NBC News: 'Cause WE say so

MoTaVa · 11-27-2006, 04:47 PM

This morning on the Today show, Matt Lauer announced that NBC news would now be referring to events in Iraq as a civil war.

NBC said on the "Today" show that the Iraqi government's inability to stop spiraling violence between rival factions fit its definition of civil war. - from NBC brands Iraq conflict 'civil war' - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

Well I guess if Matt says its civil war, its civil war. I sure hope the network, with their staff of highly trained intelligence agents and analysts, their 100,000+ soldiers, their advanced technological war and surveillance equipment, their fleet of aircraft and warships, I sure hope they tell us what else to think.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-27-2006, 04:52 PM

Well said, I heard this when I was getting ready for work and started to

uncontrollably.

"Our analyst have told us it is a civil war, so because we say its a civil war, it is therefore a civil war"

JaJae · 11-27-2006, 04:54 PM

I think whether Iraq is in a civil war is a matter of opinion. And some news outlets will decide where they want to rest on the issue. NBC has choosen its side. CNN shows snipers getting shot in the head because it wants to she the "unvarnished truth", NBC calls it a civil war because it fits "their definition", etc. Media outlets should be allowed to portray the news how they see fit, but people really need to lay off Fox when they put their spin on things.

All outlets have a bias, NBC is no different. If they want to call it a civil war, all the more to them. Personally in order for it to be a civil war I think you would have to first conclude that the majority of the fighters are from within the same country. Which I don't think they have done or can do. Therefore, it's a bit hazy to call it a civil war when an invasion could be more fitting.

Scrum · 11-27-2006, 05:03 PM

It has been a civil war for about a year now.

lew · 11-27-2006, 05:10 PM

Iraq is in civil war.

Our own country's "Civil War" though, was not a civil war.

A civil war is a war in which divisions of the same country try to take over that country. This is the condition in Iraq. And has been the condition for a while now.

However, that condition has never been so in America. The South wanted to leave the United States - not take them over.

The More You Know.

JaJae · 11-27-2006, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Iraq is in civil war.

Our own country's "Civil War" though, was not a civil war.

A civil war is a war in which divisions of the same country try to take over that country. This is the condition in Iraq. And has been the condition for a while now.

However, that condition has never been so in America. The South wanted to leave the United States - not take them over.

The More You Know.

That is simply not true. A civil war is a war between factions of the same country.. for any reason. Our civil war was a civil war. It's interesting to see simple definitions exchanged to fit a libertarian point of view. People at war with their government for freedom or to form their own nation is considered a civil war. Our civil war was the union against the confederacy. The fact that the south wanted to form their own nation doesn't change the fact that they were fighting their government. They didn't have a new country set up and thus were engaged in a civil war to have their own country.

lew · 11-27-2006, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

That is simply not true. A civil war is a war between factions of the same country.. for any reason. Our civil war was a civil war. It's interesting to see simple definitions exchanged to fit a libertarian point of view. People at war with their government for freedom or to form their own nation is considered a civil war. Our civil war was the union against the confederacy. The fact that the south wanted to form their own nation doesn't change the fact that they were fighting their government. They didn't have a new country set up and thus were engaged in a civil war to have their own country.

So, according to you, the American Revolution was a Civil War.

Gotcha.

Thorgrim · 11-27-2006, 05:40 PM

When I see retired US generals who STILL support the invasion of Iraq calling it a civil war (like those NBC uses as experts)

I believe the debate is over and it's a civil war

JaJae · 11-27-2006, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by lew

So, according to you, the American Revolution was a Civil War.

Gotcha.

Colonial wars typically haven't gone down in history as being "civil wars" because they aren't thought to necessarily be of the same country, but to the British, it was most definitely a civil war.

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criteria is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.[1]

Does this help you classify the American Civil War as a civil war?

lew · 11-27-2006, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Colonial wars typically haven't gone down in history as being "civil wars" because they aren't thought to necessarily be of the same country, but to the British, it was most definitely a civil war.

Does this help you classify the American Civil War as a civil war?

the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center

The South wanted to leave the political center. They weren't fighting for control over it. It wasn't a civil war.

