Submit your own Neatorama post and vote for others' posts to earn NeatoPoints that you can redeem for T-shirts, hoodies and more over at the NeatoShop!

A Civil War by Any Other Name ...

What's the definition of a civil war? According this article in the New York Times, the "scholarly" definition of a civil war has 2 main criteria:

The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that Iraq is, indeed, in a civil war. President Bush said no, and in a rare agreement, former President Jimmy Carter agreed with him (or at least he said "not yet").

Iraqis, on the other hand, said "whatever you call it, we're scared." What do you think?

I think that there are various scholarly definitions of a civil war, and in most cases the conflict in Iraq meets all the criteria. However, the semantic argument only serves to underline that the Bush administration is lying now and has done throughout his tenure, and no matter what way you look at it and no matter how we label this war it is a monstrous failure in terms of what its stated goals were. However, it is important to remember that its stated goals were not the true goals of the occupation and we will probably never know what they really were. In any case the abhorrent loss of life in Iraq can be described with catch-all labels or without but no two word phrase does this sickening invasion and its subsequent bloody aftermath justice.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I think the New York Times is NOT a good source for news. They have lied so many times, that the paper belongs in the bottom of a bird cage.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
My understanding (from using "the Google") is that it's "hard work" but we're "turning corners" and we've "broken the back of the insurgency" which is clearly in it's "last throes."
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
There is plenty of room here for a political something-or-other once in awhile. Besides, political cartoons are usually neat, as in clever, so I except them being part of all this, whatever "this" is. That being said, our illustrious administration can't admit to a civil war in Iraq because America's prime directive
(to borrow from STAR TREK) wouldn't allow us to stay in a country involved in a Civil War. It's all semantics anyway. Iraq and what is going on there is what it is. Period.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The site is getting more and more insistent in its Right-bashing. Why not one good Left-bashing cartoon/article/whatever for each one bashing the Left.

Next time I come back and I see more politics than 'neat' stuff, I'll delete you off my favorites forever.

For pete's sake. You're supposed to be a fun site...

Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
That's OK, the Left bashed the world for 70 years.

I wonder what your reaction would be if Alex started carrying Cox & Forkum cartoons. That's actually a pretty good idea, Alex; it would serve to defuse the current "This has become a Liberal blog!" meme and they're about as funny as the cartoons you're currently running - that is to say, not at all. I think you can get them for free too. Which is about what they're worth.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Wow... well at least this post inspired some thoughtful discussion, right? Not. I wish everyone would stop being so petty (i.e., squabbling over political party affiliation) and focus on the actual subject of the post, which is the presence (or lack) of civil war in Iraq. Come on, people!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Re: right-bashing. When I posted a conservative cartoon (link), no one accussed me of Liberal-bashing. I'd do more of them except that right now, everyone's "right-bashing," probably because the same reasons that the Republicans lost (Iraq war, corruption, spending).

You'd be surprised that my personal politics is nothing like you'd think.

Re: Cox & Forkum. I've subscribed to Gary Varvel, who is a conservative cartoonist. So far, he hasn't drawn anything on the it's-a-civil-war/not-a-civil-war issue or otherwise I would've posted it too... I checked and my syndication service does not carry Cox & Forkum. I'll check with C&F directly to see if I can carry them.

Re: not neat. C'mon, guys: isn't the reference to "I Can't Believe it's not Butter" kind of clever? (Plus, there are many posts on Neatorama that aren't qualified as "neat.")

And thank you Jenny for valiantly trying to bring the discussion back on topic.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Once again, to all you whiners: If you don't like the post, skip over it! It's as simple as that. I'm so sick of people trying to control the direction of this website. The direction that Alex's website takes is up to Alex. Why does it have to always be about left versus right? Why can't it, for once, be about right versus wrong?

To sum: I'll never complain about a post, because I have a mouse, with a wheel no less, and with a mere flick of my finger I'll simply roll on down to the next post.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
It's hilarious how Neatorama is quibbling over semantics just like out in the real world.

Is it "civil war" or not?
Is it okay to call the story of the Nativity a "myth"?
What about the "theory" of evolution?
Is it "neat" or not"?

I think the tub that Bush holds in this cartoon shoulr read "Iraqi style". "Iraq" is a noun, not an adjective.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Man what's with all the emo people? Skip over an entry you don't like and go cry in a corner.

I think politics have the right to be here just like anything else, Alex. Your blog, you post what you want. I'll still read it even if a post or two doesn't interest me.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Dear oh dear

Expand your minds guys - the best thing about this site is that it carrys a selection of posts on different topics - things that you might not be aware of otherwise...

On a personal note i think that it is quite "neat" that somebody is bringing it to my attention that the influential members of our global society are trying to write history in such a way that would lead future generations to beleive that the west had little or nothing to do with the decimation of a country not to mention some of the atrocious acts that have been carried out in the name of our society - it has to be said that there was nothing "civil" about the leveling of Felluga by the allied troops....

heres a suggestion for all of you whiners out there - why dont you log onto the tomy website for some light entertainment!!!

Keep going Alex your doing a fine job.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 20 comments

Email This Post to a Friend
"A Civil War by Any Other Name ..."

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.


Success! Your email has been sent!

close window

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More