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:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Cleon

*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]

Originally Posted by zakur

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]

Originally Posted by Cleon

*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]

Originally Posted by corplinx

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...

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally Posted by Cleon

*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]

Originally Posted by Jocko

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]

Originally Posted by varwoche

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]

Originally Posted by varwoche

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.

Originally Posted by Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi

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]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

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]

Originally Posted by Jocko

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by rikzilla

In your mind you mean.

Hower you like to spin it.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Cleon

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

Well, once again your stunning brilliance astounds us all.

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

(edited to fix really bad mixed metaphor.)

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by corplinx

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]

Originally Posted by Cleon

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]

Originally Posted by rikzilla

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 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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by rikzilla

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

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]

Originally Posted by Cleon

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]

Originally Posted by zakur

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.

Quote:

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 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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by corplinx

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Cleon

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

We saw the same nonsense when the port deal died, they kept blaming the left, even after seeing all the quotes from the Repubs, [dogbert]bah[/dogbert]

[rikzilla]

Originally Posted by Cleon

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?

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Edited by tim:

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]

Originally Posted by Cleon

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.