Quake3World

This is just a supposition...so take it as such.

I think it's imperative that the civil war in Iraq never be called the civil war in Iraq because that would mean the quick, disasterous end of the White House's (neocons/facsits/whatever) plans for the region. These plans include everything from bringing happy/magical democracy to the region as well as controling it, setting up permanent military bases and keeping the UN out indefinately.

Think about it for a second: If this civil war is officially recognized for what it is by the UN then they are mandated to send in Peacekeepers (or deal with it in some way)...and the US is mandated to vacate. I don't know enough about international law as it pertains to authority in such situations but I'd guess that any authority America has in what happens day to day in Iraq would evaporate quickly. (one can hope)

Then...perhaps with the veil pulled back slightly...there might be more insight (and progress) into human rights abuses, war crimes, the list goes on. Perhaps if "the filter" wasn't in place the world might see the real picture more clearly...instead of having to factor in a load of distracting bullshit and...what I would call....oppressive censorship.

I'm not sure of all the facts on this topic as to why the American government (and it's obedient media) refuse to call it a civil war...but I'd guess what I postulated above might have something to do with it.

btw...I'mhighyoucocks

well once they admit it's a civil war, they admit they're fucked and they admit they have fucked it up to the maximum I guess.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:well once they admit it's a civil war, they admit they're fucked and they admit they have fucked it up to the maximum I guess.

Well...we both know that the US government is so open and honest to admit mistake...so that's not the prize.

That's part of it, yes, but I don't feel that's the real issue they're worried aboot. *smokes bowl*

It is interesting how they where saying in the newspaper, that the country is on the brink of civil war, for the past 2 years. And today [insert] killed the most [insert] with [insert] bringing the country to the brink of civil war.

admitting "failure" in iraq would mean that making a move on iran would be a tough sell (hence their messing about with UNSC sanctions threats rather than war threats)

up until now, the EU has held a contradictory position on iran's nuclear program, on the one hand affirming iran's right to enrich uranium while simultaneously demanding that they stop enriching uranium. now we're going to see a contradictory US position, with belligerent talk of sanctions on one hand, and pleas for iranian help in iraq on the other. the result will be a total lack of trust of the west within the iranian leadership

Didn't you guys hear? Matt Lauer finally said it was a civil war on the News.

It's official!

Ummm... there's no way the UN could muster up enough forces to control Iraq (without the US).

how to "win" in Iraq....well, sort of:
http://www.exile.ru/2006-November-17/ho ... _iraq.html

SplishSplash wrote:...(without the US).

rofl

Well...I guess Fox News won't be calling it a civil war....because that would be evil...or sumthin.

Clicky

some are using the term civil war to indicate failure, not inside Iraq, but on U.S. policy in Iraq. We’re unwilling to fall into that tender trap.

It's a tender trap!

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:well once they admit it's a civil war, they admit they're fucked and they admit they have fucked it up to the maximum I guess.

I want that on a t-shirt

another great non-debate brewing by the looks of the things. you can call it whatever you want: civil war, scuffle, armageddon, whateverthefuck - doesn't change what it is nor add anything to anyone's understanding

[quote="GONNAFISTYA"][/quote]

Irony at work...

After Colin Powel made his speech to the UN about why they should go into Iraq, he was due to hold a media briefing afterwards. The briefing had to be delayed while they covered up the giant picture of Picasso's Guernica which was hanging right behind where he was due to speak. TV crews said it was because the background was too busy, thus a blue drape was hung over it.

lol, Guernica behind him while he was hyping up the reasons for an unnecessary war? That would have been rich.

Of course it's just as rich that he had it covered up, but I didn't know that.