given that 20 or so bodies turn up every day, and have evidence of torture to them.
2006-12-05 00:12:48 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
the question is about force. The justification for the overthrough of a power (even ruled by a despot) was flimsey , to say the least.
The best the U.S. can hope for is a fazzeed withdrawel. I just hope for girls back home (not my home, by the way) that they will welcome their men back unharmed.
2006-12-05 00:35:42 · update #1
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
2006-12-05 00:47:41 · answer #1 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is certainly not a civil war as Americans would see it.
When we had a civil war, our country was divided into two nations. The Union controlled by the President of the United States, and the Confederacy controlled by the President of the Confedeeracy. That was a national split. For a few years we were two countries with two currencies.
This is not happening in Iraq. Some think that the solution is to split the country into three parts based on the religious beliefs of those people.
However, I cannot consider it a civil war when the factors that are battling the new government of Iraq are actually imported from other nations. The unrest is not civil, but religious.
The rest of the Arab world does not want an Iraq that is friendly with the United States because the United States is friendly to Israel.
This whole situation is really a sibling rivalry between the two sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was the first born and Isaac received the inheritance from Abraham.
Islam and Judaism have been at each other throats ever since the beginning of Islam.
IMHO, we should do the best we can to have a country in the middle east that is friendly to the U.S.
Not for oil, but for stability.
If Syria and Iraq and Iran become as one nation, we are in serious trouble.
2006-12-05 11:17:16 · answer #2 · answered by Theophilus 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
UN Secretary General says that it is worse than a civil war. To answer your question, by all means YES. I hope they will get out of it and start sorting their differences in a more civilized way, but I am afraid it is just another cry in the wilderness.
2006-12-05 08:17:08 · answer #3 · answered by seek_fulfill 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not 'a' civil war. The term refers to extremist Shia and Sunni groups who are intent in retaliation upon each other. MOST iraqis want peace. Plus there are many warring factions that are targeting each other. But the security has completely broken down in the country and the US haven't integrated themselves into a helpful position. The country is in complete anarchy, all thanks to the United States!
2006-12-05 08:34:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rumor has it Bush is trying to write off those tortured bodies as suicides. But I think there's indeed civil war. The warning signs were seen months ago.
2006-12-05 08:35:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Things in Iraq is asymmetrical - it's not easy to define "the enemy" or "the situation" - everything about militant groups, insurgents are vague including fighting tactics (mostly guerilla-type things). But they are all mostly civilians so when sectarian violence escalates you can term it as "civil war" because the bombings and killings are among themselves often not involving regular army personnel (local or foreign). The sooner US/UK troops leaves the better. But Pentagon is contemplating to pour in another 20,000 to quell the violence - BIG MISTAKE!
2006-12-05 08:24:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It matters in terms of military tactics and strategy whether the US troops are fighting a counterinsurgency or trying to separate combatants in a civil war. It also matters to the southern contingent of the Republican party who knows what civil war is and can do to a society.
2006-12-05 08:18:53 · answer #7 · answered by Snowshoe 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well if we went by your definition 19,000 homicides every year in America that's 52 bodies a day I would say we are in one hell of a civil war here.
2006-12-05 12:58:29 · answer #8 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not a dumb question, I don't think you can call it a civil war when there is outside influences instigating the fighting.
2006-12-05 10:00:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is not a dumb question. Now you have me wondering what kind of war this would be classified as. Sorry I have no answer for you today.
2006-12-05 08:26:06 · answer #10 · answered by Peanut 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you think it is a "completely,totally,dumb question" then you must know what the answer is, so why are you asking. And even if you did not know the answer, why are you asking it if you think it is such a stupid question? Why waist our time with something you think is a "completely,totally,dumb question"?
2006-12-05 08:21:46 · answer #11 · answered by d4rkr4v3n77 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