Is sectarain violence verus a civil war really just a battle of words between the President and the media?

Answer 1

It's irrelevant, the Bush regime has unleashed the dogs of war, and is wholly responsible for the death, pain and misery created.

Answer 2

The President will never admit that Iraq is a civil war. As far as the media, NBC announced on Monday that the war in Iraq now meets all definitions of a "civil war", and can now be called as such.

Here is the defintion of a cival war:
Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country


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 criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.[1]

Answer 3

The problem with identifying it as a civil war is that the larger portion of the opposition are foreign fighters from Syria and Iran

Answer 4

No because it has consequences. If it becomes a "civil war" congress has to reapprove troops being there and the American public are less likely to support Iraq if it precieves it as being an "Iraqi Problem" and not a US one.

Answer 5

Yes. I believe so. THe media never says what it means or means what it says. They just believe we will go along with what ever they say be cause they are the "all knowing " source of news.

Answer 6

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Semantics doesn't kill people, guns and explosives kill people. I saw Tony Snow explaining how it wasn't a civil war, it was really sad.

Answer 7

Yes!