Official: Civil War in Iraq!

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

Originally posted by Spec
It's been a civil war for the last 2000 years over there...

Spec.

What an interesting conclusion. I can't seem to arrive at the same one. Resistance against the British and the Ottomans isn't civil war, and before those were various Islamic states...

Honestly I don't know what you're talking about.

Er...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Camel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fitna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nahrawan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karbala

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaydi_Revolt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Zab

[Dis]

I think some people want there to be a civil war just so they can say they told us so. Nevermind the deaths and all that.

[SlowwHand]

When you have Sunni's killing off all the Kurds, and at war with Shiites, as has been the case for many, many years, call it what you will, but that's a civil war.

[Ninot]

It's never officially a Civil War unless Ken Burns does a documentary on it, reading old letters while slowly panning across landscape pictures.

credit to John Stewart.

[Dinner]

Anyone who says there hasn't been a civil war in Iraq simply knows nothing about Iraq. He should read about the various Kurd rebellions which have taken place practically every 20 years since independence in 1932.

[Ramo]

Stewart: Certainly from an Iraqi perspective, what this is called makes no difference.

Oliver: Oh, really? If you have lost a loved one in this conflict, and statistically if you're an Iraqi you have, wouldn't you rather know it wasn't in a Civil War but rather a territorial arglebargle of regional qualms?

Stewart: 3,000 Iraqis died just this month. To argue over what to call it seems like semantic quibbling.

Oliver: Semantic quibbling? Oh, well, I wouldn't call it that.

Stewart: What would you call it?

Oliver: A minor linguistic flareup between two parties of different terminological points of view.

Stewart: It's really the same thing.

Oliver: It's "same-ey." For now let's agree to disagree on how we state our agreements. Agreed?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Darius871
Er...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Camel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fitna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nahrawan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karbala

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaydi_Revolt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Zab

So, your support for a "civil war for the last 2000 years" is to cite me seven campaigns that all happened between 660 and 750 AD? What a joke. Yes, that's 2000 years of civil war, right there!

[Elok]

I'm not sure how you would have civil war lasting 2000 years at all. No one country has ever even lasted 2000 years afaik, never mind taking that long to fall apart. Even 2000 years of war of any kind is dubious, since you need periodic peaces to build up enough resources to squander on wars. It's more accurate to say that the ME has been populated by people who would like to kill each other for 2K years--except that estimate's about 4K short, isn't it?

[Blaupanzer]

Civil war is an oxymoron. A war exists between Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis. If these are all one nation, then it is a civil war. If they are not, then it is some other kind of war, but it is war, and it is getting worse.

No, it has not been going on for 1,400 years. These different peoples lived among each other without fear for over 200 years. Occasional movements precipitated incidents, but nothing on the current scale for centuries.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Elok
I'm not sure how you would have civil war lasting 2000 years at all. No one country has ever even lasted 2000 years afaik, never mind taking that long to fall apart. Even 2000 years of war of any kind is dubious, since you need periodic peaces to build up enough resources to squander on wars. It's more accurate to say that the ME has been populated by people who would like to kill each other for 2K years--except that estimate's about 4K short, isn't it?

Precisely - and not only is 2K years too short, but "the ME" is too specific - the world has been populated by people who would like to kill each other, since time immemorial. That is why this comment:

Originally posted by Spec
It's been a civil war for the last 2000 years over there...

Is utterly and fantastically false.

[Q Classic]

Mobius hates America.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Mobius hates America.

But it's only a low-grade hate.

[Q Classic]

Kinda like low-grade uranium? Mobius's hate of America is really just depleted hate.

[Sava]

No, no, no. It's like how General Barry McCaffery of MSNBC has been calling this a "low grade" civil war.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Kinda like low-grade uranium? Mobius's hate of America is really just depleted hate.

I have reliable reports from British intelligence that he has recently been inquiring in certain African countries about acquiring a more dangerous type of hate that could be easily weaponized.