question about 'civil war' in Iraq

ballz2wallz · 08-03-2006, 09:26 AM

just saw this article:

Iraq civil war warning for Blair

and i have to ask, the shia, sunni, and kurdish have been fighting each other for decades. sectarian violence is nothing new here. what IS new however is that there are representatives from each sect together in a government trying to work things out. that in and of itself is a great success. because all this fighting has been around for so long, how can anyone really say that we are suddenly in or on the brink of civil war in Iraq?

Concept · 08-03-2006, 09:41 AM

They've always hated each other, but there was nothing to fight for.

Without the all-powerful dictator, Iraq is up for grabs.

ballz2wallz · 08-03-2006, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Concept

They've always hated each other, but there was nothing to fight for.

Without the all-powerful dictator, Iraq is up for grabs.

they've always killed each other too. you don't have to have anything to fight for if you just plain hate each other.

Thorgrim · 08-03-2006, 09:50 AM

Name another conflict with a revenue like Iraq that had 3,000 violent deaths a month caused by opposing sides and wasn't considered a civil war?

This conflict bears resemblance to points in the Lebanese civil war, which no one doubted was a civil war

Concept · 08-03-2006, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

they've always killed each other too. you don't have to have anything to fight for if you just plain hate each other.

You're right, but the term 'Civil War' is a war between people of the same society, party, or from the same nation fighting for control over a certain area or government.

Before they were just killing each other. Now it's technically a 'Civil War' because of what they're fighting for.

ballz2wallz · 08-03-2006, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Name another conflict with a revenue like Iraq that had 3,000 violent deaths a month caused by opposing sides and wasn't considered a civil war?

This conflict bears resemblance to points in the Lebanese civil war, which no one doubted was a civil war

when a conflict is just limited to one province out of 18, how is that considered a civil war?

Thorgrim · 08-03-2006, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

when a conflict is just limited to one province out of 18, how is that considered a civil war?

Because provinces are made up by politicians, populations are made up by people

And its not one province anyway

If you count the residents of Anbar, Baghdad, Mosul, Kirkuk, Basra, and the Sunni Triangle, you get a majority of the country

avsp · 08-03-2006, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

just saw this article:

Iraq civil war warning for Blair

and i have to ask, the shia, sunni, and kurdish have been fighting each other for decades.

have they?, openly? on such a scale? so continually?

Are they really 'fighting' each other now?

sectarian violence is nothing new here.

really, ..., on this scale, frequency & duration?

what IS new however is that there are representatives from each sect together in a government trying to work things out. that in and of itself is a great success.

I suppose so, ..., but given that neither the coalition forces nor the recent Iraqi govt 'security plan' have been successfull then such a 'great success' is vastly over-shadowed by the 'successes' of the insurgents to make Baghdad ungovernable

because all this fighting has been around for so long, how can anyone really say that we are suddenly in or on the brink of civil war in Iraq?

congrats on you fine display of stunt flying

Eurasia is at war with Oceania, There has always been 1000's of people killed every month in random sectarian violence in Baghdad

Cliffs: I'm shocked, shocked I sa,y, to see the use of destabiliastion as a policy tool failing here in Ricks cafe

Concept · 08-03-2006, 11:00 AM

Oceania is suddenly at war with Eastasia.

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

avsp · 08-03-2006, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

they've always killed each other too. you don't have to have anything to fight for if you just plain hate each other.

If this is the case & it was known to all & sundry then it was a bloody stupid thing to destabilise Iraq & occupy it with too few troops to ensure basic law & order, then wasnt it?

Not least coz it showed the limits of Coaltion military power & allowed Jihadists a chance for a new 'failed state' to operate from, ..., let alone the possiblity that they'd gain the state & its oil revenues to fund their cause

avsp · 08-03-2006, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

when a conflict is just limited to one province out of 18, how is that considered a civil war?

Firstly is it really limited to one province?
Secondly the northern provinces seem to have already be on the verge of seccession
Thirdly, civil wars are often limited to mainly one province in the case of secessionist civil wars
Fourthly, half the Iraqi population live in the 'one province' that I assume you are refering to.
Fifthly, debating the definition of a civil war will get your bias display team no points at all from this jury member

We can but hope that the latest proposal on pulling coaltion troops into Baghdad & upping their overall number actually work, ..., not least coz of the poor bastard who are trying to live there.

I'm quite angry about all this, & your posts, ..., i'm off to calm down

p.s. the leaked memo has yet to be properly verified but then it probably cant be, although it isnt being denied. Also it does say that the situation isnt not yet 'hopeless', ..., however there is a definate air of 'last chance' about in the comments of loads of people, ..., as for the Alaskan based troops, ..., how f*cked off do you suppose the are?, ..., let alone all the other coalition soldiers. Loads more in a bit

ballz2wallz · 08-03-2006, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Concept

Oceania is suddenly at war with Eastasia.

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

ballz2wallz · 08-03-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by avsp

If this is the case & it was known to all & sundry then it was a bloody stupid thing to destabilise Iraq & occupy it with too few troops to ensure basic law & order, then wasnt it?

that's how some argue that it was best to have saddam in power

motivez · 08-03-2006, 07:54 PM

Like I said in the other thread, this is a civil war and has been for months. The numbers are there, the reasons are there.

It's not being called one out of political considerations and that's it. I'm glad they're trying to work stuff out, but perhaps this conflict runs so deep and so long that it's not reasonable to expect it to be solved in a reasonable amount of itme.

If that's the case, we shouldn't put our troops in the middle of it.