Lets look at it there are enough parties involve all of the same nationality It fits the deffinition.
2006-12-05 10:01:44 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Iraq retards
2006-12-05 10:27:09 · update #1
That would admit defeat and a poor choice in policy direction
2006-12-05 10:03:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 15⤊ 0⤋
It's a matter of degree and definition. It doesn't exactly fit the classic pattern of a group of people with shared beliefs and goals fighting against an established government. But there are still southerners in the U.S. who believe the War Between the States wasn't a civil war. I suppose it comes down to a matter of how precise one wishes to be with his terminology.
2006-12-05 18:16:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
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.
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm
2006-12-05 18:09:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Today in a confirmation hearing his nominee for df.sec. Gates admitted that The USA hasn't won the war in Irak and that there is right now a civil war going on.
they called him (Gates) the anti-Rumsfeld. Bush went up one notch in my esteem (still very low) only idiots don't change their mind. Or is it call election 's Pressure.?
2006-12-05 18:11:51 · answer #4 · answered by maxon475 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As soon as everyone starts bandying about the words 'civil war' more and more people at home are going to be saying why are our troops dying in a civil war? They are going to fight this out anyways, so lets stay out of it.
2006-12-05 18:06:38 · answer #5 · answered by mary57whalen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why does bush still refuse to accept civil war?
Let me see if I can do a mind meld with him. Hold on a sec. Ah, I'm beginning to read his mind.
Wait. There's some interference. What the........?!
It's YOU! It was you the whole time! Ktray1275, stop feeding ideas into our prez's head. Shame on you!
The all-knowing tabby has spoken.
2006-12-05 18:18:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They are not fighting over the government or for sovereignty.It is not a country wide war it is factions and militias.It is closer to the Gangland wars of old Chicago.
2006-12-05 18:08:41 · answer #7 · answered by Tommy G. 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you will look up the definition of civil war you will know why, you will still not accept it, but you will know why it is not a civil war!!
2006-12-05 18:13:34 · answer #8 · answered by Smoky! 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
GEE...LET ME REMEMBER.....WHEN SADDAM GASSED THOUSANDS OF KURDISH MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN THE DEMS DIDNT CALL IT A CIVIL WAR.....AND THEY HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOREVER. OR WHEN SADDAM KILLED THOUSANDS IN THE SOUTH OF IRAQ THE DEMS DIDNT CALL THAT A CIVIL WAR. 3/4'S OF IRAQ IS STABLE AND ALL YOU REALLY HAVE ARE TWO BIG GANGS DOING WHAT GANGS DO....KILL AND MAIM THE INNOCENT. NOT MUCH OF A CIVIL WAR...JUST A BUNCH OF THUGS WHO WANT THEIR WAY AND DONT EVEN FOR AN INSTANT THINK KILLING UR MOMMY AND DADDY OR SISTER OR BROTHER
IS A BIG DEAL. THEY HAVE A STRANGE WAY OF GETTING TO HEAVEN. THATS WHAT MAKES THEM SO DANGEROUS TO EVERYONE.
2006-12-05 18:44:21 · answer #9 · answered by Rich S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because he gets his info first hand, and not from the New York Times!!!
2006-12-05 18:55:21 · answer #10 · answered by Pete 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