Civil War?

[corplinx]

The latest big media meme on Iraq is civil war. This strikes me as odd since factional violence is nowhere near the scale of death as it was in old Iraq.

First lets clear the air about the main factions.
You have two ethnic groups in Iraq: Arab and Kurd
The Arab group is comprised of Sunni and Shi'a religious groups.

The current "civil war" is an inter-arab problem going back to the Sunni Caliphs of Baghdad. However, the Kurds are no stranger to faction vs faction violence.

Source Wikipedia:
The Kurds and other non-Arabs living in the North were subjected to Iraq's worst instance of minority persecution in 1987-89, in what is now referred to as the Al-Anfal campaign. Anywhere from 100,000 to 182,000 were massacred in a genocidal offensive mostly in and around the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, and elsewhere in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Now, why do the Sunni and Shi'a not get along? Well, it goes back to a fellow named Muhammad. When he died, everyone **** themselves wondering who would be in charge of Islam. The Shi'a and Sunni claimed different successors to Muhammad. And well, they haven't gotten along well since then. (mental note, these factions evolved over time, this was a really short schism for dummies recap)

Iraq is about 85 years old and was artificially formed. Baath rule of Iraq is about 20 years old and includes oppression of non-Sunni/non-Arab peoples including purges of a few Shi'a areas.

Sectarian/Ethnic Violence Pre-Occupation: Government sponsored, sometimes genocidal
Sectarian/Ethnic Violence Post-Occupation: Committed by small groups facilitated by anarchy

A civil war at this point would be something along the line of Al-Sadr's followers openly warring with the Sunni population west of Baghdad to the Syrian border. My only word of warning is to stay away from buzzword news (Fox/CNN/Time/Networks/Newsweek) and try to hit some real sources sometime.

[Cleon]

*yawn* Keep spinning.

It's still civil war.

[corplinx]

*yawn* Keep spinning.

It's still civil war.

Physician heal thyself.

[zakur]

Why the need to start a whole new thread on this?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53400

[corplinx]

Why the need to start a whole new thread on this?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53400

I havent checked that thread recently. Originally when I first read it, it wasn't about debunking the civil war hype.

[Jocko]

*yawn* Keep spinning.

It's still civil war.

Then so were the Watts riots, considering they're proportionally close to the level of carnage. Talk about spin... at least Corplinx knows WTF a civil war is, not what he wishes it was.

[rikzilla]

I havent checked that thread recently. Originally when I first read it, it wasn't about debunking the civil war hype.

I debunked it...and was promptly ignored... :rolleyes:

-z

[rikzilla]

*yawn* Keep spinning.

It's still civil war.

In your mind you mean.

As I said before...it's only a civil war when the government splinters and starts warring on itself. If that hasn't happened yet; then you're merely repackaging Zarqawi's insurgency into the civil war meme that AQ is propagating.

I never thought I'd see you being credulous Cleon...you've always been above that...but asserting that Iraq is in civil war when it isn't is just pure dishonest crap. You gonna start talking to the dead next?

-z

[varwoche]

Then so were the Watts riots, considering they're proportionally close to the level of carnage. Not sure what you mean by "proportionally close" but 70 people died in the Watts riots.

[Jocko]

Not sure what you mean by "proportionally close" but 70 people died in the Watts riots.

I know. Sorry, let me elaborate: What percentage of LA's population amounts to 70 people?

And what percentage of Iraq's 25 million people do the post-mosque bombing dead amount to?

[Hutch]

Not sure what you mean by "proportionally close" but 70 people died in the Watts riots.

Concur, and when you take into account that the population of Iraq is about 1/11 the size of the USA (27M vs 297M), then I wonder what proportions Jocko is talking about.

Crunched a couple of Corp's numbers, if 182,000 is used, then that represents about 253 dead/day (over 2 years) and 168 dead/day (over 3 years). Using the lower end of 100,000, it's 138 dead/day (2 years) and 92 dead/day (over 3 years). While Iraq may not approach that rate yet (IIRC, it has been running 50-60 a day recently, but I have no quotable statistics for that).

The question to those who say Iraq is not in a state of Civil War, then what do you call it? To put it on an American Scale (1 to 11), if 600-700 Americans were dying each day for being either Protestant or Catholic, and about 150 or so Police were being shot or blown up every day, and in many areas the only rule of law was by militia, just what would it be called, unfractured Central Government or no?

Press on.

[DavidJames]

From the other thread.


Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who heads the secular Iraqi National List party that took 25 seats in the December elections for the 275-seat parliament, said yesterday that the sectarian violence is threatening to spin out of control.

"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more,'' Allawi said on the BBC's "Sunday AM'' program. "If this isn't civil war, then God knows what civil war is.''

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on ABC's "This Week'' program yesterday that he agreed with Allawi and that Iraq has been in the midst of "a low-grade civil war'' for at least six months. "Our own generals have told me that. I hope you wont be offended if I defer the semantics argument to someone directly involved (not to mention Hagel) over Bush apologists.

[headscratcher4]

Lets just get it clear a tip-toe through some of the greatest hits from the last couple of years:

Saddam has WMDs.

Saddam was connected to 9/11

We will be welcomed as liberators

Mission accomplished

The insurgency is in its last throes

And there are tons of others.

I don't know if there is a civil war or not (looks like one may be emerging but what do I know?), it does seem to me that the Administration's denial that there is one however, should be judged in terms of its previous pronouncements and performance.


When the President says "There is no civil war.." I hear "I have this beach property in Florida I'd like to sell...."

But, that's just me.

[headscratcher4]

From the other thread.

I hope you wont be offended if I defer the semantics argument to someone directly involved (not to mention Hagel) over Bush apologists.


These people wouldn't know a civil war if a bomb exploded right in downtown Bahgdad and killed a couple of dozen people.

[Hutch]

I know. Sorry, let me elaborate: What percentage of LA's population amounts to 70 people?

The Watts riots were spread over several days and were a one-time occurence. Having a Watts riot daily for several years is closer to the mark IMHO.

And what percentage of Iraq's 25 million people do the post-mosque bombing dead amount to?

I don't have the numbers handy, but lets say 2,500 (someone will come along and give better figures--but it probably won't be the US Army--we're not counting, IIRC). True, that's only 1 in 10,000...but if we use the US parallel, if 27,500 Americans died in rioting and bombings in a couple of months time, I think, even if not a single person you knew was involved, Jocko, you might be a wee bit worried about the security and viability of the nation to survive.

Especially if it showed no real signs of abating...and aye, that is, in the end, the operative question.

IMHO as always

[Cleon]

In your mind you mean.
Hower you like to spin it.


As I said before...it's only a civil war when the government splinters and starts warring on itself.
And your repitition of this doesn't make it so.


I never thought I'd see you being credulous Cleon...you've always been above that...but asserting that Iraq is in civil war when it isn't is just pure dishonest crap. You gonna start talking to the dead next?
Oh, please, skip the apologetics. This is just ridiculous.

Every time there's another *************** related to the War On Terror (tm), we're given another bout of word-parsing and twisted logic to make it seem not as bad as it seems.

Troops torturing prisoners? Well, it's not *really* torture.

Tens of thousands dead? Well, they were "terrorists."

No WMDS found? Well, that wasn't *really* what the war was about.

Multiple factions killing each other, an unstable "government," and no end to occupation in sight? Well, it's not *really* civil war.

Please. If there's anyone who's "credulous," it's not me--it's the people who keep trying for the best possible spin. Skip the word-parsing and twisted logic, then MAYBE I'll be concerned about your calling me "credulous."

[gnome]

I'm half tempted to suppose the Bush administration would jump at the idea of calling it a civil war, if it could be reasonably argued. Whup! Civil war, let's get the heck out. It's the perfect exit strategy.

[corplinx]

Just because there isn't a civil war doesn't mean I don't believe that one isn't possible. Let's not start drawing Hannity/Franken lines in the sand and taking partisan views (no hope for DavidJames or Cleon here).

If this is a civil war:
Who is warring?
Where are the battle lines?

There is a difference between sectarian violence and a civil war. Of course, pointing this out means you are some sort of Bush apologist.

[corplinx]

Please. If there's anyone who's "credulous," it's not me

So, because you think Rikzilla was credulous in the past justifies you being so now?

[Cleon]

Just because there isn't a civil war doesn't mean I don't believe that one isn't possible. Let's not start drawing Hannity/Franken lines in the sand and taking partisan views (no hope for DavidJames or Cleon here).
Well, once again your stunning brilliance astounds us all. :rolleyes:

Keep spinning, Corpy. Maybe one day reality will sink in.

(edited to fix really bad mixed metaphor.)

[Cleon]

So, because you think Rikzilla was credulous in the past justifies you being so now?

Corpy, I appreciate your attempt at a condescending flame. I really, really do.

But your post has to make sense before that works.

[rikzilla]

Hower you like to spin it.


And your repitition of this doesn't make it so.


Oh, please, skip the apologetics. This is just ridiculous.

Every time there's another *************** related to the War On Terror (tm), we're given another bout of word-parsing and twisted logic to make it seem not as bad as it seems.

Troops torturing prisoners? Well, it's not *really* torture.

Tens of thousands dead? Well, they were "terrorists."

No WMDS found? Well, that wasn't *really* what the war was about.

Multiple factions killing each other, an unstable "government," and no end to occupation in sight? Well, it's not *really* civil war.

Please. If there's anyone who's "credulous," it's not me--it's the people who keep trying for the best possible spin. Skip the word-parsing and twisted logic, then MAYBE I'll be concerned about your calling me "credulous."

We have an insurgency that suffered huge casualties after they stood and fought in Fallujah. They then repeated this mistake in Tal Afar. That they have wised up and started attacking the fault lines of an emerging and vulnerable Iraqi unity government does not make the situation a civil war. It merely means that an insurgency that has failed miserably at everything they have attempted to do have shifted focus to a soft target.

In many ways this can even be looked at as good news. It means that US forces have proven fatal to large numbers of terrorists when faced in battle. Yet in a war, even success comes with negative baggage. The fledgling Iraqi government is very vulnerable to sectarian violence. If they are able to convince the people to let the police and army track down and arrest or kill the perps who are blowing up mosques, etc. then there's hope that civil war can be averted.

The Iraqi shias have shown a tremendous amount of restraint to this point. I think it's because they clearly know what is at stake. If civil war does break out; democracy will be it's first victim....and as clearly shown by the numbers, Iraqis like democracy. They'll line up to vote even if very real and terrible people threaten them with death. Would you?

