Pages: 1

 

2006-11-29 16:04:15
l41e
Member
+677|6906

Why does it really matter what we call it? "civil war", "conflict", "sectarian violence", "chaos"...

It's still the same situation. What people hundreds or thousands of miles away call something doesn't change something. Kind of like Pluto. Planet or "dwarf planet", it's still there. And it's still Pluto.

Solution: Stop debating these kinds of thing. I don't care whether you call it a civil war, conflict, or clam chowder. What I care about is:

1. Fix the problem (yes, there is a problem, unless lots of people killing each other isn't a problem) by whatever reasonable means necessary.
2. Bipartisanism to accomplish 1.

Discuss.
2006-11-29 16:05:07
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6814

k30dxedle wrote:

Why does it really matter what we call it? "civil war", "conflict", "sectarian violence", "chaos"...

It's still the same situation. What people hundreds or thousands of miles away call something doesn't change something. Kind of like Pluto. Planet or "dwarf planet", it's still there. And it's still Pluto.

Solution: Stop debating these kinds of thing. I don't care whether you call it a civil war, conflict, or clam chowder. What I care about is:

1. Fix the problem (yes, there is a problem, unless lots of people killing each other isn't a problem) by whatever reasonable means necessary.
2. Bipartisanism to accomplish 1.

Discuss.
I vote we call it Clam Chowder.
2006-11-29 16:07:46
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California
Nit-picking.  We're such an anal society that thrives on useless debate (see "kramer" and "n-word").

But seriously it does matter (more so than calling darfur "genocide" instead of mass killing) because it shows that we understand what is going on.  And so far...Bush is about the only one unwilling to accept that...for obvious reasons.

And you're right, classifying the conflict does nothing to solve it..but then, classifying it is not intended to solve the conflict.  There are plenty of threads discussing what to do about it.

Oh yeah, Colin has recently made it known that it's a civil war too.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-29 16:09:48)

2006-11-29 18:31:10
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6980|Eastern PA

k30dxedle wrote:

Solution: Stop debating these kinds of thing. I don't care whether you call it a civil war, conflict, or clam chowder. What I care about is:

1. Fix the problem (yes, there is a problem, unless lots of people killing each other isn't a problem) by whatever reasonable means necessary.
2. Bipartisanism to accomplish 1.

Discuss.
Determining whether or not it is indeed a Civil War goes a long way towards adequately dealing with the situation. Lots of observers interpret the current situation as a civil war but the President still refers to most of the violence as being caused by Al Qaeda.

If the violence is being caused by AQ then the policy outcomes are going to be distinct from civil war which has it's own political problems that have to be addressed.
2006-11-29 18:34:45
=MCHD= arush5268d
Member
+46|6760|Houston, TX

CameronPoe wrote:

k30dxedle wrote:

Why does it really matter what we call it? "civil war", "conflict", "sectarian violence", "chaos"...

It's still the same situation. What people hundreds or thousands of miles away call something doesn't change something. Kind of like Pluto. Planet or "dwarf planet", it's still there. And it's still Pluto.

Solution: Stop debating these kinds of thing. I don't care whether you call it a civil war, conflict, or clam chowder. What I care about is:

1. Fix the problem (yes, there is a problem, unless lots of people killing each other isn't a problem) by whatever reasonable means necessary.
2. Bipartisanism to accomplish 1.

Discuss.
I vote we call it Clam Chowder.
2006-11-30 08:57:00
Fen321
Member
+54|6756|Singularity
Declaring it a civil war requires our government to recognize a belligerent other government outside the one we put in place, which in all likely hood is not likely since well its a political act that will have some ramifications outside of changing the strategy in this region.
2006-11-30 09:27:22
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6885
Because the Democrats called it Civil War first.  So the Republicans naturally have to disagree.  Even though their definition of the conflict is Civil War.
2006-11-30 09:34:52
King_County_Downy
shitfaced
+2,791|6855|Seattle

The solutuion is to let them kill eachother. The stronger side will win.

Edit: You can't reason with religious fanatics who want to kill eachother.

Last edited by King_County_Downy (2006-11-30 09:35:42)

Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard