Can Neo-cons tell the difference between terrorism and a civil war?

Question

I know us REAL conservatives can, but the neo-cons seem to have a comprehension problem. 90% of the violence in Iraq has NOTHING to do Al-qeada or any other terrorist group. It is the civil war between the Sunni sect and the Shia Sect of Islam. Yes, the act of violence they perpetrate against each other is sickening. Kind of like when America had our civil war. Both sides targeted civilian homes, railroads, and Sherman even burned the largest city in the south to the ground. Bush created a civil war, and our troops are dying on the sidelines because America will not choose sides. So please, can you at least try to differentiate between the 2? For America's sake?

Answer 1

An accurate analysis of the situation. Well said.

Answer 2

In a civil war, there are two opposing political entities. To use your analogy, in the American Civil War, we had Lincoln and Davis and the northern and southern congress. Two seperate and distinct govenments both vying for POLITICAL power. What's going on in Palestine right now IS a civil war because each is vying for political control of the government and in so doing, gain control of the nation's money and resources. In Iraq, the government is made up of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds (read: Union and Confederate factions). It's the people, the 'familial' factions that are fighting. As such, this is not a civil war, it's a fued. But there IS an insurgent element to it. It's in Iran and Syria's best interest to stoke the fires of this fued, to weaken Iraq. They're in there blowing up a Sunni mosque and blaming it on the Shiites. Then, they'll go blow up a car in a Shiite market and blame it on the Sunnis. It's a bit of both.

So it's not fair to the Iraqi government who is trying, with limited success, to get their arms around things when there ARE insurgents in their country instigating and precipitating the violence. Because we created this vacuum, it's our responsibility to help them become strong and self sustaining. So far the cost of our support has been very low. While we all mourn the loss of even one Marine or soldier, our losses over the last 4 years of this conflict have been extraordinarily low. And the benefit of success would be extraordinary. So it's in our best interest and the Iraqi's if we can hang in there and establish a stable government. The question is, how. It's going to take some brutal work to stamp down the fued and eliminate the insurgency that's pouring fuel on the fire.

Answer 3

I'm just a plain conservative, so I can't speak for the Neo-conservative movement.

I would say that Terrorism is blowing up buildings in NYC, suicide bombers, car bombers, blowing up Mosques.

Civil wars are like what's happening now in the Gaza Strip. Where Palestinians are killing each other. However even in this example which is closer to true civil war than anything going on in Iraq at this time, has outside influences. There is a difference between a civil war, a regional war, an a proxy war. I know this confuses the Sec pros out there but it's true.

Answer 4

The Bush administration has done a good job of turning the word insurgent into terrorist or Al-qeada in Iraq and have done a good job of giving us a new boogie man to find in Iraq. I am a radical middle progressive Liberal and I see a big difference between these Reagan conservatives today and the good-old-boy Eisenhower conservatives that just shake their heads at what is going on today.

Answer 5

Great point! Barbara Boxer asked Bush what would happen to our troops if Iraq turned into a civil war about a year ago.

The administration's answer: It's not a civil war and won't be.

WRONG! Now our troops are caught in a no-win situation, with their uniforms as targets just as good as a shooting range bulls-eye.

Thanks you stupid neo-cons, for allowing this horrible situation to deteriorate as far as it has.

Answer 6

I doubt they will. I am fairly sure, they can. This so called, blood bath in Iraq, in my opinion has never been about 'terrorism.' It's merely an excuse to take American Soldiers into a war without end. It is becoming more and more obvious, our pResident is simply distracting Americans, by dividing us against much of his agenda(s) - the would be king of North America!

Answer 7

Thank you for the only intelligent question I've seen from a conservative this week. It gives me a feeling that there might be hope for the country after all.

Then again, the answers demonstrate the other side. Anything intelligent and logical, even coming from a conservative, is immediately dismissed as liberal nonsense. How sad.

Answer 8

Yes.

In a civil war, factions within a single nation organize, form military units and fight eachother for dominance.

In terrorism, adherents to a given cause murder adherents of another cause (or just random innocents) to evoke fear as a means of gaining dominance.

Answer 9

Well go talk to the neo-cons.

And you can't be a conservative and equate Sherman's march to the sea to what's happening in Iraq. *LOL* Only liberals think that convoluted!

Answer 10

Your a conservative? lol please.


Im not a neocon either, and a REAL conservative doesn't call the war in iraq a civil war. So this is liberal nonsense.