THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

You can denigrate the elected leaders of Iraq all you wish, just as you may wallow in the mound of horse manure that you shovel all you wish, but it doesn't change the facts.

"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more - if this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

The point you both seemed to have missed is that it is a third party using the guerilla tactics to incite both sides against each other.

You confuse the American puppets with leaders. Neither the Sunnis nor the Shi'ites are "lead" by anyone who plays government for the United States. I think it hilarious that you attempt to suggest that using guerilla tactics is not consonant with civil war--but i'm not surprised at the desparation with which the rightwingnut crowd wish to deny the obvious.

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not). In simple terms, a Civil War is a war in which a country fights another part of itself.

I'm prepared for you to provide me a lot of historical context, but it seems to me a civil war requires one side to have captured and be in control of a portion of their country, like in our own Civil War.

Guerrilla tactics, an unorganized insurgency, and sectarian violence does not a "civil war" make.

Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not). (emphasis added)

In simple terms, a Civil War is a war in which a country fights another part of itself.

ican, You can't see it, but the world has changed since 9-11. Ever try getting on a plane lately? You contradict yourself. Aren't you a pilot?

Ticomaya wrote:

I'm prepared for you to provide me a lot of historical context, but it seems to me a civil war requires one side to have captured and be in control of a portion of their country, like in our own Civil War.

I kindly suggest that read the FULL text of the Wiki article you quoted.

For example, the hate Bush psychosis has spread and become increasingly more intense.

Ticomaya wrote:

Guerrilla tactics, an unorganized insurgency, and sectarian violence does not a "civil war" make.

A typical Tico statement from authority made without authority.

The source you cite yourself, Wikipedia, writes:

Quote:

Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not). (emphasis added)

Most telling, of course, is this line from the source upon which you rely:

Quote:

In simple terms, a Civil War is a war in which a country fights another part of itself.

It is customary, and a courtesy, to make note of added emphasis in a passage which you quote from another source. Someone knowing no better might think that the bold-faced portion of the text you quoted was emphasized at the source, which is certainly not the case. Of course, others of us are accustomed to right wing ranters who intend to create false impressions.

Quote:

For example, the hate Bush psychosis has spread and become increasingly more intense.

There is no psychosis. Criticizing Bush, and the results of his administration, is definably sane.

You call it hate, but it's more like pity.

Cycloptichon

WHAT IS HE thinking? On a day when Shiite vigilantes conducted hangings in Sadr City in reprisal for the killing of scores of their co-religionists in a market bombing, President Bush continued to insist that progress in Iraq justified staying the course.

"By their response over the past two weeks, Iraqis have shown the world that they want a future of freedom and peace," he said Monday. "We're helping Iraqis build a strong democracy so that old resentments will be eased and the insurgency marginalized."

Contrast that fantasy with the same day's harsh news: "In Sadr City, the Shiite section in Baghdad where the terrorist suspects were executed, government forces vanished," reported the New York Times. "The streets are ruled by aggressive teenagers with shiny soccer jerseys and machine guns. They set up roadblocks and poke their heads into cars and detain whomever they want. Mosques blare warnings on loudspeakers for American troops to stay out. Increasingly, the Americans have been doing just that."

The next day, 87 corpses, all male, were found scattered throughout the city, shot or strangled after being bound and blindfolded. This, in turn, was in apparent reprisal for a series of bombings on Sunday targeting Shiite civilians which killed 58 and wounded 300, according to Iraq's Health Ministry.

Of course, the drip-drip of American troop deaths continues, as Lance Cpl. Bunny Long, 22, of Modesto, Calif., will be coming home in a flag-draped casket after being killed Friday by a suicide, vehicle-borne, IED.

If such constant mayhem is taken as a sign of progress, three years after the U.S. invasion, then Bush surely will be thrilled by what the future holds. The British, on the other hand, have seen the handwriting on the wall and once again have begun to flee an imperial disappointment in Mesopotamia, announcing they are reducing their forces by 10 percent. Clearly, London has grasped what Bush cannot: The three-year occupation by Western armies is an incitement to guerrilla violence, not an impediment.

