I think it will.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5243042.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5243042.stm
Last edited by herrr_smity (2006-08-03 12:06:31)
Poll
will iraq fall into civil war
| yes | 72% | 72% - 32 | ||||
| no | 27% | 27% - 12 | ||||
| Total: 44 | ||||||
I think it IS
more or less it already did
um...It already has.
what a great debate.
lol
lol
you have to look at the definition of a civil war. nobody is trying to take over the govt. none of the insurgents are organized or aligned with each other enough to take over. I say no, Iraq is not on a civil war, yet. Wait for Al-sadir and the mahdi militia to rise again and then I MIGHT call it a civil war.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-08-03 13:56:32)
It already has IMO.100ppl murdered ever day? Sounds like it to me. Its just the coalition can't admit that or it makes them look like they are failing and hence damage support for the war. As Tony Blair stated yesterday, "A new approach is needed" he is ready to admit that Iraqi is slipping into one. The three religious groups are all creating "defense forces". It is exactly what happened here, only between three factions and about 20 times the population and is liable to pull in neighboring countries, as this is a religious civil war which spans boundaries. Its not about political leaders, its theological leaders that are pulling the strings in this. Thats why our "politicians" find it so hard to comprehend. Its why Saddam and Osama could never been buddies. Osama see's Saddam as infidel and so on..................
Last edited by JahManRed (2006-08-03 14:02:56)
civil war dont equate to people being murdered. the terrorists want a civil war. thats why they blow up civilians, so the militias would seek revenge and kill more people and create instability in a fledgling govt. A civil war in iraq is one way that the anti-iraqi forces are able to stimie democratic reform and defeat the coalition. they cant beat the troops in battle.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-08-03 14:06:04)
So you would call it more of a slightly stabilized anarchy?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
you have to look at the definition of a civil war. nobody is trying to take over the govt. none of the insurgents are organized or aligned with each other enough to take over. I say no, Iraq is not on a civil war, yet. Wait for Al-sadir and the mahdi militia to rise again and then I MIGHT call it a civil war.
wow, thats a really good (sad) way to put it. I would equate the violence in Iraq to gangwars in the states, on a way higher level ofcourse. revenge killing for the sake of revenge killingSpearhead wrote:
So you would call it more of a slightly stabilized anarchy?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
you have to look at the definition of a civil war. nobody is trying to take over the govt. none of the insurgents are organized or aligned with each other enough to take over. I say no, Iraq is not on a civil war, yet. Wait for Al-sadir and the mahdi militia to rise again and then I MIGHT call it a civil war.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-08-03 14:08:16)
fuck cut n run.
thats all i have to say
i know some pansy is gonna get on here and say it
thats all i have to say
i know some pansy is gonna get on here and say it
Individual factions are targetting each other, and one faction happens to control the government of Iraq. The violence is sectarian and widespread. It certainly sounds like a civil conflict to me.
It's beginning to remind me of Clancy's "Politika," except one faction has the support of the US, while the other splinter factions are trying to gain control through rampant violence.
It's beginning to remind me of Clancy's "Politika," except one faction has the support of the US, while the other splinter factions are trying to gain control through rampant violence.
I disagree. There are numerous parties and blocs that have control of the Iraqi gov't. Some friendly to the US, some not.Marconius wrote:
Individual factions are targetting each other, and one faction happens to control the government of Iraq. The violence is sectarian and widespread. It certainly sounds like a civil conflict to me.
It's beginning to remind me of Clancy's "Politika," except one faction has the support of the US, while the other splinter factions are trying to gain control through rampant violence.
What about religious groups? Sunnis and Shiites, no matter what political factions they are part of, will still attempt to put each other down in any way possible over theocratic measures.
Wait, it isn't already a civil war?
yes its already in civil war. first time i agreed w/ you =/Ikarti wrote:
Wait, it isn't already a civil war?
so far, I see a real delicate balance in the parliament of Iraq. Al-Maliki has got the toughest job in the world as a moderate shiite. but I believe the average Iraqi doesnt care who runs the country as long as they are able to run their lives as they see fit. Thats why Saddam had so much power. Any hint of dissent he will purge and execute. Now, since that iron fist has been removed, you have criminals like Sadr and all the other fanatics looking for a way to take charge. He tried his little insurrection in august of 04 and he realized there was no way for him to defeat the American military.Marconius wrote:
What about religious groups? Sunnis and Shiites, no matter what political factions they are part of, will still attempt to put each other down in any way possible over theocratic measures.
Sunnis and Shiites may not see eye to eye, but the majority of them will live in harmony. I think.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-08-03 14:59:00)
As a matter of intrest, How many people besides Gunslinger have been there and seen it first hand?
"Not I," said the little red hen.Horseman 77 wrote:
As a matter of intrest, How many people besides Gunslinger have been there and seen it first hand?
Civil war will be defined by the U.S. when established Iraqi battalions disband and consolidate into sectarian factions.
Some individual units are misbehaving, but full scale anarchy is not happening.
When the United States engages Iraqies soldiers who are no longer interested in a unified government, then you have civil war.
Some individual units are misbehaving, but full scale anarchy is not happening.
When the United States engages Iraqies soldiers who are no longer interested in a unified government, then you have civil war.
About less than 1 percent of the population, you must feel proud.Horseman 77 wrote:
As a matter of intrest, How many people besides Gunslinger have been there and seen it first hand?
I think he means " Gunslinger must be proud " ?
not in the traditional sense. it is more or less in a civil war right now, but with a couple hundred thousand foreign troops there, nothing "major" can happen. Plus, blame America or not, I would find it hard to believe that the rest of the world would just stand by and watch if it escalated to a point where it was definitively a civil war.
Last edited by comet241 (2006-08-24 15:01:02)