majority of the population--you have a facade of a government with no real control of anything even inside the Green Zone.

What civil war? We're making progress in Iraq. We got rid of Saddam. The elections turned people's fingers purple. We built a school or something. The liberal media only reports the negative.

Well, in the media's defense, its kind of hard to see the happily playing children with their cute little puppies amidst all the smoke and wreckage. :p

Well, in the media's defense, its kind of hard to see the happily playing children with their cute little puppies amidst all the smoke and wreckage. :p

Aren't Muslims forbidden from playing with puppies by their religion? Dogs are haram or something, no? That's probably why so many Muslims seem so angry. They don't have pet dogs to cheer them up.

Ugh. The level of mismanagement is disgraceful.

I guess americans are not nearly as smart as they think they are. It's not like this is an intractable problem. Other people in other times have dealt with such quite effectively.

What civil war? We're making progress in Iraq. We got rid of Saddam. The elections turned people's fingers purple. We built a school or something. The liberal media only reports the negative.

:D

Progress? Towards an Americanised, uniformally un-Arabic democracy, yes.

However, if you measure progress in terms of standard of living, likelihood of death, and other such things, all of which, to you, appear trivialities, you've managed to fuck up another country.

This is where you went wrong, and since everything you argued follows from this flawed premise, the rest of your argument fails as well. You don't have a government with the backing of the majority of the population--you have a facade of a government with no real control of anything even inside the Green Zone.

And your proof for such a bold statement? Just because people are being blown up by terrorists does not mean the government does not have authority and control. If that was the case, then the British would have ceased to have control over Northern Ireland for nearly 100 years. The Iraqi government is the government chosen by the Iraqi people. The majority of people who voted chose this government.

Of course, if we're going to say that it doesn't matter what the majority of voters believe, because people who didn't vote disagree...why, we have to give the Republicans control of congress! Post-haste! Except we'd have no congress because Americans aren't as big on voting as some of them seem to want the Iraqis to be. So, either we're holding the Iraqis to a higher standard than seems reasonable... or my argument remains in play, and your counterargument fails because you didn't provide one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070203165831

How sad that anyone would kill innocent people like this. I think it has already become a civil war and there is no way the US or anyone outside Iraq can stop it. Only the people of Iraq can stop this and I'm not so sure they want to. :(
You're the former Republican here; maybe you can tell us how the "there's no civil war *nervous chuckle*" types think.

But wait! Hang on, who is it a civil war between? Because a civil war has to be between people.

The Spanish Civil War was between a nationalist-facist government and a left-leaning coalition democracy.
Actually the left side of the Spanish civil war was everyone who wasn't a fascist, from centrist liberals, to socialists, communists and anarchists. It was a diverse group all fighting against Franco (and there was much infighting).

The IRA spent the first part of the 20th century waging war against the United Kingdom and Eire (as it then was) in the name of communist ideals.
The Troubles never became a civil war. The IRA's membership was mostly socialist, but they were fighting to eject the British from NI and unify it with the Republic.

Where does Iraq fit in? It doesn't. Because the opponents of the government are not, for the most part, advocates of the Baathist regime.

So, no. This is not a civil war. It's a bunch of thugs and terrorists working to destabilise a government in the name of 'global islam'.
It actually is very similar to the Spanish civil war. The insurgency is made up of a large number of groups of numerous ideologies. Baathists are not similar to jihadists or militant communists, and yet all three can be found attacking civilians and US/Iraqi forces in that country.

Global anything eliminates the conflict as a civil war.
So the numerous foreign brigades who volunteered to fight for the left-wing side in Spain in 1936 caused it to not be a civil war then?

Your arguments have so many holes, it's ridiculous.

And your proof for such a bold statement? Just because people are being blown up by terrorists does not mean the government does not have authority and control. If that was the case, then the British would have ceased to have control over Northern Ireland for nearly 100 years. The Iraqi government is the government chosen by the Iraqi people. The majority of people who voted chose this government.

Of course, if we're going to say that it doesn't matter what the majority of voters believe, because people who didn't vote disagree...why, we have to give the Republicans control of congress! Post-haste! Except we'd have no congress because Americans aren't as big on voting as some of them seem to want the Iraqis to be. So, either we're holding the Iraqis to a higher standard than seems reasonable... or my argument remains in play, and your counterargument fails because you didn't provide one.

My proof? Every report that comes out of Iraq shows that the central government has no real control. The militias are more powerful and better equipped than the Iraqi Army is, largely because the militias have infiltrated it completely, and when the US leaves, they'll all go back to their local leaders and get ready to fight it out for control.

If that was the case, then the British would have ceased to have control over Northern Ireland for nearly 100 years.
Stop referring to Northern Ireland; you clearly and misinformed, and have no idea what it was like there. It took all parties there thirty years to reach 3,000 deaths. Many more times that number have been killed in Iraq in less than four years.

the surge is just Dubya saving face so he doesn't have to deal with the inevitable moment when the US must leave Iraq in failure, better a Democratic President to take the blame and being accused of the "Cut and Run"...the surge will only postpone Muqtada's rise to power at the head of an Islamic state...there is absolutely a civil war happening now, the whitehouse doesn't want to call it that as it would be admitting defeat...unfortunately many american soldiers will lose their lives in order for GWB to save face...

