Civil War?

[jj]

What does that mean? I interpret it to mean that we should evaluate the claim not on objective data, but on previous statements of the administration concerning issues unrelated to Iraqi civil war. One example was of WMDs.

Nice attempt to avoid context. I would suggest that we should take what the Bush administration tries to get us to believe with a large bag of salt, based on their prior performance on both the Iraqi war and other places that they've conciously attempted to manipulate the public fears.

So let's talk objective data:

Are there three armed, fighting factions? Yes.
Does the government control any of the effective fighting units? No.
Does the government control anything to speak of? No.
Is the conflict country-wide? Yes.
Is the avowed goal of the conflict supremecy by each of the three factions? Yes.


The last time I pointed out these uncomfortable FACTS somebody tried quite dishonestly to equate them to the worst parts of DC or LA, but of course, in those places, it's

1) Not a fight for supremecy over the nation, it's just a fight.
2) It's not nationwide
3) The government still does have general control.
4) The government still has operational police and military.
5) Are there so many factions as to be no possibility of military victory? Yes.

I'm sure somebody will try to cheat again, but it's very simple, yes, Iraq is in the middle of a full-scale civil war between three factions, and both the Iraqi government and the US army have little control that extends beyond their line of sight and sensors.

So, yes, Iraq is in a full-scale civil war. Thanks to the inept way we took the place over, it's likely not to recover as one entity.

 

[jj]

That is not a correct paraphrasing of what I have posted anywhere in this thread.

You forget, Darat, the game here is to make it LOOK like this or that straw man, facts really don't matter. Don't confuse them with facts.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Again you choose ad hominems over substance.

You could describe what you think is wrong with Riks arguments instead of just gainsaying them.

I did. Why are you pretending otherwise?

Let's spell it out again.

What is wrong with rik's argument is that it involved making up stupid lies about the Sopper Sekrit motivations of the people who disagree with him (without regard, of course, to the statements they have actually made) and then flailing away at his pathetic straw men with his pathetic toy sword.

I realize that you're not very good at this skepticism business, but surely even you can see that this is not so much an "elegant argument" as raving lunacy.

To point out how nutty his behavior is, by the way, does not constitute an ad hominem argument. Because it is a conclusion about his personal qualities based on an analysis of his argument, whereas ad hominem is the exact converse. I do not say "rik is nutty, therefore rik's argument is nutty". I say "rik's argument is nutty, therefore rik is nutty".

 

[CapelDodger]

Oddly I find myself hesitant to use the term "Civil War" yet... until the new Iraqi government does not primarily rely on us for power, is it a significant enough presence to be considered different from American forces?

Even though the Iraqi government depends on US forces for much of its power, it's still capable of some independent covert action. We see that in the Badrist-influenced involvement of the Iraqi police in sectarian conflict.

As long as I sense the insurgency is mostly about us, rather than about Iraq's government, it doesn't seem like a civil war to me.

Everybody knows that the coalition forces are going to leave; the current aim is to be in as advantageous a position as possible when that happens. So one could see the current sectarian violence as the early stages of a civil war.

I don't think the insurgency is mostly about the occupation. It's mostly about the post-occupation.

The Islamists/Al Qaeda are a wild yeast in this particular brew, of course. Their game-board is way bigger than Iraq.

 

[Mephisto]

If Iraq is in civil war or not is an objective fact that can be observed. All you need to do is arrive at a definition of "civil war", then observe if the activities that are happening over there fit the definition or not. The opinion of the Bush administration doesn’t enter into it.

Let's see what's involved in a civil war, okay?

Dictionary.com:

civil war
n.

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.


Websters:
Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

Now, does that sound like Iraq to you or not?

”Since you are refusing to (jump through these hoops)… I really have no other option but to discount your claim.”

It was a lame threat; meaning the consequences he threatens, discounting my claim, are mild and not likely to change my behavior in the way he wants. If it seemed I was claiming he was making a more serious threat, that wasn't my intent.

from dictionary.com

threat P Pronunciation Key (thrt)
n.
An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
An indication of impending danger or harm.
One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.
_________

dis·count P Pronunciation Key (dskount, ds-kount)
v. dis·count·ed, dis·count·ing, dis·counts
v. tr.
To deduct or subtract from a cost or price.
To purchase or sell (a bill, note, or other commercial paper) at a reduction equal to the amount of interest that will accumulate before it matures.
To lend money on (a commercial paper not immediately payable) after deducting the interest.
To sell or offer for sale at a reduced price.
To reduce in quantity or value.
To leave out of account as being untrustworthy or exaggerated; disregard: discount a rumor.
To underestimate the significance or effectiveness of; minimize: took care not to discount his wife's accomplishments.
To regard with doubt or disbelief. emphasis mine
To anticipate and make allowance for; reckon with in advance.
_________

Shall we go for the definition of the word IS?

 

[Mycroft]

Nice attempt to avoid context. I would suggest that we should take what the Bush administration tries to get us to believe with a large bag of salt, based on their prior performance on both the Iraqi war and other places that they've conciously attempted to manipulate the public fears.

One should take the word of all politicians with a grain of salt.

So let's talk objective data:

Fantastic! Now that I have convinced you it is objective data that must be looked at, I will now ignore the rest of your post as it’s obviously meant to continue a previous argument you were having with someone else.

 

[Mycroft]

I did. Why are you pretending otherwise?

Hmmm, let me think. It must be because your brilliant rebuttal is only visible to you.