Of course, Bush would have us believe this expanding civil war is the work of insidious foreigners rather than of competing agendas arising from within an Iraq society long stunted by colonialism and dictatorship. It does not occur to him that he is the foreigner who the majority of Iraqis hold responsible for the country's despair, and whose occupation immeasurably strengthens the hand of extremists on all sides. Bush's neoconservative Svengalis apparently failed to alert him to the possibility that religious, ethnic and nationalist sentiments might trump his plans for a Western-imposed "democracy," subservient to U.S. interests. Or that U.S.-engineered elections would be won by allies and disciples of the radical Shiite government in the "evil axis" capital of Tehran.

Such bright contradictions were on display in Bush's latest strategically bankrupt "plan" for victory: Spending $3.3 billion to fight the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) Bush now claims Iran is smuggling into Iraq -- to the very Shiite forces that won the U.S.-engineered election and are positioned to form the first real post-Hussein government. The IEDs, mentioned a whopping 26 times in the speech, have obviously come to replace that nonexistent WMD threat as the centerpiece of Bush's Iraq policy. We will stop them, he says, by bumping anti-IED-related spending by a factor of 22, from $150 million in 2004 to $3.3 billion. "We're putting the best minds in America to work on this effort," Bush said.

Why not put a few of them to work on figuring how to extract the U.S. military from Iraq instead? After all, that is where all the IEDs happen to be exploding.

But, of course, this alternative, to stop making U.S. troops targets in the midst of a raging civil war in a Muslim country that the United States has no business occupying, was summarily dismissed by our president.

"[M]y decisions on troop levels will be made based upon the conditions on the ground and on the recommendations of our military commanders, not artificial timetables set by politicians here in Washington, D.C.," he said.

Has the president never read our Constitution, which mandates civilian control over the military? Does he not grasp that he is himself a Washington politician? How can you effectively sell democracy to the world when you mock it so contemptuously at home?

You can't. Not until the public and its representatives force this administration to change its disastrous course can we begin to restore international respect for the American political system that Bush has so masterfully subverted.

Ticomaya wrote:

Guerrilla tactics, an unorganized insurgency, and sectarian violence does not a "civil war" make.

A typical Tico statement from authority made without authority.

The source you cite yourself, Wikipedia, writes:

Quote:

Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not). (emphasis added)

Most telling, of course, is this line from the source upon which you rely:

Quote:

In simple terms, a Civil War is a war in which a country fights another part of itself.

It is customary, and a courtesy, to make note of added emphasis in a passage which you quote from another source. Someone knowing no better might think that the bold-faced portion of the text you quoted was emphasized at the source, which is certainly not the case. Of course, others of us are accustomed to right wing ranters who intend to create false impressions.

ican711nm wrote:

For example, the hate Bush psychosis has spread and become increasingly more intense.

There is no psychosis. Criticizing Bush, and the results of his administration, is definably sane.

You call it hate, but it's more like pity.

Cycloptichon

Main Entry: de·fin·able
Pronunciation: di-'fI-n&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : able to be defined
2 : able to be specified to have a particular function or operation <definable keys>
- de·fin·ably /-'fI-n&-blE/ adverb

Main Entry: sane
Pronunciation: 'sAn
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): san·er; san·est
Etymology: Latin sanus healthy, sane
1 : proceeding from a sound mind : RATIONAL
2 : mentally sound; especially : able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions
3 : healthy in body
synonym see WISE
- sane·ly adverb
- sane·ness /'sAn-n&s/ noun

Main Entry: san·i·ty
Pronunciation: 'sa-n&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sanite, from Latin sanitat-, sanitas health, sanity, from sanus healthy, sane
: the quality or state of being sane; especially : soundness or health of mind

Main Entry: psy·cho·sis
Pronunciation: sI-'kO-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural psy·cho·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: New Latin
: fundamental mental derangement (as schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality

Main Entry: in·sane
Pronunciation: (")in-'sAn
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin insanus, from in- + sanus sane
1 : mentally disordered : exhibiting insanity
2 : used by, typical of, or intended for insane persons <an insane asylum>
3 : ABSURD <an insane scheme for making money>
- in·sane·ly adverb
- in·sane·ness /-'sAn-n&s/ noun

Main Entry: in·san·i·ty
Pronunciation: in-'sa-n&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 a : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) and usually excluding such states as mental retardation, psychoneurosis, and various character disorders b : a mental disorder
2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable