Q: Mr. Rumsfeld, is Iraq closer to civil war? A:

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by www.defenselink.mil

Q:Is the country closer to a civil war?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I don't know.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...725-13522.html

Man...

You know that anything other than a firm "no" from these guys means "yes."

Even the hardest of the hard core Iraq war supporters must realize by now things are getting worse over there than getting better.

[motivez]

I think that's the wrong question to ask Rummy honestly.

The question should have been "How are we planning on handling the current civil war that's going on in Iraq?"

It's been going on for awhile now, anyone who is still questioning whether or not it's going to happen is delusional (by choice or by ignorance of what constitutes a civil war) imo.

[kinggovernor]

at least post the rest of the quote:
You know, I thought about that last night, and just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it. If you think of our Civil War, this is really very different. If you think of civil wars in other countries, this is really quite different. There is -- there is a good deal of violence in Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there's very little violence or numbers of incidents. So it's a -- it's a highly concentrated thing. It clearly is being stimulated by people who would like to have what could be characterized as a civil war and win it, but I'm not going to be the one to decide if, when or at all.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's been going on for awhile now, anyone who is still questioning whether or not it's going to happen is delusional (by choice or by ignorance of what constitutes a civil war) imo.

what constitutes a civil war?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

what constitutes a civil war?

civil war
n.
A war between factions or regions of the same country.


Faction: Shia militias
Faction: Sunni militias

Militias kill each other when they are most vunerable and free from US responses, ofcourse...just like past civil wars when foreign occupiers are involved

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

civil war
n.
A war between factions or regions of the same country.


Faction: Shia militias
Faction: Sunni militias

Militias kill each other when they are most vunerable and free from US responses, ofcourse...just like past civil wars when foreign occupiers are involved

and when shia militias kill other shia as well, or sunni militias kill other sunni as well, then what do you call it?

basically, what do you call indiscriminate killing?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

and when shia militias kill other shia as well, or sunni militias kill other sunni as well, then what do you call it?

basically, what do you call indiscriminate killing?

Iraqi Sunni Militias are killing other Iraqi Sunni Militias? This I gotta see, link?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Iraqi Sunni Militias are killing other Iraqi Sunni Militias?

i never said sunni militias are killing other sunni militias. read again.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

i never said sunni militias are killing other sunni militias. read again.

sunni militias kill other sunni as well

fine, link of that?

unless you just mean "sunni militias killing people who join the occupation"
or "sunni militias that aren't Iraqi, they just happen to be Sunni like bin Laden"

anyway, to break down the situation for you:

Shia militias are confident they will win once the US leaves, so there is an infighting amongst the factions of the Badr Corp and Mahdi, and so forth over who will be the biggest victor

The Iraqi Sunni militias don't like foreigners, and are only taking them for their money, and as a resistance to the Shia government, they have to kill the Shia Government forces, whether they hire Sunnis or not

It's not that complicated

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

sunni militias kill other sunni as well

fine, link of that?

unless you just mean "sunni militias killing people who join the occupation"
or "sunni militias that aren't Iraqi, they just happen to be Sunni like bin Laden"

anyway, to break down the situation for you:

Shia militias are confident they will win once the US leaves, so there is an infighting amongst the factions of the Badr Corp and Mahdi, and so forth over who will be the biggest victor

The Iraqi Sunni militias don't like foreigners, and are only taking them for their money, and as a resistance to the Shia government, they have to kill the Shia Government forces, whether they hire Sunnis or not

It's not that complicated

yes, it's not that complicated. here we have a situation where militia forces are not happy with the government that is being formed or the country that is being formed. they are willing to kill anybody and everybody that is working with the government, be it civilians to police to politicians. they are not limited by any means to killing only within the other religious factions, as they kill indiscriminately anybody that they feel necessary. however, they also realize the implications (politically and physically) of a civil war and are trying to make it seem as if there was one.

fortunately, what these few militias do (as stated earlier in only a few provinces, not in the whole of the country) does not determine the direction nor the will of the country as a whole. therefore, it is difficult to say that this is a civil war in such an indiscriminate and limited capacity.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

at least post the rest of the quote:
You know, I thought about that last night, and just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it. If you think of our Civil War, this is really very different. If you think of civil wars in other countries, this is really quite different. There is -- there is a good deal of violence in Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there's very little violence or numbers of incidents. So it's a -- it's a highly concentrated thing. It clearly is being stimulated by people who would like to have what could be characterized as a civil war and win it, but I'm not going to be the one to decide if, when or at all.

I don't see the word "no" anywhere in there. Do you? All I see is a lot of equivocating and hedging. He even says at the end, if there is a civil war, he's not going to be the one to call it a civil war, even if breaks out at all.

Do you think a guy like Rumsfeld would be happy if he asked a yes or no question of someone and got "I don't know" as an answer? Hell no.

Rumsfeld can't honestly say "no", but, of course he can't go out there and say "yes." Just because Sunnis and Shias don't have uniforms, organized armies and flags and stuff like that, doesn't mean that the two sides are not fighting each other. Rumsfeld was asked a clear question, and he quibbled. Nothing he said after "I don't know" changes that answer into a "no." It's quibbling over the definition of civil war. It's splitting hairs. It's Cintonesque parsing. It's bullshitting.

Rumsfeld is no dummy or neophyte. If he was asked a question like that and believed that there was ANY way in the world that he could answer "no" with even the slightest possibility that it could be backed up with facts, he would have done it in a New York minute. The fact that he didn't say no is a clear indicator to me that the real answer is yes.

Listen, this is a man who once said that the war would last "I doubt six months." Now, three years later, when asked if the bad situation in Iraq is getting worse, he says "I don't know!"

Come on.

[motivez]

Let's look at some interesting statistics for previous recognized civil wars:

The Civil War in El Salvador cost 100,000 lives over 12 years, or ~23 per day.

The civil war in Algeria cost 200,000 lives since 1988, or ~37 killed per day.

First Sudanese Civil War cost 500,000 lives over 17 years, or ~80 per day

Angolan Civil War cost 600,000 lives over 19 years, or ~86 per day

By all accounts Iraq is much higher than the first two, and has been above the other two for quite some time.

Just because it's not being fought the same way (ie: militias going around murdering either sunni or shia, car bombs, etc .. vs .. organized armies lining up and trying to take territory) doesn't mean it's not a civil war.

[Donkey®]

Those of you still grasping for the hope that they are not in a civil war really need to check the radon or CO2 levels in your homes.