There's a great many reasons not to write off the Iraqis...not to sell them short in deference to a meme or a reinvented insurgency.

Nothing has changed in Iraq except the targets these animals are picking.

-z

[Cleon]

Oh, ok, so we've moved on from desperately pleading "there's no civil war" to empty triumphalism. Wonderful. That's worked well so far.

Rik, for the love of Jebus, give us something other than spin!

[zakur]

In your mind you mean.

As I said before...it's only a civil war when the government splinters and starts warring on itself.No offense, Rik, but your argument is pure, arrogant BS (which is probably why it was ignored on the other thread). Someone could just as easily say "Only in your mind, Rik. Argument over."

We could trade definitions all day, but you're going to stick to the one that bolsters your argument, and your opponents will stick the ones that bolster theirs. (BTW, you have used your "official government splinters" phrasing without linking to any "authoritative" definition of civil war that uses it. But since I'm a nice guy, I'll help you out. :) Here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm) is a close one.)

Regardless, as is clear in Randfan's "propaganda" thread, argument-by-dictionary-definition is virtually worthless. In that thread, one side used one of the broadest possible definitions of the word to defend Bush. On the "civil war" in Iraq issue, the same individuals are using one of the narrowest possible definitions of the word to say there is not a civil war in Iraq.

Everybody's eating their cake, and having it, too, I guess.

[rikzilla]

Oh, ok, so we've moved on from desperately pleading "there's no civil war" to empty triumphalism. Wonderful. That's worked well so far.

Rik, for the love of Jebus, give us something other than spin!

Why don't you just try debunking my argument line for line. I'm so sorry to not be able to afford you that courtesy...but first you have to post something more substantial that 3 sentences of sarcasm.

Sarcasm can't be debunked because it is not substantive...I'm guessing that's why you've made such good use of it.

I'm really disappointed in you man...from you I usually get better than this.

-z

[Cleon]

Why don't you just try debunking my argument line for line.

What argument? You're not making an argument with any substance. You're not discussing facts, you're simply trying to paint a rosier picture of the Iraq disaster.

That's not an argument, it's (at best) a rant.


I'm really disappointed in you man...from you I usually get better than this.


Heh. Pot, kettle.

[Skeptic]

What's weird about the logic of some posters here is that, while they will openly admit that the terrorists', I mean insurgents', I mean Iraqi freedom fighter's goal is to manipulate the media by propaganda that makes things look as bad as possible on the nightly news...

... they then conclude promptly that things in Iraq are, in fact, as bad as possible. And how do they know that? Well, they saw it on the nightly news.

[Skeptic]

What argument? You're not making an argument with any substance. You're not discussing facts, you're simply trying to paint a rosier picture of the Iraq disaster.

But neither are you, Cleon. You call Iraq a "civil war" and a "disaster". But you proclaim that as if it was a self-evident fact, and that everybody who disagrees is "spinning" who should be ashamed of himself for ever doubting these self-evident truths.

As you say:

That's not an argument, it's (at best) a rant.

[Cleon]

But neither are you, Cleon. You call Iraq a "civil war" and a "disaster". But you proclaim that as if it was a self-evident fact,

You're right. I'm assuming people are paying attention to what's going on over there. My mistake.

[corplinx]

Oh, ok, so we've moved on from desperately pleading "there's no civil war" [/I]

How about you try skepticism and show the evidence of this civil war you believe in?

Hint: Try comparing Iraq to a country that is considered by most international organizations to be in a civil war and show the similarities.

[rikzilla]

No offense, Rik, but your argument is pure, arrogant BS (which is probably why it was ignored on the other thread). Someone could just as easily say "Only in your mind, Rik. Argument over."

Okay..fair enough. But in my own defense, this was not my first or even second posting of my argument. My ideas were laid out quite properly and respectfully in a thread that was hijacked by middle-school level debate. I have an idea that my argument was ignored there because it could not be replied to within the borders of a bumper-sticker. But hey, I could be wrong.

We could trade definitions all day, but you're going to stick to the one that bolsters your argument, and your opponents will stick the ones that bolster theirs. (BTW, you have used your "official government splinters" phrasing without linking to any "authoritative" definition of civil war that uses it. But since I'm a nice guy, I'll help you out. :) Here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm) is a close one.)

Why thank you! :) I was sticking to the definition of civil war that makes sense to me as an American. Perhaps that's bias invading my perspective?
That's okay...those other definitions were simply too broad and thus meaningless. Per those other definitions Spain has been fighting a civil war against the Basques for...well....ever.... Somehow I don't think that is what we are talking about here.

Regardless, as is clear in Randfan's "propaganda" thread, argument-by-dictionary-definition is virtually worthless. In that thread, one side used one of the broadest possible definitions of the word to defend Bush.
True. Worthless waste of time...that's why I did not post in said thread. One man's propaganda is another man's CNN. ;)

On the "civil war" in Iraq issue, the same individuals are using one of the narrowest possible definitions of the word to say there is not a civil war in Iraq.

Evrybody's eating their cake, and having it, too, I guess.

As I said...not me.

If there is a legit government in Baghdad that is working together to quell sectarian violence then a civil war is simply not what is happening. When the factions that make up the government start shooting instead of working together...well then there you are! That happens and I'll agree it's a civil war.

Civil war is a buzz word as used by the left. It carries a terrible connotation of chaos, death, and unwinability. That's why these two words are being pushed into the mainstream media. It's merely a repackaging. Same old Madonna...with an updated wardrobe and hairdo...

-z

[Cleon]

How about you try skepticism and show the evidence of this civil war you believe in?

You mean, aside from the people who are being killed every day, multiple factions warring against each other, no stable government (or even a government at all, really)?

You're right. No evidence at all of a civil war. :rolleyes:

I would say, given the above, that the onus is upon you deniers to present evidence that it isn't a civil war. So far, you've presented no evidence whatsoever, just spin. You and rik are doing your damndest to try and word-parse a semi-cherrypicked and semi-fabricated definition of "civil war" until you decide it doesn't apply. Then calling it a "civil war" is, according to you, nothing but a meme.

But hey, Captain Skeptic, feel free to tell the rest of us what's woo and what isn't.

[headscratcher4]

"Civil war is a buzz word as used by the left"

Not worthy of you Rik...considering that people like Allowhi (sp?) and Chuck Hegel and Andrew Sullivan are using it.

[corplinx]

You mean, aside from the people who are being killed every day, multiple factions warring against each other, no stable government (or even a government at all, really)?

You're right. No evidence at all of a civil war. :rolleyes:

I would say, given the above, that the onus is upon you deniers to present evidence that it isn't a civil war. So far, you've presented no evidence whatsoever, just spin. You and rik are doing your damndest to try and word-parse a semi-cherrypicked and semi-fabricated definition of "civil war" until you decide it doesn't apply. Then calling it a "civil war" is, according to you, nothing but a meme.

But hey, Captain Skeptic, feel free to tell the rest of us what's woo and what isn't.


Once again, show evidence. I even laid a pretty good example that would end discussion about whether or not there is a civil war and you chose not to provide it. Its pretty hard for me to push goalposts that I set and pledge to stand by.

I laid out how there has been factional violence in Iraq for longer that the occupation yet there was no civil war. The onus I am afraid is on you to prove that the change from goverment sponsored violence to cell driven violence constitutes a civil war.

Mind you, I haven't said that this civil war brouhaha is woo. I just said the case for it hasn't been laid out to support it. I've seen emotional appeals based on the violence and a few quotes on the matter used as a some sort of appeal to authority, but the evidence has been quite lacking.

Show me the war, and I'll go away.

[DavidJames]

"Civil war is a buzz word as used by the left"

Not worthy of you Rik...considering that people like Allowhi (sp?) and Chuck Hegel and Andrew Sullivan are using it.We saw the same nonsense when the port deal died, they kept blaming the left, even after seeing all the quotes from the Repubs, bah

[rikzilla]

You mean, aside from the people who are being killed every day, multiple factions warring against each other, no stable government (or even a government at all, really)?

So what? This is nothing new. Wait, actually it is. The insurgents have now shifted their attacks from coalition forces to Iraqi police and army units. So, since they've merely decided that they live longer if they attack softer targets you're suddenly ready to call it a "civil war"? Your hyperbole aside; do you have any evidence that there is "(no) government at all really" in Iraq? If this is so then who are all those guys in Iraqi police and army uniforms?

You're right. No evidence at all of a civil war. :rolleyes:

Yeah...I wouldn't go so far as to say "no"...but scant...yeah scant is a good word for the evidence you have wrapped your ego around.

I would say, given the above, that the onus is upon you deniers to present evidence that it isn't a civil war.

Not really. You're the one making the assertion after all.

So far, you've presented no evidence whatsoever, just spin. You and rik are doing your damndest to try and word-parse a semi-cherrypicked and semi-fabricated definition of "civil war" until you decide it doesn't apply. Then calling it a "civil war" is, according to you, nothing but a meme.

But hey, Captain Skeptic, feel free to tell the rest of us what's woo and what isn't.

Woo is believing something fantastic without any evidence. While misrepresenting Iraq as civil war when it isn't doesn't rise to the level of woo, it is at the least dishonest.

Right now Iraq's leadership is working with each other to avert civil war. If that is true then it's the darndest civil war I ever heard of. If you think it's not true then explain why and show your work.

-z

[Cleon]

ok, point taken. Corpy and rik will continue spinning, evidence be damned.

[hgc]

When the government of a country doesn't effectively control all the territory, or doesn't exist at all, and there are various armed factions fighting for control of territory and populations, that's what I call a civil war. It's a conflict between violently competing internal forces for control of the country.

Is Iraq experiencing a civil war right now? I think so. The level of violence rises to war-like levels. Lots of explody things going off, killing lots of people, day-in and day-out, especially targeting the organs of control of the nascient government (army and police).

But then, whether my or your defintion of civil war fits is hardly the point is it? Is the Iraqi adventure a success so far? Was it intended or predicted 3 years later that there would be this level of violence and lack of control by a government? I say judge the performance of BushCo against the President's baseline objectives when selling the war up front.

Rik:

While misrepresenting Iraq as civil war when it isn't doesn't rise to the level of woo, it is at the least dishonest.
Come on,hgc, you know better than to use epithets like that.

[jj]

3 sides, all shooting at each other. The reasons don't matter. It's a Civil War.

"As it blows through the town
Weave and spin, weave and spin"

[corplinx]

ok, point taken. Corpy and rik will continue spinning, evidence be damned.

How about you try skepticism and show the evidence of this civil war you believe in?

