Has anybody in the media yet uttered the phrase "Civil war"...

[Goldmund]

...when talking about the latest events in Iraq?

Because it's silly obvious that a civil war is what's going on there.

[Erika]

1. I'm thinking aout the Civil War which is going to happen here

The Iraqi people are in my thoughts, however.

[Goldmund]

2. What's going on here is very much connected to what goes on there.

[Radical Activist]

3. I don't think that's what it is.

The Iraqi's aren't fighting eachother. They are still fighting a foreign power occupying their country along with the minority of Iraqis who are cooperating with the occupier.

[Goldmund]

4. No, they are killing fairly indiscriminatorily.

I'm not talking about assassinations. I'm talking about street bombs. When you blow up a crowd of men trying to sign up for the police in the middle of the street, then you kill anybody within the kill radius of the shrapnel. Also, since Iraqi economy borders on non-existence, "cooperating with the occupier" is the only way to survive for many, many people.

Unlike attacks on the occupying army, these attacks are by definition terrorism.

[Radical Activist]

7. If someone is blowing up a line of men

trying to sign up for the police, then obviously the attacker was targeting people who are cooperating with the US backed government. To the insurgency, Iraqis who cooperate with the US are part of the enemy. Your example confirms my argument.

They may be acts of terrorism, but all wars involve attacks on innocent civilians, including US bombing, so that doesn't have any bearing on whether we define it as a civil war.

[Goldmund]

8. THey are targeting a line of people...

...who have no other way to feed their families but to expose themselves to crazy danger. And those people have families and they have friends. It's complete, utter naivette to think that sowing that kind of misery in the population does not result in anger and tension againt whatever groups attackers come from. And a lot of Shiites think this group is the Sunnis.

[Radical Activist]

9. That still doesn't make it a Civil War.

You wrote: "It's complete, utter naivette to think that sowing that kind of misery in the population does not result in anger and tension againt whatever groups attackers come from."

Good point. This is exactly what I've been saying about the US occupation all along. Its idiotic to think there will be peace or stability as long as US troops are occupying the nation and sowing death, torture and misery. You don't win hearts and minds by bombing and killing people. That is why a quick withdrawal is the most sensible option.

[Goldmund]

10. I am FOR withdrawing TOMORROW.

I also have eyes, and I see a civil war.

If this isn't a civil war, what is?

[Radical Activist]

14. A civil war involves

two internal factions within a nation fighting eachother. This is a nation fighting against a foreign power. The presence of the US makes it not be a civil war.

[Goldmund]

15. Absolutely untrue.

Of course there's an element of fighting against a foreign power. But that doesn't mean it's all it is.

It wouldn't be the first civil war in history waged in the presence of a foreign power. Actually, I'll go on a limb and say that most are. WW2, for example, had sparked many civil wars in countries fighting against occupation.

[DivinBreuvage]

21. One domestic example to prove your case: America during the Revolution!

especially in the southern colonies, where there was extreme bad blood between the poor back-country people and the rich tidelanders. The British ended up getting sucked into this blood feud, to their loss and sorrow.

[Goldmund]

22. There you go.

Or, for that matter, Vietnam.

[fujiyama]

16. It doesn't necessarily involve two

Remember Lebanon in the '80s. It was made of several factions. Basically there was a complete breakdown of the rule of law and absolute chaos reigned - in fact, it sounds much like Iraq. Then the Israelis invaded.

In the case of Iraq though, it's the opposite. The US invaded and then the society turned to shit.

It may or may not be a civil war, but it certainly is in a case of civil unrest...and the insurgents are indiscriminately killing anyone - whether they be affiliated with the US or not.

The ultimate fault may lie with the US for entering in the first place, but it doesn't excuse the acts of terrorism that have taken place. Random acts of murder and the killing of civilians (whether by the US or the insurgents) isn't freedom fighting. It's murder.

[Radical Activist]

23. Your last sentence

describes all wars, and yes I agree that it is murder.

[anarchy1999]

18. I see Negroponte. I see Salvador, I see Latin America shades of late70's-

and 80's. Anyone else see any similarities?

It has already been written of. The Salvadoran Option.

Damn it all.

[moddemny]

19. The problem with that line of reasoning

......(if you can call it reasoning) is that many people sign up to become police to improve the security situation so that Iraqis can take over and have Americans leave. They view it as a duty to their country and patriotic.

[applegrove]

5. Seymour Hersh just used the words today. I hope..for those poor

people..they get their army big enough to get Americans out and then peace will have to be negotiated. Or something.

[funflower]

6. And that war is likely to spread

beyond the borders of Iraq once the U.S. leaves.

[anarchy1999]

11. Just a stickler for spelling. Put a y where your i is in "anibody".

Your post would be received so much better. You'll appear to be so much smarter, it does help not to be lacking.

[Goldmund]

12. It was a typo, thanks.

[anarchy1999]

17. Ever so welcome and I figured it had to be.

Nice post by the way, I think I mentioned.

[leftofthedial]

13. of course not. that would be "news" and "truth"

neither of which is allowed to be broadcast in Murka.

[anarchy1999]

20. go google Negroponte and the Iran/Contra affair, Iraq is part II or III,

maybe part IV. Who Knows?

It is a part in a play being directed from "on high", not God, just the bankers. When the bankers are through, God might step in. Once again, who knows, only our very own fundamentalist, "god fearing", "born again" "LEADERS".

Stand back and get out of the way.............