JaJae · 11-27-2006, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by lew

the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center

The South wanted to leave the political center. They weren't fighting for control over it. It wasn't a civil war.

Keep reading after the comma to avoid further confusion.

Donkey® · 11-27-2006, 06:01 PM

So NBC is calling it correctly.

Thorgrim · 11-27-2006, 06:08 PM

Gen. McCaffrey:

Iraq is in a civil war

To call it something else is to mislabel the essence of what we are fighting

-Hardball 3 minutes ago
Barry McCaffrey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RMNIXON · 11-27-2006, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

When I see retired US generals who STILL support the invasion of Iraq calling it a civil war (like those NBC uses as experts)

I believe the debate is over and it's a civil war

But if the debate is over why make an announcement? Unless you want to make you decision a news story? Looks like it worked!

Diamond Cross · 11-27-2006, 07:16 PM

It isn't a civil war. It's the same violent conflict between the Sunnis and the Shia'a that's been going on since before Saddam was put into power. Calling it a civil war is an error.

Nonphixion · 11-27-2006, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

It isn't a civil war. It's the same violent conflict between the Sunnis and the Shia'a that's been going on since before Saddam was put into power. Calling it a civil war is an error.

What you speak of was a mild conflict, being kept in check by the strong-arm of Saddam. It is currently (Nov. 2006) a civil war.

When we so sloppily removed Saddam, the USA inflamed this mild conflict and started a civil war. The Shias pushed the Sunnis from their homes and neighborhoods, and now multiple thousands are dying every month just for being of a different religion. It is a civil war, and of course it has been such for many months previous.

Our administration simply dodges the label because it overshadows darkly on their ill-waged campaign of "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Just as they don't like to admit to the fact that we've created more terrorists than could have ever killed in the first place

Hearts and minds my friends, hearts and minds.

Diamond Cross · 11-27-2006, 07:46 PM

So how exactly did the USA inflamed the conflict? Did it choose sides and start encouraging one side to act against the other? This is like when anti-porn groups say porn stores causes crime simply because the crime rate increases around one. It's easy to scapegoat America, especially when it's the popular thing to do.

I don't agree the USA is responsible. Saddam did not keep the conflict in check but instead did favore the Sunnis over the Shi'a and protected the Sunnis over the Shia'a as well as imprisoned for torture or execution thousands of Shi'a. That's one among many of his human rights violations.

The Shi'a now don't have Saddam breathing down their neck and are able to fight back against the Sunnis.

Nonphixion · 11-27-2006, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So how exactly did the USA inflamed the conflict? Did it choose sides and start encouraging one side to act against the other? This is like when anti-porn groups say porn stores causes crime simply because the crime rate increases around one. It's easy to scapegoat America, especially when it's the popular thing to do.

I don't agree the USA is responsible. Saddam did not keep the conflict in check but instead did favore the Sunnis over the Shi'a and protected the Sunnis over the Shia'a as well as imprisoned for torture or execution thousands of Shi'a. That's one among many of his human rights violations.

The Shi'a now don't have Saddam breathing down their neck and are able to fight back against the Sunnis.

If we hadn't removed our ally Saddam, who we quickly turned on, when he set his eyes on Saudi oil fields. The region would still be relatively stable, and there would be no war between factions.

JaJae · 11-27-2006, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

If we hadn't removed our ally Saddam, who we quickly turned on, when he set his eyes on Saudi oil fields. The region would still be relatively stable, and there would be no war between factions.

Saddam hasn't been our ally for over two decades. And we didn't "turn" on him. We liberated a country he invaded. Are you suggesting we should have kept Saddam an ally and therefore this is our fault for not continuing a chummy relationship with Saddam and turning a blind eye to his evil-doings?

Diamond Cross · 11-27-2006, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

If we hadn't removed our ally Saddam, who we quickly turned on, when he set his eyes on Saudi oil fields. The region would still be relatively stable, and there would be no war between factions.

No. Saddam would eventually cause the region to destabilise. For example, he went into Iran to gas 50,000 Kurds. How is that keeping things stable.The largest conflicts in the middle eeast involved the wars between Iraq and Iran.