What is wrong with rik's argument is that it involved making up stupid lies about the Sopper Sekrit motivations of the people who disagree with him (without regard, of course, to the statements they have actually made) and then flailing away at his pathetic straw men with his pathetic toy sword.

While high in disdain, you fail to name an actual failing in Rik’s argument. What stupid lies did he make up? What Sopper Sekrit (did you mean to say “Sooper”?) motivations are you talking about? What are these “straw men” of which you speak?

I realize that you're not very good at this skepticism business, but surely even you can see that this is not so much an "elegant argument" as raving lunacy.

Delightful! You still think insults make your argument stronger!

To point out how nutty his behavior is, by the way, does not constitute an ad hominem argument. Because it is a conclusion about his personal qualities based on an analysis of his argument, whereas ad hominem is the exact converse. I do not say "rik is nutty, therefore rik's argument is nutty". I say "rik's argument is nutty, therefore rik is nutty".

Of course. We all understand how you feel towards people who disagree with you.

 

[jj]

Fantastic! Now that I have convinced you it is objective data that must be looked at, I will now ignore the rest of your post as it’s obviously meant to continue a previous argument you were having with someone else.

Right. So you ignore the objective data. Why did you claim you wanted to see it.

 

[Mycroft]

Let's see what's involved in a civil war, okay?



Now, does that sound like Iraq to you or not?

Pardon, were you under the impression I was taking sides in this debate?

No, I had limited my comments to what I believe are serious flaws in the logic displayed in one of Headscratcher's posts, nothing more. If you want to continue to debate what is or isn't a civil war, you shall have to entice Corpse, wildcat, or Rik back into the game.

from dictionary.com

threat P Pronunciation Key (thrt)
n.
An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.

Lol! I would never have guessed such an off-handed remark could create such a fuss!

Darat expressed an intent to inflict evil upon me by discounting my assertion. That was his threat.

Satisfied?

 

[Mycroft]

Right. So you ignore the objective data. Why did you claim you wanted to see it.

Because it was never my intent to argue one side or another in this debate. I only posted in this thread to object to an example of poor logic. Ultimately, it's just a matter of somantics.

 

[Mephisto]

Darat expressed an intent to inflict evil upon me by discounting my assertion. That was his threat.

I suppose; it's tits on a bull to me. I just don't see the threat at all, and if Darat can inflict evil upon anyone across an ocean, maybe we should recruit him to inflict evil upon those who discount the not-so-civil war in Iraq.

 

[jj]

Because it was never my intent to argue one side or another in this debate. I only posted in this thread to object to an example of poor logic. Ultimately, it's just a matter of somantics.

Ok. I neglected to say that I agree with the grain of salt for any politician, as well. I mean I do trust a few politicians. They've died long ago, you see.

 

[zakur]

A senior Iraqi government official has, for the first time, said Iraq is in a state of "undeclared" civil war:

"Iraq has actually been in an undeclared civil war for the past 12 months," Deputy Interior Minister Hussein Ali Kamal told the BBC's Arabic Service.

"On a daily basis Shia, Sunni, Kurds and Christians are being killed and the only undeclared thing is that a civil war has not been officially announced by the parties involved."

 

[CapelDodger]

A senior Iraqi government official has, for the first time, said Iraq is in a state of "undeclared" civil war:

Yeah, but what does he know about logic-chopping and anyway, what's the Arabic for Civil War?

Iraq is a nation because the West declared it to be. Civil War is a Western concept, just as nation is. So it's only a Civil War when the West declares it to be. Iraqi opinion is just that - opinion.

 

[zakur]

Shiite Militias Move Into Oil-Rich Kirkuk, Even as Kurds Dig In

KIRKUK, Iraq -- Hundreds of Shiite Muslim militiamen have deployed in recent weeks to this restive city -- widely considered the most likely flash point for an Iraqi civil war -- vowing to fight any attempt to shift control over Kirkuk to the Kurdish-governed north, according to U.S. commanders and diplomats, local police and politicians.

[...]

Kurdish leaders speak openly of their intention to use force if necessary to gain control of the city, which they consider the historical capital of a vast Kurdish nation also extending into Iran and Turkey. During the rule of President Saddam Hussein, Arabs brought in from elsewhere in Iraq displaced thousands of Kurds. As many as 300,000 Kurds who were pushed out have returned to the area, according to U.S. estimates, establishing vast settlements on the outskirts of the city and making them its largest ethnic community. Kurds also occupy most of the top provincial political and security jobs.

Many Iraqi Arabs, both Sunni and Shiite, are adamantly opposed to relinquishing Kirkuk, among them Sadr and his political followers.

Operating within and alongside Iraq's police and army, Shiite militias have grown politically more powerful and boosted their membership, despite being outlawed under Iraq's new constitution. U.S. officials have called on the Shiite-led government, whose leading parties are tied to Badr and the Mahdi Army, to rein them in, but few if any such steps have been taken.

[...]

In a meeting here last week, Sadr's representative in the city, Abdul Karim Khalifa, told U.S. officials that more armed loyalists were on the way and that as many as 7,000 to 10,000 Shiite residents were prepared to fight alongside the Mahdi Army if called upon. Legions more Shiite militiamen would push north from Baghdad's Sadr City slum, he said, according to Wise.

"His message was essentially that any idea of Kirkuk going to the Kurds will mean a fight," Wise said. "He said that their policy here was different from in other places, that they are not going to attack coalition forces because their only enemy here is the Kurds."

Nothing to see here, folks. No civil war. Move along.