Hint: Try comparing Iraq to a country that is considered by most international organizations to be in a civil war and show the similarities. Also discuss the differences and why they don't dminish your assertion.

[rikzilla]

Screw you.

Reported.

What portion of the word "civility" do you not understand?
-z

[Cleon]

How about you try skepticism and show the evidence of this civil war you believe in?

Already done. Your decision to blow it off is your own.

[Cleon]

I wanted to go back and address this:

do you have any evidence that there is "(no) government at all really" in Iraq?

Rik, no government has been formed. A parliament has been elected, it has met for 30 minutes, but it has not formed a government. News reports are implying that forming a government will be a long, painful process--I don't know if that's true or not, but as it stands now, Iraq does not have a government.

[jj]

Reported.

What portion of the word "civility" do you not understand?
-z


What part of calling a dissenting position "dishonest" is civil?

[Tony]

ok, point taken. Corpy and rik will continue spinning, evidence be damned.

That's what right-wing fanatics do. The only people still supporting Bush and his rosey picture of Iraq at this point are the kool-aid drinkers. I'm surprised there are so many of them on a skeptic forum.

[Skeptic]

When the terorrists were attacking US forces, it was evidence the US army is being defeated by the terorrists and is killed for nothing. When they terrorists were attacking Iraqi forces, it was evidence of civil war.

[Skeptic]

You're right. I'm assuming people are paying attention to what's going on over there. My mistake.

Well, I suppose this mean you won't provide any evidence.

[Cleon]

When the terorrists were attacking US forces,


If they're attacking US forces, they're not terrorists.

[Cleon]

Well, I suppose this mean you won't provide any evidence.

See my previous post to Corpy.

You're welcome to continue participating in the spin-a-thon, but it is getting rather tedious. And you're really not fooling anyone except yourselves.

[UserGoogol]

A civil war is a signifigant sustained violent conflict between various factions within a country. There is a sustained violent conflict between various factions within Iraq. Whether it is "signifigant" enough to be a civil war is of course debatable due to the extremely loose definition of the word "war," but calling people who say it is dishonest seems rather unfair.

[rikzilla]

What part of calling a dissenting position "dishonest" is civil?
Well per dictionary.com:

2 entries found for dishonest.

dis·hon·est Audio pronunciation of "dishonest" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ds-nst)
adj.

1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.
2. Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.

1 entry found for screw you.

screw you

Go to hell, as in You won't help after all? Well, screw you! A euphemism for the still ruder (rule8) you, this slangy term dates from the mid-1900s.


As you can see these two terms are not equal. One is an adjective. The other is an obscenity that is in violation of rule 8.

-z

[rikzilla]

A civil war is a signifigant sustained violent conflict between various factions within a country. There is a sustained violent conflict between various factions within Iraq. Whether it is "signifigant" enough to be a civil war is of course debatable due to the extremely loose definition of the word "war," but calling people who say it is dishonest seems rather unfair.

It is dishonest because it's the same old insurgency with different targets. Just because the enemy has decided they will live longer attacking the Iraqi police and army than they would while attacking ours does not a civil war make.

The term "civil war" carries the connotation that the effort in Iraq is spurious and unwinnable...which is why the usual suspects of the leftist variety are pushing the term. They are attempting to craft the debate by coloring it in terms of their own (and Zarqawi's) choosing.

That's pretty damned dishonest to say the least.

-z

[corplinx]

That's what right-wing fanatics do. The only people still supporting Bush and his rosey picture of Iraq at this point are the kool-aid drinkers. I'm surprised there are so many of them on a skeptic forum.


Show me where I have supported a rosy view of Iraq in this thread. I acknowledge violence, death, and sectarian attacks. The problem you, Cleon, and DavidJames have is you view Iraq thoughts as black and white. Either someone is a Bush fanatic/apologist or they "get it".

Whether or not there is a civil war in Iraq isn't a question of whether or not you supported the regime change or the man who pushed it through. Its an analytical one. It isn't based on the latest car bomb you saw on cable news.

I started this thread by stating that I don't see any sort of war between say the Al Anbar province and the Al Sadr militia, much less a full war between Shi'a and Sunni. Now thats just pure bush apology right there. The much more rational "i see people kill each other on TV" definitely sounds like a good reasoning behind one thinking there is a civil war, but I'm afraid this is a skeptic forum and that just doesn't breach the threshold of evidence.

I think there is a pretty clear line in this thread alright. There are people like myself and headscratch4 and then there is Cleon/Tony/etc. The only civil war I see is between the reasonable and unreasonable.

[hgc]

Well per dictionary.com:


As you can see these two terms are not equal. One is an adjective. The other is an obscenity that is in violation of rule 8.

-zLet's make a deal: you get to play monkeyshines with the definition of civil war, and I get to play with the definition of civility. :p

[hgc]

...
The term "civil war" carries the connotation that the effort in Iraq is spurious and unwinnable......
-zMore wild imaginings from our newest dictionary author. When you're done making up new provisos so that "civil war" doesn't match reality, then let us know.

PS, and let me add: how in the hell does a negative and undesirable connotation impact on the correctness of the term used to describe the situation?

[rikzilla]

Let's make a deal: you get to play monkeyshines with the definition of civil war, and I get to play with the definition of civility. :p

How 'bout you simply comply with established forum rules? I will do the same. We will sometimes agree and sometimes not, but if we can remember that we all here have more in common with each other than not...well maybe that bit of knowledge kept in the forefront of one's mind will help to soften the vitriol that this funky subject of politics is wont to engender...

IOW; [rodney king]can't we all just get along?[/rodney king]

-z

[corplinx]

Since some people refuse to provide evidence for Iraq being in a civil war to support their assertion that it is, I will name 3 countries internationally recognized to have had recent civil war.
Georgia
Ivory Coast
Somalia

You can feel free to relate Iraq to these civil wars so I can admit that I was wrong in saying there isn't evidence that Iraq is in a civil war.

[daredelvis]

It is dishonest because it's the same old insurgency with different targets. Just because the enemy has decided they will live longer attacking the Iraqi police and army than they would while attacking ours does not a civil war make.

The term "civil war" carries the connotation that the effort in Iraq is spurious and unwinnable...which is why the usual suspects of the leftist variety are pushing the term. They are attempting to craft the debate by coloring it in terms of their own (and Zarqawi's) choosing.

That's pretty damned dishonest to say the least.

-z


Let me fix your post for you.



it's the same old insurgency with different targets.


That's pretty damned dishonest to say the least.

-z


There you go.

Daredelvis

[rikzilla]

More wild imaginings from our newest dictionary author. When you're done making up new provisos so that "civil war" doesn't match reality, then let us know.

PS, and let me add: how in the hell does a negative and undesirable connotation impact on the correctness of the term used to describe the situation?

Easy; when was the last time you heard of a PRO-ABORTION movement? When was the last time you heard from the ANTI-CHOICE people?

The words we choose always carry baggage. There's a great deal of baggage that comes with the term "Civil War". It's unnecessary to pile that into a debate at this time. Maybe tomorrow the civil war will begin? I don't know...but if it hasn't happened yet; I don't see how we can make the situation better by assuming that it already has.

-z

[hgc]

How 'bout you simply comply with established forum rules? I will do the same. We will sometimes agree and sometimes not, but if we can remember that we all here have more in common with each other than not...well maybe that bit of knowledge kept in the forefront of one's mind will help to soften the vitriol that this funky subject of politics is wont to engender...

IOW; [rodney king]can't we all just get along?[/rodney king]

-zLike many things, Rule 8 is open to interpretation. I think I was perfectly within bounds, but then I operate under a looser standard than most. Depending on which moderator is on duty, I may or may not get warned, and I accept the judgement of the court.

I am sorry if I offended.

[corplinx]

Before anyone else tells me there is a civil war going on, please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

I'm tired of getting a migraine from hearing "i saw a bomb go off on TV" as justification for this thinking. You need to know who these people are, what are their motivations, and how much more complex Iraqi violence is than you thought before. Some of you are approaching useful idiot status and its embarassing.

[rikzilla]

Let me fix your post for you.





There you go.

Daredelvis

Please explain why you believe that that is a dishonest statement. Evidence would also be nice unless pulling a cyber drive-by is all you're about.

-z

[hgc]

Easy; when was the last time you heard of a PRO-ABORTION movement? When was the last time you heard from the ANTI-CHOICE people?

The words we choose always carry baggage. There's a great deal of baggage that comes with the term "Civil War". It's unnecessary to pile that into a debate at this time. Maybe tomorrow the civil war will begin? I don't know...but if it hasn't happened yet; I don't see how we can make the situation better by assuming that it already has.

-zWithin your own frame of reference, I am sure that makes sense. But your assumption that Iraq is not yet in a civil war is not one I share, so whatever flows forth from that assumption is not validated to me.

That is why I stated in a post above that if people disagree about whether what is going on in Iraq is a civil war or not, then if they want to get to the things they can talk about reality outside the context of whether you will call it such -- otherwise you can wallow around in definition wars for 10 pages of nonsense.

As for 1) calling "civil war" a left-wing meme, 2) calling those who disagree with you dishonest at best, you are just venturing into irrelevant, well-poisoning territory.

[daredelvis]

Please explain why you believe that that is a dishonest statement. Evidence would also be nice unless pulling a cyber drive-by is all you're about.

-z
Your statement that this is all the "same old insurgency with different targets" seems a little far from what is going on now. No doubt the insurgency sparked the current wave of violence, but they are not the only ones involved now.

Taunt away,

Daredelvis

[jj]

Well per dictionary.com:


As you can see these two terms are not equal. One is an adjective. The other is an obscenity that is in violation of rule 8.

-z

How, pray tell, is calling someone dishonest, simply because you disagree with them, civil?

Civil behavior goes far beyond choice of words.

[rikzilla]

Within your own frame of reference, I am sure that makes sense. But your assumption that Iraq is not yet in a civil war is not one I share, so whatever flows forth from that assumption is not validated to me.

That is why I stated in a post above that if people disagree about whether what is going on in Iraq is a civil war or not, then if they want to get to the things they can talk about reality outside the context of whether you will call it such -- otherwise you can wallow around in definition wars for 10 pages of nonsense.

As for 1) calling "civil war" a left-wing meme, 2) calling those who disagree with you dishonest at best, you are just venturing into irrelevant, well-poisoning territory.

#1. There is no active civil war in Iraq.
#2. Anyone saying that a civil war exists when it clearly does not is at the very least being intellectually dishonest.

Aside from things blowing up on the telly...(and things have been blowing up on the telly for a long time)...what evidence is there of a civil war? Is Talibani leading troops against al-Jafari or Chalabi? No? Then it sounds like the government (such as it is) is hanging together even though the insurgency has decided to foment sectarian violence with a goal of civil war.

From the cia world factbook:
an insurgency against the Iraqi Transitional Government and Coalition forces is primarily concentrated in Baghdad and in areas west and north of the capital; the diverse, multigroup insurgency is led principally by Sunni Arabs whose only common denominator is a shared desire to oust the Coalition and end US influence in Iraq

In other words we have an insurgency which has re-tasked itself to attack the organs of the Iraqi government. A softer target. And if successful they suppose a full-on civil war would force the US and coalition out of Iraq even though their insurgency itself failed to do this.

-z

[jj]

That's pretty damned dishonest to say the least.

-z

Let's see:

Are there factions in Iraq? Check!
Are they armed? Check!
Are they shooting at each other? Check!

Ok, what's that but a civil war?

[rikzilla]

How, pray tell, is calling someone dishonest, simply because you disagree with them, civil?

Civil behavior goes far beyond choice of words.

Why don't you ask the mods? They and I seem to be in perfect accord.
-z

[rikzilla]

Let's see:

Are there factions in Iraq? Check!
Are they armed? Check!
Are they shooting at each other? Check!

Ok, what's that but a civil war?

Riiight...

Therefore southeast DC is in a state of civil war! (and has been for years) Glad we cleared that up. Now how has that helped us understand anything?
-z

[rikzilla]

Your statement that this is all the "same old insurgency with different targets" seems a little far from what is going on now.

Why?

No doubt the insurgency sparked the current wave of violence, but they are not the only ones involved now.

Oh? What new players do we have now?

Taunt away,

Daredelvis

Ta
-z

[corplinx]

If there was a civil war in Iraq there would be violence between factions.
There is violence between factions in Iraq.
Therefore Iraq is having a civil war.

Next fallacy please.

[Hutch]

I'm not going to get into arguing definitions, but I would throw out one or two examples of what is going on in Iraq now from American history...

One would be the "Bleeding Kansas" of the 1850's. For non-Americans (or americans who slept though this section of History class in High School), the territory of Kansas was left open to decide by popular vote if it would be a slave or a free state. Both "Free-Staters" and Slaveowners moved to Kansas, and folks from North and South sent money--and guns--to help thier side. It was the place that Osowatamie (sic) John Brown first came to the nations attention when he slaughtered five (IIRC) Pro-Slavery people. Not a lot of death, in the end, but plenty of burned buildings, political chicanery, and a hardening of feelings. It wasn't a "Civil War" per se, but it was another brick that helped to build up to one.

Perhaps an even better one would be the plight of Missouri during the American Civil War 1861-1865. The state was divided between North and South (indeed, the Legislature and Governor tried to take the state out of the Union and were driven into exile by Federal troops-if you see the Confederate Battle Flag, it has 13 stars, although only 11 states actually were considered the Confederacy--Missouri and Maryland were also "part" of the Confederate States, according to the South).

The fighting in Missouri, especially after 1862, was not one of major battles but of small skimishes, raids, and attacks on neighbors/residences that led to small, brutal little fights all over the state. It even had the Law (as represented by Northern troops) and Government (a newly elected legislature and governor) and outside agitators (Southern raiders from Arkansas and Kansas). It is hard to know exactly how many were killed in this conflict, but it was a smaller, and in some ways, nastier Civil conflict in the midst of a much larger one.

Is there a Civil War in Iraq? I think the point is has the killing, which may have begin with the insurgents, now self-sustaining between Sunni and Shia? Something that will take place even if we and the 'outside' influences were withdrawn tomorrow?

I think it will. I am not happy with that conclusion, but I think it will.

History is one tough Bastich to figure out--especially in reading the future. We'll all be around to see what comes next, I think--unless hgc doesn't cool down and get himself banned...

IMHO as always

[Ziggurat]

Are there factions in Iraq? Check!
Are they armed? Check!
Are they shooting at each other? Check!

Ok, what's that but a civil war?

Were the Crips vs. the Bloods in LA a civil war? They satisfied every one of your criteria, and yet I certainly don't think that qualified. You need a lot more than that superficial list to qualify as a civil war, or the term is so meaningless that ANY internal conflict is a civil war. That's just stretching the term until it becomes useless as a descriptor.

[jj]

Why don't you ask the mods? They and I seem to be in perfect accord.
-z


Ooh! Ooh! Might makes right! Might makes right!

[jj]

Riiight...

Therefore southeast DC is in a state of civil war! (and has been for years) Glad we cleared that up. Now how has that helped us understand anything?
-z
Right, so we have to escape from context now, eh?

We're talking about an entire country here, right? Southeast DC is an entire country, right? L.A. is an entire country, right?

You wanna get back into scope here, or are you still too busy spinning.

[jj]

If there was a civil war in Iraq there would be violence between factions.
There is violence between factions in Iraq.
Therefore Iraq is having a civil war.

Next fallacy please.


Nice example ofa straw man. Next fallacy please, indeed.

[rikzilla]

I think it's time to ask the next question of our more left leaning friends;
If Iraq can be accurately (in your opinion, not mine) be described as a civil war, how does this change the occupation of Iraq by coalition forces?

-z

[Cleon]

I think it's time to ask the next question of our more left leaning friends;
If Iraq can be accurately (in your opinion, not mine) be described as a civil war, how does this change the occupation of Iraq by coalition forces?

-z

It becomes an even bigger disaster. Because at this point, Washington would have to decide which faction, if any, to back. Then they are no longer fighting one enemy, but multiple enemy forces that may or may not be working together. They also have to face the fact that whichever faction they support is probably going to be a minority faction--without the support of the majority leadership or population.

More to the point, though, it would prolong the occupation idefinitely.

[rikzilla]

It becomes an even bigger disaster. Because at this point, Washington would have to decide which faction, if any, to back. Then they are no longer fighting one enemy, but multiple enemy forces that may or may not be working together. They also have to face the fact that whichever faction they support is probably going to be a minority faction--without the support of the majority leadership or population.

More to the point, though, it would prolong the occupation idefinitely.

I agree completely. All of the things you say are true...and none of them are currently happening.

Which makes it plain and obvious that there is not currently a civil war in Iraq.

There is only a leftist's wet-dream of being able to cry "Bigger Disaster"...which is exactly why the left (and the enemy BTW) is behind repackaging this insurgency as a civil war.

Thanks for playing Cleon.

-z

[Cleon]

I agree completely. All of the things you say are true...and none of them are currently happening.

Ooh, sorry, you really should read some news reports about what's going on...

[rikzilla]

Ooh, sorry, you really should read some news reports about what's going on...

If you want to make a point that there exist news articles which refute my position on this then YOU really should post links to said articles.

-z

[daredelvis]

I agree completely. All of the things you say are true...and none of them are currently happening.

Which makes it plain and obvious that there is not currently a civil war in Iraq.

There is only a leftist's wet-dream of being able to cry "Bigger Disaster"...which is exactly why the left (and the enemy BTW) is behind repackaging this insurgency as a civil war.

Thanks for playing Cleon.

-z

Yes, that is it. Criticism of the administration and pointing out how bad things are going is the equivalent of a rooting for things to go bad. It is statements like your most recent insulting straw man that make you such a tedious person.

A leftist wet dream is that these idiots (the administration) never took this course of action in the first place. Barring that a leftist wet dream may be that people begin to wake up and see the complete mess they have made and kick them (the administration) out (remove all popular support) before they take their next monumentally stupid step.

What is you wet dream? Stay the course? More time at Prairie Chapel? Go on some more hunting trips? It has all worked so well so far.

How much time off have you taken from your job in the last year? Don’t you think if you were responsible for this mess you would spend a little more time on the job?

Daredelvis

[daredelvis]

If you want to make a point that there exist news articles which refute my position on this then YOU really should post links to said articles.

-z
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR2006031201415.html?sub=new

Sectarian Fighting Changes Face of Conflict for Iraqis

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, March 13, 2006; Page A01

"The past two weeks have changed the war in Iraq, shifting its focus from a U.S.-driven fight against Sunni insurgents to a direct battle for power and survival between Iraq's empowered Shiite majority and disempowered Sunni minority. On Sunday, three car bombings in Baghdad's Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City killed about 50 people, the deadliest string of sectarian attacks since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra touched off a wave of retaliatory killings.

The bombing, which blew the gold-plated dome of the Askariya mosque into naked gray concrete, did not set off the battle between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite blocs. Their enmity stretches back centuries, and ever since U.S. troops overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003, the two sides have been grappling to find their new footing.

But the bloodshed that has followed the shrine bombing, as Shiite religious parties unleashed their militias on a large scale in Baghdad for the first time, laid bare the sectarian rift -- and worsened it. Some Iraqis and international figures have expressed worry whether Iraq, having come to the brink of civil war, can keep itself from sliding in."



Same ol insurgency

Daredelvis

[a_unique_person]

I agree completely. All of the things you say are true...and none of them are currently happening.

Which makes it plain and obvious that there is not currently a civil war in Iraq.

There is only a leftist's wet-dream of being able to cry "Bigger Disaster"...which is exactly why the left (and the enemy BTW) is behind repackaging this insurgency as a civil war.

Thanks for playing Cleon.

-z

Your issue appears to be that a Civil War, if it is happening, is going to please the people who were against the war. You would have to ask them if that was the case, not say it is their 'wet dream' without evidence.

[corplinx]

It becomes an even bigger disaster. Because at this point, Washington would have to decide which faction, if any, to back. Then they are no longer fighting one enemy, but multiple enemy forces that may or may not be working together.


Its quite apparent you are out of your league. Try reading up on insurgency. We are already fighting multiple enemy sources.

Did you not even bother reading that vanilla overview of the insurgent or militant groups I linked from wikipedia?

[rikzilla]

Yes, that is it. Criticism of the administration and pointing out how bad things are going is the equivalent of a rooting for things to go bad. It is statements like your most recent insulting straw man that make you such a tedious person.

If it walks like a duck...etc...etc...etc... If I'm so tedious why don't you ignore my posts?

A leftist wet dream is that these idiots (the administration) never took this course of action in the first place.
Reality is a bitch huh?

Barring that a leftist wet dream may be that people begin to wake up and see the complete mess they have made and kick them (the administration) out (remove all popular support) before they take their next monumentally stupid step.
Well guess what? The voting public was offered a really rank choice by the Dems on Nov 2nd 2004. They held their noses a voted for dubya. Illustrating the point that a poor choice is the same as no choice at all.

What is you wet dream? Stay the course? More time at Prairie Chapel? Go on some more hunting trips? It has all worked so well so far.
An adhominum non-sequitur...how original. :yawn:

How much time off have you taken from your job in the last year? Don’t you think if you were responsible for this mess you would spend a little more time on the job?

Daredelvis

A POTUS...any POTUS...is merely the head of a very large team. The team doesn't cease work because the POTUS is at the end of a phone line in Crawford instead of a phone line at the White House. We're in a modern era in case you haven't noticed.

-z

[Cleon]

Its quite apparent you are out of your league. Try reading up on insurgency. We are already fighting multiple enemy sources.

Thank you, yes, I'm well aware. Which is why Rik's statement that "none of which is happening" indicates his lack of knowledge about what's going on in Iraq.

[rikzilla]

Thank you, yes, I'm well aware. Which is why Rik's statement that "none of which is happening" indicates his lack of knowledge about what's going on in Iraq.
C'mon Cleon. Your overarching premise was that; "Washington would have to decide which faction, if any, to back."; which is correct...and as I said has not happened. Washington is still firmly standing behind the formation of the Iraqi representative government as elected by the people of Iraq. There is no confusion about "which faction" they should back simply because there is no civil war which has split the Iraqi government into warring factions in the first place.

Not saying it won't happen...just that it hasn't happened yet. And also pointing out that saying that it has happened already is dishonest and unhelpful to the effort.

-z

[Cleon]

C'mon Cleon. Your overarching premise was that; "Washington would have to decide which faction, if any, to back."; which is correct...and as I said has not happened.

Are you sure about that? I seem to recall Washington picking a side fairly early on.


Not saying it won't happen...just that it hasn't happened yet. And also pointing out that saying that it has happened already is dishonest and unhelpful to the effort.


Whatever, Rik. Nice attempt at backpedalling.

Oh, and please, keep calling people dishonest who don't agree with your defition of what constitutes a "civil war." I'm sure you really get your POV across, and I'm sure it lands you a lot of friends.

[rikzilla]

Are you sure about that? I seem to recall Washington picking a side fairly early on.

Chalabi? I seriously doubt he was anything more than a useful face of opposition to Saddam. After his WMD info proved false the he was hardly an admin favorite.


Whatever, Rik. Nice attempt at backpedalling.
Touche Mr. Pedant. :rolleyes:

Oh, and please, keep calling people dishonest who don't agree with your defition of what constitutes a "civil war." I'm sure you really get your POV across, and I'm sure it lands you a lot of friends.
Friends? I'm an Army veteran. Anyone working hard to re-define this conflict so that it becomes both more difficult and deadly to my brothers in the Army is no friend. In fact they would be the opposite thing. :mad:

-z

[Cleon]

Enjoy the final word, Rik. Think whatever you like, wear whatever rose-colored glasses suits your fancy. I'm done.

[hgc]

..Friends? I'm an Army veteran. Anyone working hard to re-define this conflict so that it becomes both more difficult and deadly to my brothers in the Army is no friend. In fact they would be the opposite thing. :mad:How does someone here putting a label on the conflict make it more difficult and deadly for your "brothers?" It must be homeopathy or some other crazy woo that explains that. Oh, and you don't have a monopoly on caring about what happens to our soldiers.

[Renfield]

Once again, your logic (and I use that term loosely) escapes me, Corps. So the factional violence that is tearing Iraq apart goes back a long way, therefore that disqualifies Iraq from Civil War now?

Baffling.

[Renfield]

In your mind you mean.

As I said before...it's only a civil war when the government splinters and starts warring on itself. If that hasn't happened yet; then you're merely repackaging Zarqawi's insurgency into the civil war meme that AQ is propagating.

I never thought I'd see you being credulous Cleon...you've always been above that...but asserting that Iraq is in civil war when it isn't is just pure dishonest crap. You gonna start talking to the dead next?

-z

You may say it and say it again, but that doesn't make it true.

Dictionary.com:

civil war
n.

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.


Websters:
Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country



Damn, sounds kind of like Iraq, doesn't it?

[rikzilla]

You may say it and say it again, but that doesn't make it true.

Dictionary.com:

civil war
n.

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.


Websters:
Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country



Damn, sounds kind of like Iraq, doesn't it?

It also sounds like Columbia, Spain, Peru, Palestine, Lebanon, and East LA. The term itself: "Civil War" carries special negative connotations for Americans...and when one hears this term it inevitably conjures up images of death and chaos on a massive scale.

The American Civil War involved the breakdown into factions of the US Government. Elements of the US Government formed a new government. Other elements of the old government fought them. This my friends is what most Americans regard as "Civil War".

Using such a loaded term to describe Iraq (a place where the government is not split and warring on itself) is indeed a dishonest repackaging of the insurgency. The only possible benefit of which is to the terrorist enemy.

Now if you guys are interested in aiding Zarqawi, et al through your loaded rhetoric go ahead, but don't expect to get a free pass. We get it that most of you guys hate GWB...it's just weird that you'd let such hatred lead you into useful-idiothood in behalf of dangerous religious nuts who'd just as soon cut off your head as look at you. :confused:

-z

[rikzilla]

How does someone here putting a label on the conflict make it more difficult and deadly for your "brothers?" It must be homeopathy or some other crazy woo that explains that. Oh, and you don't have a monopoly on caring about what happens to our soldiers.

Not a monopoly...but better credentials than someone who jaw-jaws while others put on a uniform and actually do stuff. Evidence you see. If your evidence for caring about the troops consists of nothing more than political dissent then I'd say that's pretty poor...as evidence goes.

As for labels? Unchallenged they can change attitudes. Making a label such as "Civil War" actually stick to the effort there would erode support, embolden the enemy, and yes...these effects could easily make a dangerous situation worse for the guy walking patrol in Iraq.

If you are truly caring of the troops then you would not want to craft a label which so undermines the mission of said troops. However; if you cared more about making GWB look bad by making the Iraq situation look untenable than you did for "the troops" then indeed one could expect you to push this label.

Simply put, that's the only real reason one would try to call Iraq a civil war. It's simply a good way to discredit the effort of a POTUS you despise. If the troops are put in a worse situation that's too damned bad eh?

This kind of "support" they can surely do without.

-z

[zakur]

Before anyone else tells me there is a civil war going on, please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

And here is some other relevant reading from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence_in_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_civil_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars

[corplinx]

Once again, your logic (and I use that term loosely) escapes me, Corps. So the factional violence that is tearing Iraq apart goes back a long way, therefore that disqualifies Iraq from Civil War now?

Baffling.

My point was that the lack of a civil war means there isn't a civil war. Nice try though. I asked for evidence of a civil war and nobody seems to be able to provide any. I even gave easy templates for providing such by using other acknowledged civil wars as a comparison. I even provided a list of the insurgent groups in Iraq to help these military analysts here on the thread identify who is at war.

Your attempt to take my skeptical and intellectual position and harp on one point that you extrapolated incorrectly doesn't diminish my position but I guess thats the best try you had in you.

I'm a reasonable person:
1. Compared to other internationally recognized civil wars Iraq doesn't appear to be at war.
2. Statement one doesn't mean I don't acknowledge high casualty sectarian/factional violence or the possibility that a civil war could occur.

Wait no, you're right. My laying the context for Iraqi sectarian violence was actually me saying "since its gone on a long time its not a war now". You caught me. I feel naked. Next time you think about getting snarky and saying "your logic (and I use that term loosely)" I suggest you hit the edit key and instead ask if the way you understood my post was really what I meant. As much as I like spanking the plebians and humanoids on this forum, the implied insults on my logical facilities don't move the thread.

[corplinx]

This weekends violence is due to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mahdi_Army
vs
Sunni Insurgents (no news source I've seen has said which group, with any luck, its the Al Ikwan branch of islamofascists).

Can't say I feel too bad about these two groups killing each other. I just hope they manage to do so before bringing the populace at large into a civil war.

[CapelDodger]

Let's see:

Are there factions in Iraq? Check!
Are they armed? Check!
Are they shooting at each other? Check!

Ok, what's that but a civil war?
I would add as a criterion "Is it for a political purpose?" If so, it's certainly in the running for civil war status. That cuts out turf-wars in LA or domestic violence.

That post-Baathist part of the insurgency has a political objective, to prevent a Sunni-dominated central power crystalising. The Badrist party, acting partly from within the government forces, have the political obective of breaking the Sunni economic dominance. They also want to disrupt Sunni political structures.

It's a conflict over the nature of the state. It doesn't seem unreasonable to describe it as a civil war. Not that such definition matters much, of course, it is what it is.

[Dr Adequate]

The term "civil war" carries the connotation that the effort in Iraq is spurious and unwinnable...which is why the usual suspects of the leftist variety are pushing the term. As usual, when a rightwing woowoo can't argue with what is actually being said, he invents a Sooper Secret Magical Invisible Meaning which his Magical Powers Of Making Stuff Up tell him that the people who disagree with him really mean. Secretly. Without saying so.

And then he whines about other people being "dishonest".

[Mephisto]

The term itself: "Civil War" carries special negative connotations for Americans...and when one hears this term it inevitably conjures up images of death and chaos on a massive scale.-z

Actually the term "Civil War" brings to mind several nerdy "reinactors" I've known who are still fighting the American Civil War. :)

. . . as for negative connotations and images of death and chaos on a massive scale . . . what's different in Iraq? If this whole situation were a sandwich, we'd be the baloney.

(edited to add) "On September 22, 2005, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said that he had warned the Bush administration in recent days that Iraq was hurtling toward disintegration, and that the election planned for December was unlikely to make any difference. United States officials immediately made statements rejecting this view." from Zakur's 1st link.

[Dr Adequate]

Anyone working hard to re-define this conflict so that it becomes both more difficult and deadly to my brothers in the Army is no friend. In fact they would be the opposite thing. And, shrieking and twitching with hysteria, rik retreats once more into his pathetic revolting Magic Secret World Of Magical Paranoid Fantasy. 'Cos that's the only place where he's right.

[Mycroft]

I don't know if there is a civil war or not (looks like one may be emerging but what do I know?), it does seem to me that the Administration's denial that there is one however, should be judged in terms of its previous pronouncements and performance.

Translation:

I can't contribute to the dialogue based on facts or definitions, but I don't think we need to apply thought and reason to the issue if we can just agree that we all hate Bush.

