Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB88 on November 29, 2006, 12:05:47 AM
-
yes or no?
-
I don't think so. At least not from what my friends who keep doing time in the sandbox tell me.
But NBC says it's so. Maybe we should ask Walter Cronkite.
-
Yes.
And no.
-
It's been in a state of civil war.
A year ago I read that the number of people displaced (aka. refugees) by sectarian violence (civil warfare) was 300,000. I may be wrong but I think the sectarian violence in iraq has gotten a lot worse since then. Over 3,000 iraqis were killed in october this year. I would call that warfare, and the participants are from the same country, so yes, civil war.
-
Unfortunately by defination, i'm going to have to say yes...But does civil war mean Iraq is a lost cause? No, I don't think so, but time is fleeing quickly and we need to step it up, or this will be Viet Nam II
-
I'm hearing from several sources that the "sectarian violence" isn't necessarily really sectarian, and futher, a lot of it is driven by foreign mercenaries. If foreign forces are indeed helping to instigate or initiate the violence, then it is not necessarily sectarian nor is it necessarily a civil war.
-
Its a NO
I have many friends and family that are over there. They all say the news hear makes it sounds 10000xs worse then it actually is.
Hope this can stay very civil. Many topics like this have been closed because ppl cant stay mature about it!
-
# a civil war was a war fought between people of the same countries.
http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/7695/glossary.html
YES
# A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm
NO.... but real close..... my opinion, this definition is not keeping with the times and reality of low-tech urban combat. Many African "Civil Wars" of the past don't meet this criteria.
# Noun (Plural: Civil Wars) An internal war between to factions within a country, ie The English Civil War and the Wars of the Roses
semper.freelinuxhost.com/Articles/Information/dictionary.htm
YES
# a conflict between two groups of people who are citizens of the same state
http://www.naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm
YES
# a war between factions in the same country
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
YES
# A civil war is a war in which the competing parties are segments of the same country or empire. Civil war is usually a high intensity stage in an unresolved political struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war
YES
There is a very severe problem with the basic premise of this question though... We in the western countries see them all as Iraqis. We see their nation as Iraq. Nationalism is a very low priority with those people.
The borders of Iraq were put in place by the British Empire.
They identify themsleves with their religion and ethnic background; Sunni-Arab, *****e-Arab, Sunni-Kurd, *****e-Kurd, Turkomen, *****e-Persian. Their loyalties lie with their clan, their religious leader, their family.... not with Iraq.
[edit.... a major sect of a Islamic religion is filtered out in these forums? All of Islam should decend upon the offices of HiTech in holy jihad ]
Its a part of the world.... the oldest of old world.... used to Alexander the Greats, Ottoman Empire, Byzantine Empire, The Pax Mongolia (or the peace of the grave I like to consider it...).... they are used to be ruled by Kings. To think democracy would flourish there in the western ideal was simplistic and naive and arrogant.
As to cav58d that it is not a lost cause. I think I am beginning to disagree. We've made too many mistakes for too long. I think we've passed a point where the situation can be recovered. It now comes down to how bad bad can get and for how long. It's damage control now, not a complete or adequate fix of the situation.
30 years from now, this will be a study in how to screw up by the numbers for the American State Department, Administration, Congress, and the Military Leadership. We have great soldiers, but we are really hurting for competent leadership, and as a nation...... we are not at war. The American military is at war.... not the civilian population at large. No draft. No million man armies. No sizable war expenditures as compared to WWII, Korea, Vietnam.....
-
if you can judge by what teh newpapers tell u, it seems fairly uncivil "over there"
-
Originally posted by EagleEyes
Its a NO
I have many friends and family that are over there. They all say the news hear makes it sounds 10000xs worse then it actually is.
Hope this can stay very civil. Many topics like this have been closed because ppl cant stay mature about it!
I also have a handful of friends (grunts) who are spread out across the major citys of Iraq...Sure they say Western News is really blowing up what is going on, but that isn't to say that conditions are not absolutely terrible over there...especially for our GI's.
I supported this war since it was sold from Bush. Can't say i'm still sold on why we are there, and what kind of progress we are making, but I will continue to hope for a military and political victory when all is said and done...If its not a civil war over there then what is it? QUit frankly I don't care if you call it a civil war or a freaking candy party, fact is we are losing GI's every day. Its time to get our act together, cut the PC and "sensitivity" BS right away and start fighting a war like a war is supposed to be fought. War is the worst thing on earth. Men killing men for political purposes. Nothing more, nothing less...Lets quit the drama, flex our muscles and win this thing.
-
okay...so why the resistance to the term? what does it change?
:confused:
-
I don't get all this secretarian violence. Don't they pay em enuff over there to do office work?
-
I am thinking that the whole muslim world is in a state of civil war.... like the irish protestant and catholic thing but on a grand scale.
sensless... one sect of their barbaric and backward religion claiming the other is not backward and barbaric enough.
They simply want to kill each other... they enjoy it. when they get tired of killing each other or can spare the resources they will start killing non muslims again.
lazs
-
uncivilized war is more like it..
you have to be < one step above an animal to condon bombing market places & churches
I think it is more political than anything with each side using their thugs in an attempt to gain power and control - and we are stuck in the middle of it
-
Originally posted by JB88
okay...so why the resistance to the term? what does it change?
:confused:
Why is there such rabid insistance on using it?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
uncivilized war is more like it..
you have to be < one step above an animal to condon bombing market places & churches
I think it is more political than anything with each side using their thugs in an attempt to gain power and control - and we are stuck in the middle of it
Animals don't bomb market places or churches.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Animals don't bomb market places or churches.
true
I owe animals an apology
-
Haven't u watch O'Reilley yesterday? He demonstrated a "NO".
-
Not really.
A civil war basically implies just two sides, both the same nationality.
What you have in Iraq is a state that has been invaded and occupied by foreign powers and then so badly (or perhaps deliberately) mismanaged by those foreign powers that it is descending into warlordism. It's colonialism gone wrong, not a civil war.
-
I dont know. My only educated reference for civil war is the one between the states and I cannot lay whats going on in Iraq within that reference.
I would say Iraq is more in a state of near anarchy but thats just a long distance observation I wish they (iraqis) would start loving each other more and killing each other less. I think their religion is the biggest problem.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am thinking that the whole muslim world is in a state of civil war.... like the irish protestant and catholic thing but on a grand scale.
sensless... one sect of their barbaric and backward religion claiming the other is not backward and barbaric enough.
They simply want to kill each other... they enjoy it. when they get tired of killing each other or can spare the resources they will start killing non muslims again.
lazs
that really is about the size of it.
All these sects war with each other claiming theirs is the right verson.
The only time they unite is against a common enemy. Primarily Isreal and the US because we support Isreal
Well... our government does anyway
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
that really is about the size of it.
All these sects war with each other claiming theirs is the right verson.
The only time they unite is against a common enemy. Primarily Isreal and the US because we support Isreal
Well... our government does anyway
And we would not be there, and it would nto an issue in the western countries, if it were not for (relatively) cheap oil we depend on from the region. We would treat the Middle East like we treat Africa today. Mostly, we would ignore it.
We have the technological means and resources to become energy independent of arabian oil, if we chose to. I'ts not the expense.... American's will spend $100 Billion on the Iraqi War as things stand now when the bills come due. That could just as easily be put into a Manhattan or Apollo sized project to become energy independent as a nation.
Corn Oil, Synthetics, Oil Shale, next generation fission, serious energy conservation efforts, renewables. Brazil does it now with ehtanol. Most of their oil development is for export. Between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, we can't come up with the resources, farmland, labor, and refineries to become energy independent on the North American Continent?
But that would be inconvienent..... and too many people in power have entrenched interests in the status quo.
We instead spend it on SUV's. We spend money on military hardware to be used, abused, and eventually thrown away in a war with no end in sight. And we continue paying the ferryman with the lives of the nation's young who are willing to fight for their country. Jury is still out on how, as a nation, we'll support the returning vets in the long run from this latest war.
So, my fellow Americans, what are you willing to pay to keep the lifestyle you've become accustomed to? What are you willing to sacrifice?
-
See Rules #5, #7, #4
-
Naaaaaaw ... it's not a lost cause yet. Just send in the Governator! ;)
(http://www.lordpanzer.com/images/colliefohnya.jpg)
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
And we would not be there, and it would nto an issue in the western countries, if it were not for (relatively) cheap oil we depend on from the region. We would treat the Middle East like we treat Africa today. Mostly, we would ignore it.
We have the technological means and resources to become energy independent of arabian oil, if we chose to. I'ts not the expense.... American's will spend $100 Billion on the Iraqi War as things stand now when the bills come due. That could just as easily be put into a Manhattan or Apollo sized project to become energy independent as a nation.
Corn Oil, Synthetics, Oil Shale, next generation fission, serious energy conservation efforts, renewables. Brazil does it now with ehtanol. Most of their oil development is for export. Between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, we can't come up with the resources, farmland, labor, and refineries to become energy independent on the North American Continent?
But that would be inconvienent..... and too many people in power have entrenched interests in the status quo.
We instead spend it on SUV's. We spend money on military hardware to be used, abused, and eventually thrown away in a war with no end in sight. And we continue paying the ferryman with the lives of the nation's young who are willing to fight for their country. Jury is still out on how, as a nation, we'll support the returning vets in the long run from this latest war.
So, my fellow Americans, what are you willing to pay to keep the lifestyle you've become accustomed to? What are you willing to sacrifice?
some of us have been saying the same thing for years. well stated and clear. glad to hear it said in such a clear language.
we stand at a precipice now don't we?
-
Civil war, define civil war. When theres a north and a south in conflict? Not sure in this case seems like everyone is killing each other over turf. What worries me is there isnt much time left till the next president comes into office. Its almost certain he/she will withdraw troops. Anybody care to debate the topic?
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Civil war, define civil war. When theres a north and a south in conflict? Not sure in this case seems like everyone is killing each other over turf. What worries me is there isnt much time left till the next president comes into office. Its almost certain he/she will withdraw troops. Anybody care to debate the topic?
well, we can try to be that clean cut in our thinking but i really don't think that we can look to any historical president to back that up. vietnam went on after the elections...it will be the same now.
we need leadership more than anything. if we get it, we may get a clearer picture of our involvement. if we don't? i would hate to see that possibility. it leads to very dark thoughts.