Well, in the media's defense, its kind of hard to see the happily playing children with their cute little puppies amidst all the smoke and wreckage. :p

And that is only because the only thing most of the media shows is "the smoke and wreckage." They hardly ever show the good, schools built, etc.:mad:

SNIP...and when the US leaves, they'll all go back to their local leaders and get ready to fight it out for control.

:(

How sad that anyone would kill innocent people like this. I think it has already become a civil war and there is no way the US or anyone outside Iraq can stop it. Only the people of Iraq can stop this and I'm not so sure they want to. :(

This mess is completely their fault. We brought Iraq democracy and freedom; they're just uncivilized savages and can't accept the gifts they were generously given.heh.

It's not a civil war. It's a passionate disagreement between the members of a dysfunctional family.

bump

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW013107.jpg

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070203165831

How sad that anyone would kill innocent people like this. I think it has already become a civil war and there is no way the US or anyone outside Iraq can stop it. Only the people of Iraq can stop this and I'm not so sure they want to. :(

It's not a civil war. It's a state of hostility or conflict between elements within the same country. Totally different thing. I read about it in a collection of bound volumes of paper (I'm not a big fan of books) that I obtained at the local bound-volume lending-house (I wouldn't be caught dead inside a library.)

It's not a civil war. It's a state of hostility or conflict between elements within the same country. Totally different thing. I read about it in a collection of bound volumes of paper (I'm not a big fan of books) that I obtained at the local bound-volume lending-house (I wouldn't be caught dead inside a library.)
Euphtastic!

Or a bunch of people who want change gone bad. Kind of like a group of Iraq hippies. No offense to any hippies out there, but based on what I know about the hippie movement in the 60's, they just commited Civil Disobediance for a change in the system but didn't know what exactly the government should look like. Except the Iraqis commit more than civil disobediance. I would consider it a revolution at most, since the insurgency wants change, they just don't know what yet.

Your post shows you know nothing about hippies, but have a pretty good grip on right-wing distortion.

Your post shows you know nothing about hippies, but have a pretty good grip on right-wing distortion.

Seconded.

No, the main opponent for the Iraqi government is a coalition of extremists, many of them (but not all) from outside Iraq, who want...what? They haven't formed a provisional government. They haven't declared any laws besides Sharia. They're bandits, plain and simple. Religious bandits. Murderers, cowards, and worse. Let's be blunt. They're nihilistic. They want to destroy Iraq.


Anyway, the Iraqi conflict is not a civil war. It's more like the Malayan Insurgency.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry what utter crap....the myth of outsiders wanting to destroy Iraq because they have nothing better to do...the fact is that only an estimated 1-2% of the militants are non-Iraqi's, this an internal civil war Sunni's vs Shittes...to believe anything else is a delusional fantasy...of course this civil war makes the coalition appear very stupid because the those countries not in the coalition warned this would happen...now the coalition idiots are trying to save face by denying the obvious and blaming it on the fictional foreign insurgents...

i think some now wish to have this guy back
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/niko_saddampropaganda.gif

i think some now wish to have this guy back
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/niko_saddampropaganda.gif

some countries aren't ready for democracy and maybe never will be, for them a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government...in those cases it would be best to have someone less oppressive than Saddam and his family but that's not the way things always play out...

some countries aren't ready for democracy and maybe never will be, for them a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government...in those cases it would be best to have someone less oppressive than Saddam and his family but that's not the way things always play out...

so true

What civil war? We're making progress in Iraq. We got rid of Saddam. The elections turned people's fingers purple. We built a school or something. The liberal media only reports the negative.

Preach it brother! Damn liberals always lying about everything! They only focus on negative things such as dead civillians, only to make them feel better about themselves going to Hell when they die. That's all it is really.

I'd have to be a really horrible person to say "I told you so" about this. Luckily, I am.


I told you so.

Its cluster fuck and thats for sure. Civil war? That kicked off a while back. When there is daily fighting on Hiafa Street and virtually in the Green Zone its pretty fucking obvious that the shit has not only hit the fan but knocked it off its pedestal and halfway across the fucking planet.

Aren't Muslims forbidden from playing with puppies by their religion? Dogs are haram or something, no? That's probably why so many Muslims seem so angry. They don't have pet dogs to cheer them up.
I think you may have a point there - lack of puppy-play may be the entire cause of Islamic extremism.
Someone should do a study!

(you're right, btw: Muslims view dogs are unclean so won't go near them unless they have to. Won't let them in their houses or anything. Poor things. The puppies that is, not the Muslims)

And your proof for such a bold statement? Just because people are being blown up by terrorists does not mean the government does not have authority and control. If that was the case, then the British would have ceased to have control over Northern Ireland for nearly 100 years. The Iraqi government is the government chosen by the Iraqi people. The majority of people who voted chose this government.
Now you're just really showing your ignorance and straw-clutching abilities.
Ireland, with a population of 4 million or so suffered 3000 deaths over 30 years due to the Troubles.
Baghdad, with a population of a little under 6 million is suffering over 3000 deaths a month. And that's just the capital city, where the government is located.

Yet you have the audacity to compare the two and say Iraq's situation is equivalent to Ireland's during the Troubles.

*ring*ring*ring*
"Hello?"
"Hi there. Reality calling just to tell you to get a fucking grip."

Actually there is no civil war in Iraq but it has many key elements. So it is on the edge of civil war.