[Dr Adequate]

Translation:

I can't contribute to the dialogue based on facts or definitions, but I don't think we need to apply thought and reason to the issue if we can just agree that we all hate Bush. Oh look, another nutjob with Imaginary Magical Powers.

I think that headscratcher mean what he said, not what the Imaginary Magical Invisble Headscratcher told you he really meant by Magical Telepathy in the Land Of The Paranoid Pixies.

[Darat]

Translation:

I can't contribute to the dialogue based on facts or definitions, but I don't think we need to apply thought and reason to the issue if we can just agree that we all hate Bush.

Your response does not address the reasonable and rational point headscratcher4 raised i.e. if someone has been proved to have repeatedly lied about something it becomes reasonable to consider anything they then say about that subject is another lie. Obviously this is not proof but is a perfectly rational stance to take given the past history.

So the approach to have taken, if you had wanted to challenge the argument rather then the person would have been to ask for proof that in the past (in this instance) the administration had lied about this issue because obviously if that is not true headscratcher4 argument fails.

[Mycroft]

Your response does not address the reasonable and rational point headscratcher4 raised i.e. if someone has been proved to have repeatedly lied about something it becomes reasonable to consider anything they then say about that subject is another lie. Obviously this is not proof but is a perfectly rational stance to take given the past history.

So the approach to have taken, if you had wanted to challenge the argument rather then the person would have been to ask for proof that in the past (in this instance) the administration had lied about this issue because obviously if that is not true headscratcher4 argument fails.


I certainly could have phrased my objection better.

I don't believe proof of past lies or misstatements matter. The issue is if the current situation is a civil war or not. To resolve the issue you come up with an objective definition and apply the facts.

The issue of Saddam having WMDs or not doesn’t change if the current situation is a civil war or not.

The issue of Saddam’s connection (or not) to 9/11 doesn’t change if the current situation is a civil war or not.

The issue of us being welcomed as liberators or not doesn’t change if the current situation is a civil war or not.

And so on.

Following headscratcher’s logic, we should consider facts that have nothing to do with the actual definition of what is or isn’t a civil war.

[Darat]

...snip...

Following headscratcher’s logic, we should consider facts that have nothing to do with the actual definition of what is or isn’t a civil war.

I don't see how that follows - can you explain that chain of logic?

[Dr Adequate]

It also sounds like Columbia, Spain, Peru, Palestine, Lebanon, and East LA. The term itself: "Civil War" carries special negative connotations for Americans...and when one hears this term it inevitably conjures up images of death and chaos on a massive scale.

The American Civil War involved the breakdown into factions of the US Government. Elements of the US Government formed a new government. Other elements of the old government fought them. This my friends is what most Americans regard as "Civil War". Woowoo, woo, woo, wibble.

Are you serious?

You seem to be claiming that it's misleading to use the term "civil war" unless in certain respects it's like the American Civil War ... because Americans are so ... so what, rik? ... so dumb? ... so insular? ... that they'll suppose that "civil war" must mean something just like you guys had?

So Ayad Allawi, an Iraqi, can't call his nation's problems a "civil war" because American history is to be the yardstick for English usage?

I don't think so.

Incidentally, how would you respond if I, being English, told you that the American Civil War wasn't really a civil war because it wasn't fought between the King and Parliament? After all, that's the connotation "civil war" has for me. But it is only a connotation, rik, and if I said that I'd be a moron.

[Dr Adequate]

Using such a loaded term to describe Iraq (a place where the government is not split and warring on itself) is indeed a dishonest repackaging of the insurgency. The only possible benefit of which is to the terrorist enemy.

Now if you guys are interested in aiding Zarqawi, et al through your loaded rhetoric go ahead, but don't expect to get a free pass. We get it that most of you guys hate GWB...it's just weird that you'd let such hatred lead you into useful-idiothood in behalf of dangerous religious nuts who'd just as soon cut off your head as look at you. Er ... when the magical imaginary invisible people in your imaginary fantasy world do things that even you find incredible, then this is a sign that your delusions have become completely ridiculous.

Obviously, I do not support dangerous religious nuts who wish to decapitate me. That would indeed be weird, and more than weird. So obviously, you have completely flipped your lid.

Don't you ever listen to what you're saying. Even you can see there's something "weird" about the content of your paranoid daydreams. There is something weird about them, yes. Actually, "completely ******* crazy" would be a more accurate term.

If you are truly caring of the troops then you would not want to craft a label which so undermines the mission of said troops. However; if you cared more about making GWB look bad by making the Iraq situation look untenable than you did for "the troops" then indeed one could expect you to push this label.

Simply put, that's the only real reason one would try to call Iraq a civil war. It's simply a good way to discredit the effort of a POTUS you despise. If the troops are put in a worse situation that's too damned bad eh? More Amazing Magical Made-Up Mind-Reading. You know, you can keep imaginary people from beaming thoughts into your head if you wear a tinfoil hat.

[Mephisto]

I don't believe proof of past lies or misstatements matter. The issue is if the current situation is a civil war or not. To resolve the issue you come up with an objective definition and apply the facts.

The issue of Saddam having WMDs or not doesn’t change if the current situation is a civil war or not.

The issue of Saddam’s connection (or not) to 9/11 doesn’t change if the current situation is a civil war or not.

The issue of us being welcomed as liberators or not doesn’t change if the current situation is a civil war or not..

But you'd have to agree that, based on past accuracy we're under no obligation to believe the Bush administration when they say, "Iraq isn't in a civil war," right?

[fishbob]

I don't believe proof of past lies or misstatements matter.

So you are the one that encourages those Nigerians to keep sending e-mails.

[WildCat]

So when wasn't Iraq in a civil war, by the broad definition advocated by some here?

[CapelDodger]

So when wasn't Iraq in a civil war, by the broad definition advocated by some here?
There was no internal conflict going on before the recent invasion. The Kurds were effectively independent in the north and while there was repression in the rest of Iraq it was pre-emptive rather than a response.

[Mycroft]

I don't see how that follows - can you explain that chain of logic?


I believe I already have. Perhaps we could come to an understanding of minds better if you were to describe how you believe if Saddam had WMD's or not has anything to do with if Iraq is in a civil war right now?

[Mycroft]

But you'd have to agree that, based on past accuracy we're under no obligation to believe the Bush administration when they say, "Iraq isn't in a civil war," right?

Is anyone suggesting we should take only President Bush's word for it? I thought the issue in this thread was to judge the issue by objective data, not by agreement with any political figure.

[Mycroft]

Er ... when the magical imaginary invisible people in your imaginary fantasy world do things that even you find incredible, then this is a sign that your delusions have become completely ridiculous.

It's too bad you so often choose to make ad hominem attacks on those you disagree rather than substantial debate.

Obviously, I do not support dangerous religious nuts who wish to decapitate me. That would indeed be weird, and more than weird. So obviously, you have completely flipped your lid.

I believe Rik made an elegant argument for his points, and your only response is to say, "look at what you've said!" Do you have an actuall refutation?

[Darat]

I believe I already have. Perhaps we could come to an understanding of minds better if you were to describe how you believe if Saddam had WMD's or not has anything to do with if Iraq is in a civil war right now?

I can see no post where you have set out any logic - can you link me to it?

[WildCat]

There was no internal conflict going on before the recent invasion. The Kurds were effectively independent in the north and while there was repression in the rest of Iraq it was pre-emptive rather than a response.
So all those bodies found in mass graves are not the result of civil war?

[Darat]

So all those bodies found in mass graves are not the result of civil war?

It's one of the problems when using a term that has such a wide usage. By some definitions you can quite accurately claim that the UK was in a state of civil war for 40 years because of the Troubles or that the UK is now in a state of civil war because some British nationals blew themselves and others up or the USA because of Timothy McVeigh's actions. To me the latter two of those examples seems too broad a definition, but the first I think has some legitimacy.

[Mark]

So all those bodies found in mass graves are not the result of civil war?

Stalin murdered 22 million of his own people, but I have never heard it referred to as civil war. Same with the Nazis murdering Jews, Catholics, and Gypsies.

[CapelDodger]

So all those bodies found in mass graves are not the result of civil war?
I'd say they were the result of repression, although some date, I think, from the post-Kuwait Shia uprising, which I would classify as a civil war -until the Baathists won it.

There has always been a degree of Kurdish secessionism (?), but it's a tricky question as to whether an opposed secession does constitute a civil war. To me, for the term "civil war" to be useful it has to mean armed conflict over the nature of the state, rather than over its borders.

[corplinx]

Your response does not address the reasonable and rational point headscratcher4 raised i.e. if someone has been proved to have repeatedly lied about something it becomes reasonable to consider anything they then say about that subject is another lie. Obviously this is not proof but is a perfectly rational stance to take given the past history.

So the approach to have taken, if you had wanted to challenge the argument rather then the person would have been to ask for proof that in the past (in this instance) the administration had lied about this issue because obviously if that is not true headscratcher4 argument fails.


The problem being, this isn't about the Bush administration.

[corplinx]

So all those bodies found in mass graves are not the result of civil war?


There were acts of genocide and repression. These were acts of the government in control destroying other factions.

There was never a countergovernment or faction that could provide enough resistance to lauch a full out civil war.

[WildCat]

There were acts of genocide and repression. These were acts of the government in control destroying other factions.

There was never a countergovernment or faction that could provide enough resistance to lauch a full out civil war.
My point was to highlight the efforts to define a civil war to make it appear that Iraq is in the midst of one now, while past sectarian violence gets denied the "civil war" label.

The definition of "civil war" is so vague as to give one great leeway in saying one exists or not. Thus, opponents of the war can shout "civil war!" and supporters of the war can deny it. In this context, it's being used strictly for propaganda purposes.

[Dr Adequate]

It's too bad you so often choose to make ad hominem attacks on those you disagree rather than substantial debate.

I believe Rik made an elegant argument for his points, and your only response is to say, "look at what you've said!" Do you have an actuall refutation?Too bad, too bad ...

* shakes head *

"Elegant argument"?

Rik has not made an elegant argument for his points. He has made a raving, frothing, lying, and indecent attack on people who disagree with him, based on his Stupid Magical Made-Up Fantasies of what they (really, secretly, without saying so) Really Really Mean.

It's not true, it's not sane, and it's not decent.

[CapelDodger]

The definition of "civil war" is so vague as to give one great leeway in saying one exists or not. Thus, opponents of the war can shout "civil war!" and supporters of the war can deny it. In this context, it's being used strictly for propaganda purposes.
That seems a reasonable summation. The term is used for its effect on a non-critical audience. The Iraq War is what it is.

