It seems to me that It's like trying to decide whether a tornado or straight-line wind caused storm damage. What does it matter once the damage is done?
2006-11-26 23:07:01 · 12 answers · asked by In Honor of Moja 4 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
The Bush folks love to spin this filthy war. Civil war sounds about right. Iditoic neocon junk also seems to fit. How many American families have been destroyed by this fool?
2006-11-27 00:13:40 · answer #1 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There may be elements of civil war, i.e. waring within Iraq, but no, I don't agree with calling it a "civil war. The US sparked the major conflict and has proudly taken credit for being the major force in this war, so anyone paying even a little attention knows this is not just an internal problem.
It's continued spin doctoring by the propaganda machine. Too many Americans are not just going about the rat race and ignoring what is going on anymore, which is what the presidency counts on to continue its unpopular agenda. Reclassifying an international war is a weak attempt at damage control.
2006-11-27 01:41:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course. Regardless of the outcome, a tornado is a tornado and a straight wind is a straight wind. The dictionary definition of civil war is "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Why it matters is that it is a matter of accuracy, as opposed to the sanitizing of an event for political purposes.
Manipulation of the language does not change the facts of the situation. Anyone who kills others with an explosive device is a "homicide bomber." If they willingly become a victim of their bombing, they are a "suicide bomber." It would be ridiculous to claim that Timothy McVey was a "suicide bomber" simply because the victims were killed and injured by a bomb.
Purposeful ignorance is purposeful ignorance no matter how you slice it and has no business in a news broadcast.
2006-11-27 01:51:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i will disagree on the most that a overseas military precludes using the time period "civil warfare". traditionally, the Russian civil warfare that followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 had forces from numerous ecu countries or perhaps america contained in the country. different inner conflicts in which the U.S. or another skill intervenes are in many situations nonetheless stated as civil wars. contained in terms of the U.S. Civil warfare, the Confederacy became attempting to have the united kingdom and the Empire of France intrude on their behalf, yet in spite of the indisputable fact that, the conflict may not were stated as a civil warfare at that element. in words of the placement in Iraq, this is presently not a civil warfare yet an insurgency. a real civil warfare ought to have one major crew scuffling with yet another for administration of the authorities, at the same time as the present insurgency looks purpose on in simple terms overthrowing the authorities. I do concern that sectarian allegience ought to weigh down the attempt to kind a superb multiparty authorities if U.S. forces withdraw too instantly. perhaps the proper that we can desire for is for most Iraqis to help a superb authorities with the passage of time.
2016-11-27 01:11:36 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was all for the removal of Saddam and trying to develop some stability in Iraq. But now it's time for the elected officials and the religious leaders to really setp up to the plate and do something. If they don't, I see no sense in having our troops over there. We are getting the blame for things we have no hand in doing. The way things are now without Iraqis saying enough is enough and THEY do something substantial to stop the violence the US is in a no win situation and should leave.
2006-11-27 00:07:17 · answer #5 · answered by namsaev 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First, Bush decides to drop his "We will stay the course" line. Now the news is trying to rename this war. When people start trying to creatively dance around something with new language, it really means. "What the hell?" In other words, more and more Americans are questioning this war as it's costing too many lives, too much money and there appears to be no end in sight so the powers that be are trying to make it look like something other than what it is.
2006-11-26 23:49:58 · answer #6 · answered by Debra D 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Beginning? The MSM has been calling Iraq a civil war for over a year.
2006-11-27 00:26:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It has to do with American policy, which for a long time has denied the violence has escalated to civil war status.
2006-11-26 23:14:33 · answer #8 · answered by Reo 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
About time.
2006-11-27 00:47:38 · answer #9 · answered by firewomen 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes
2006-11-27 00:11:33 · answer #10 · answered by BRAINY SKEETA ® 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