[CapelDodger]

The definition of "civil war" is so vague as to give one great leeway in saying one exists or not. Thus, opponents of the war can shout "civil war!" and supporters of the war can deny it. In this context, it's being used strictly for propaganda purposes.
Just to poke at Rumsfeld and/or Rumsfeld's people, he should never have said "Our policy is to avoid civil war ...", that's just crass. Egregious, even. "Insurgency"," terrorist", "9/11", "legitimate government", stuff like that, fine. If hit with "Is this a civil war?" respond "There's no question of that!". Don't use the words "civil war".

D'oh!

[Darat]

The problem being, this isn't about the Bush administration.

Since they are one of the primary sources of information about activities in Iraq then in some ways it is about the administration.

To come to a conclusion (i.e. is it a civil war or not) we need to determine the facts and if we use information from a particular source (i.e. what the administration is telling us) we need to be confident in the veracity of that information therefore considerations of whether a source has been truthful or not in the past does becomes relevant to our conclusion (provisional conclusion of course since this is a sceptic's board).

[Mycroft]

I can see no post where you have set out any logic - can you link me to it?

I've already suggested a method by which we could better understand each other when I said, "Perhaps we could come to an understanding of minds better if you were to describe how you believe if Saddam had WMD's or not has anything to do with if Iraq is in a civil war right now?"

Why would you ignore that?

[Mycroft]

Too bad, too bad ...

* shakes head *

"Elegant argument"?

Rik has not made an elegant argument for his points. He has made a raving, frothing, lying, and indecent attack on people who disagree with him, based on his Stupid Magical Made-Up Fantasies of what they (really, secretly, without saying so) Really Really Mean.

It's not true, it's not sane, and it's not decent.

Again you choose ad hominems over substance.

You could describe what you think is wrong with Riks arguments instead of just gainsaying them.

[Darat]

I've already suggested a method by which we could better understand each other when I said, "Perhaps we could come to an understanding of minds better if you were to describe how you believe if Saddam had WMD's or not has anything to do with if Iraq is in a civil war right now?"

Why would you ignore that?

Because it is a type of question which I believe is called the "excluded middle principle" or a false dilemma.

My point was not about Saddam having or not having weapons of mass destruction but rather if it is reasonable, if an administration has repeatedly lied about a certain subject (in this case Iraq), to start with the premise that anything they say about Iraq in future should be treated suspiciously.

Could you please link to where you have set out your logic to support what you said? As a reminder it was this "Following headscratcher’s logic, we should consider facts that have nothing to do with the actual definition of what is or isn't a civil war." that prompted me to ask you where was your explanation of this logic, in other words I do not see how this follows from the statement of headscratcher4's that I had quoted and responded to.

[Mycroft]

Because it is a type of question which I believe is called the "excluded middle principle" or a false dilemma.

I understand the concept of the excluded middle or the false dilemma, but I don't understand how you claim it's relevent here. Could you please make yourself more clear?

My point was not about Saddam having or not having weapons of mass destruction but rather if it is reasonable, if an administration has repeatedly lied about a certain subject (in this case Iraq), to start with the premise that anything they say about Iraq in future should be treated suspiciously.

Except we don't need to depend on the administrations claims to determine if Iraq is in civil war or not. That's an objective fact that can be verified independently of any statements from the administration.


Could you please... ?

No. You are capable of going back to headscratcher's post and looking for yourself. I don't see why I should do this work for you.

[Darat]

I understand the concept of the excluded middle or the false dilemma, but I don't understand how you claim it's relevant here. Could you please make yourself more clear?


See my last post and the paragraph starting "My point was..", your question was in the form of a false dilemma regarding the point I was making.



Except we don't need to depend on the administrations claims to determine if Iraq is in civil war or not. That's an objective fact that can be verified independently of any statements from the administration.


This has nothing to do with the point I was making nor the claim I have asked you to substantiate.



No. You are capable of going back to headscratcher's post and looking for yourself. I don't see why I should do this work for you.

What has this got to do with headscratcher4's post? I have been asking you for a link to one of your own posts that you claim to have made.

You claimed that a certain conclusion logically followed from an argument put forward by headscratcher4 i.e ."...Following headscratcher’s logic,". I stated I could not understand that logic and asked you to provide your reasoning to which you replied "I believe I already have." therefore since you claim you have already put forward the logical argument I asked you to provide a link to it because I cannot find it in this thread.

Since you are refusing to provide what should for you take only a moment i.e. a link to one of your own posts in this thread that you claim provides your logical argument for your claim that "Following headscratcher’s logic, we should consider facts that have nothing to do with the actual definition of what is or isn't a civil war." I really have no other option but to discount your claim.

[Mycroft]

See my last post and the paragraph starting "My point was..", your question was in the form of a false dilemma regarding the point I was making.

Except my question offered no dilemma, false or otherwise. That’s why I asked you to explain.


This has nothing to do with the point I was making nor the claim I have asked you to substantiate.

Of course it does. Headscratcher said, ”… it does seem to me that the Administration's denial that there is one (civil war) however, should be judged in terms of its previous pronouncements and performance.”

What does that mean? I interpret it to mean that we should evaluate the claim not on objective data, but on previous statements of the administration concerning issues unrelated to Iraqi civil war. One example was of WMDs.


What has this got to do with headscratcher4's post? I have been asking you for a link to one of your own posts that you claim to have made.

I decline because I don’t believe you’re acting in good faith because the logic you asked me to explain was self-explanatory. I said:

[i]”Following headscratcher’s logic, we should consider facts that have nothing to do with the actual definition of what is or isn’t a civil war. “[b]

Headscratcher provided a list of things to consider, none of which had anything to do with the actual definition of “civil war” or objective facts we should look at to determine if there was one or not.

There is nothing needed to understand this other than looking at Headscratcher’s post and observing that none of the things he mentioned have anything to do with civil war.


…I really have no other option but to discount your claim.

As far as threats go, this is lame.

[Darat]

...snip...

Of course it does. Headscratcher said, ”… it does seem to me that the Administration's denial that there is one (civil war) however, should be judged in terms of its previous pronouncements and performance.”

What does that mean? I interpret it to mean that we should evaluate the claim not on objective data, but on previous statements of the administration concerning issues unrelated to Iraqi civil war. One example was of WMDs.



And as I said I do not understand how you arrive at that conclusion.


I decline because I don’t believe you’re acting in good faith because the logic you asked me to explain was self-explanatory. I said:


It was not self-explanatory to me then nor is it now that is why I have asked you explain the logic. (I take it that you are now retracting your second claim that you had previously posted an explanation of the logic you used?)



[i]”Following headscratcher’s logic, we should consider facts that have nothing to do with the actual definition of what is or isn’t a civil war. “[b]

Headscratcher provided a list of things to consider, none of which had anything to do with the actual definition of “civil war” or objective facts we should look at to determine if there was one or not.


Again this does not explain the conclusion you reached from his statement that you quoted because it does not as far as I can see logically follow from what he actually posted. Perhaps you have misunderstood what he has posted and therefore your starting premise was wrong?



There is nothing needed to understand this other than looking at Headscratcher’s post and observing that none of the things he mentioned have anything to do with civil war.



This does lend support to my idea that you have misunderstood his statement that you seemed to be have been responding to. His point was about the determining the veracity of a primary source of information and to do so it is reasonable and rational to view the past accuracy of such a source.




As far as threats go, this is lame.

What threat?

[Mephisto]

Headscratcher said, ”… it does seem to me that the Administration's denial that there is one (civil war) however, should be judged in terms of its previous pronouncements and performance.”

What does that mean? I interpret it to mean that we should evaluate the claim not on objective data, but on previous statements of the administration concerning issues unrelated to Iraqi civil war. One example was of WMDs.

I think Headscratcher's claim was perfectly clear. He was asserting that Bush rejecting the use of the terms "civil war" in Iraq should be called into question BECAUSE of the Bush administration's inaccurate past predictions.

Why would Headscratcher make a claim regarding the possibility of a civil war in Iraq using issues related to a civil war? It wouldn't make much sense had Headscratcher made the claim: "Well, Iraqis are blowing each other up in the streets, it looks like a civil war."

As far as threats go, this is lame.

I don't see where Darat threatened you.

[gnome]

Oddly I find myself hesitant to use the term "Civil War" yet... until the new Iraqi government does not primarily rely on us for power, is it a significant enough presence to be considered different from American forces? As long as I sense the insurgency is mostly about us, rather than about Iraq's government, it doesn't seem like a civil war to me.

[Mycroft]

I think Headscratcher's claim was perfectly clear. He was asserting that Bush rejecting the use of the terms "civil war" in Iraq should be called into question BECAUSE of the Bush administration's inaccurate past predictions.

The claim is easily understood, it just doesn't logically follow.

If Iraq is in civil war or not is an objective fact that can be observed. All you need to do is arrive at a definition of "civil war", then observe if the activities that are happening over there fit the definition or not. The opinion of the Bush administration doesn’t enter into it.

The logic Headscratcher proposes would make sense if the issue were something that could not be independently verified. Suppose the Bush administration claimed that Iraq had transported all its weapons of mass destruction to Syria in the days before the war, but said they could not divulge the details of how they knew this. Then, in judging a claim that couldn’t be independently verified, you would have no choice but to fall back on your assessment of the credibility of the one making the claim.

Make sense?

Why would Headscratcher make a claim regarding the possibility of a civil war in Iraq using issues related to a civil war? It wouldn't make much sense had Headscratcher made the claim: "Well, Iraqis are blowing each other up in the streets, it looks like a civil war."

Does this say what you meant it to say?

I don't see where Darat threatened you.

”Since you are refusing to (jump through these hoops)… I really have no other option but to discount your claim.”

It was a lame threat; meaning the consequences he threatens, discounting my claim, are mild and not likely to change my behavior in the way he wants. If it seemed I was claiming he was making a more serious threat, that wasn't my intent.

[Darat]

...snip...

”Since you are refusing to (jump through these hoops)… I really have no other option but to discount your claim.”



...snip...

That is not a correct paraphrasing of what I have posted anywhere in this thread.

[jj]

What does that mean? I interpret it to mean that we should evaluate the claim not on objective data, but on previous statements of the administration concerning issues unrelated to Iraqi civil war. One example was of WMDs.


Nice attempt to avoid context. I would suggest that we should take what the Bush administration tries to get us to believe with a large bag of salt, based on their prior performance on both the Iraqi war and other places that they've conciously attempted to manipulate the public fears.

So let's talk objective data:

Are there three armed, fighting factions? Yes.
Does the government control any of the effective fighting units? No.
Does the government control anything to speak of? No.
Is the conflict country-wide? Yes.
Is the avowed goal of the conflict supremecy by each of the three factions? Yes.


The last time I pointed out these uncomfortable FACTS somebody tried quite dishonestly to equate them to the worst parts of DC or LA, but of course, in those places, it's

1) Not a fight for supremecy over the nation, it's just a fight.
2) It's not nationwide
3) The government still does have general control.
4) The government still has operational police and military.
5) Are there so many factions as to be no possibility of military victory? Yes.

I'm sure somebody will try to cheat again, but it's very simple, yes, Iraq is in the middle of a full-scale civil war between three factions, and both the Iraqi government and the US army have little control that extends beyond their line of sight and sensors.

So, yes, Iraq is in a full-scale civil war. Thanks to the inept way we took the place over, it's likely not to recover as one entity.

[jj]

That is not a correct paraphrasing of what I have posted anywhere in this thread.


You forget, Darat, the game here is to make it LOOK like this or that straw man, facts really don't matter. Don't confuse them with facts.

[Dr Adequate]

Again you choose ad hominems over substance.

You could describe what you think is wrong with Riks arguments instead of just gainsaying them. I did. Why are you pretending otherwise?

Let's spell it out again.

What is wrong with rik's argument is that it involved making up stupid lies about the Sopper Sekrit motivations of the people who disagree with him (without regard, of course, to the statements they have actually made) and then flailing away at his pathetic straw men with his pathetic toy sword.

I realize that you're not very good at this skepticism business, but surely even you can see that this is not so much an "elegant argument" as raving lunacy.

To point out how nutty his behavior is, by the way, does not constitute an ad hominem argument. Because it is a conclusion about his personal qualities based on an analysis of his argument, whereas ad hominem is the exact converse. I do not say "rik is nutty, therefore rik's argument is nutty". I say "rik's argument is nutty, therefore rik is nutty".

[CapelDodger]

Oddly I find myself hesitant to use the term "Civil War" yet... until the new Iraqi government does not primarily rely on us for power, is it a significant enough presence to be considered different from American forces?
Even though the Iraqi government depends on US forces for much of its power, it's still capable of some independent covert action. We see that in the Badrist-influenced involvement of the Iraqi police in sectarian conflict.

As long as I sense the insurgency is mostly about us, rather than about Iraq's government, it doesn't seem like a civil war to me.
Everybody knows that the coalition forces are going to leave; the current aim is to be in as advantageous a position as possible when that happens. So one could see the current sectarian violence as the early stages of a civil war.

I don't think the insurgency is mostly about the occupation. It's mostly about the post-occupation.

The Islamists/Al Qaeda are a wild yeast in this particular brew, of course. Their game-board is way bigger than Iraq.

[Mephisto]

If Iraq is in civil war or not is an objective fact that can be observed. All you need to do is arrive at a definition of "civil war", then observe if the activities that are happening over there fit the definition or not. The opinion of the Bush administration doesn’t enter into it.

Let's see what's involved in a civil war, okay?

Dictionary.com:

civil war
n.

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.


Websters:
Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country


Now, does that sound like Iraq to you or not?



”Since you are refusing to (jump through these hoops)… I really have no other option but to discount your claim.”

It was a lame threat; meaning the consequences he threatens, discounting my claim, are mild and not likely to change my behavior in the way he wants. If it seemed I was claiming he was making a more serious threat, that wasn't my intent.

from dictionary.com

threat P Pronunciation Key (thrt)
n.
An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
An indication of impending danger or harm.
One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.
_________

dis·count P Pronunciation Key (dskount, ds-kount)
v. dis·count·ed, dis·count·ing, dis·counts
v. tr.
To deduct or subtract from a cost or price.
To purchase or sell (a bill, note, or other commercial paper) at a reduction equal to the amount of interest that will accumulate before it matures.
To lend money on (a commercial paper not immediately payable) after deducting the interest.
To sell or offer for sale at a reduced price.
To reduce in quantity or value.
To leave out of account as being untrustworthy or exaggerated; disregard: discount a rumor.
To underestimate the significance or effectiveness of; minimize: took care not to discount his wife's accomplishments.
To regard with doubt or disbelief. emphasis mine
To anticipate and make allowance for; reckon with in advance.
_________

Shall we go for the definition of the word IS? ;)

[Mycroft]

Nice attempt to avoid context. I would suggest that we should take what the Bush administration tries to get us to believe with a large bag of salt, based on their prior performance on both the Iraqi war and other places that they've conciously attempted to manipulate the public fears.

One should take the word of all politicians with a grain of salt.

So let's talk objective data:

Fantastic! Now that I have convinced you it is objective data that must be looked at, I will now ignore the rest of your post as it’s obviously meant to continue a previous argument you were having with someone else.

[Mycroft]

I did. Why are you pretending otherwise?

Hmmm, let me think. It must be because your brilliant rebuttal is only visible to you.


What is wrong with rik's argument is that it involved making up stupid lies about the Sopper Sekrit motivations of the people who disagree with him (without regard, of course, to the statements they have actually made) and then flailing away at his pathetic straw men with his pathetic toy sword.

While high in disdain, you fail to name an actual failing in Rik’s argument. What stupid lies did he make up? What Sopper Sekrit (did you mean to say “Sooper”?) motivations are you talking about? What are these “straw men” of which you speak?


I realize that you're not very good at this skepticism business, but surely even you can see that this is not so much an "elegant argument" as raving lunacy.

Delightful! You still think insults make your argument stronger!


To point out how nutty his behavior is, by the way, does not constitute an ad hominem argument. Because it is a conclusion about his personal qualities based on an analysis of his argument, whereas ad hominem is the exact converse. I do not say "rik is nutty, therefore rik's argument is nutty". I say "rik's argument is nutty, therefore rik is nutty".

Of course. We all understand how you feel towards people who disagree with you.

[jj]

Fantastic! Now that I have convinced you it is objective data that must be looked at, I will now ignore the rest of your post as it’s obviously meant to continue a previous argument you were having with someone else.

Right. So you ignore the objective data. Why did you claim you wanted to see it.

[Mycroft]

Let's see what's involved in a civil war, okay?



Now, does that sound like Iraq to you or not?

Pardon, were you under the impression I was taking sides in this debate?

No, I had limited my comments to what I believe are serious flaws in the logic displayed in one of Headscratcher's posts, nothing more. If you want to continue to debate what is or isn't a civil war, you shall have to entice Corpse, wildcat, or Rik back into the game.


from dictionary.com

threat P Pronunciation Key (thrt)
n.
An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.


Lol! I would never have guessed such an off-handed remark could create such a fuss!

Darat expressed an intent to inflict evil upon me by discounting my assertion. That was his threat.

Satisfied? ;)

[Mycroft]

Right. So you ignore the objective data. Why did you claim you wanted to see it.

Because it was never my intent to argue one side or another in this debate. I only posted in this thread to object to an example of poor logic. Ultimately, it's just a matter of somantics.

[Mephisto]

Darat expressed an intent to inflict evil upon me by discounting my assertion. That was his threat.


I suppose; it's tits on a bull to me. I just don't see the threat at all, and if Darat can inflict evil upon anyone across an ocean, maybe we should recruit him to inflict evil upon those who discount the not-so-civil war in Iraq. ;)

[jj]

Because it was never my intent to argue one side or another in this debate. I only posted in this thread to object to an example of poor logic. Ultimately, it's just a matter of somantics.

Ok. I neglected to say that I agree with the grain of salt for any politician, as well. I mean I do trust a few politicians. They've died long ago, you see.

[zakur]

A senior Iraqi government official (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4891008.stm) has, for the first time, said Iraq is in a state of "undeclared" civil war:

"Iraq has actually been in an undeclared civil war for the past 12 months," Deputy Interior Minister Hussein Ali Kamal told the BBC's Arabic Service.

"On a daily basis Shia, Sunni, Kurds and Christians are being killed and the only undeclared thing is that a civil war has not been officially announced by the parties involved."

[CapelDodger]

A senior Iraqi government official (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4891008.stm) has, for the first time, said Iraq is in a state of "undeclared" civil war:
Yeah, but what does he know about logic-chopping and anyway, what's the Arabic for Civil War?

Iraq is a nation because the West declared it to be. Civil War is a Western concept, just as nation is. So it's only a Civil War when the West declares it to be. Iraqi opinion is just that - opinion.

[zakur]

Shiite Militias Move Into Oil-Rich Kirkuk, Even as Kurds Dig In (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401560.html?sub=AR)

KIRKUK, Iraq -- Hundreds of Shiite Muslim militiamen have deployed in recent weeks to this restive city -- widely considered the most likely flash point for an Iraqi civil war -- vowing to fight any attempt to shift control over Kirkuk to the Kurdish-governed north, according to U.S. commanders and diplomats, local police and politicians.

[...]

Kurdish leaders speak openly of their intention to use force if necessary to gain control of the city, which they consider the historical capital of a vast Kurdish nation also extending into Iran and Turkey. During the rule of President Saddam Hussein, Arabs brought in from elsewhere in Iraq displaced thousands of Kurds. As many as 300,000 Kurds who were pushed out have returned to the area, according to U.S. estimates, establishing vast settlements on the outskirts of the city and making them its largest ethnic community. Kurds also occupy most of the top provincial political and security jobs.

Many Iraqi Arabs, both Sunni and Shiite, are adamantly opposed to relinquishing Kirkuk, among them Sadr and his political followers.

Operating within and alongside Iraq's police and army, Shiite militias have grown politically more powerful and boosted their membership, despite being outlawed under Iraq's new constitution. U.S. officials have called on the Shiite-led government, whose leading parties are tied to Badr and the Mahdi Army, to rein them in, but few if any such steps have been taken.

[...]

In a meeting here last week, Sadr's representative in the city, Abdul Karim Khalifa, told U.S. officials that more armed loyalists were on the way and that as many as 7,000 to 10,000 Shiite residents were prepared to fight alongside the Mahdi Army if called upon. Legions more Shiite militiamen would push north from Baghdad's Sadr City slum, he said, according to Wise.

"His message was essentially that any idea of Kirkuk going to the Kurds will mean a fight," Wise said. "He said that their policy here was different from in other places, that they are not going to attack coalition forces because their only enemy here is the Kurds."
Nothing to see here, folks. No civil war. Move along.