What constitutes a Civil War?

I see that the democratically elected leader of Iraq has described the constant killing of between 30 to 60 Iraqis every DAY as being Civil War.

However the US and Britain insist that everything is getting better and this is not civil war.

Since the WAR ended almost three years ago there have been over 3000 US and 100 British military killed and an estimated 60,000 Iraqii citizens.

Do Bush and the poodle believe that EVERYONE is stupid and can't see what's happening?

I'm not sure it's a war. It's disjoined, independent guerilla warfare being waged by small terrorist cells.

If it was an organized effort with an even remotely unified goal or leader, then it might be called a civil war.

When two or more factions are fighting to the level of death within one country.

They can argue the skematics of it all they want...but once people start dying it goes from civil unrest to civil war.

The US and Brits and whomever else says Iraq isn't in a state of civil war are blowing great big smoke rings out their arses....I can't believe one sensible informed person didn't see this comin.

I agree, it's not a civil war.

By that definition, gang violence in LA constitutes a civil war... and so does a small armed conflict between some separatists in Montana and a group of FBI agents.

Do you think that these people are risking their lives attacking targets and killing so many people are just random terrorists.

I lived in a country were a very small number od committed people kept the British army running around in circles for 30 years.

They're not "random terrorists," they're random cells and groups that don't share a leadership structure, funding, or goals and don't actually have any plan to install a replacement government of any sort.

It's not a civil war.

This definition may be helpful:

"A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power."

These small groups have no plans or hopes of actually taking over control of the country. That's not their goal.

60,000 people.

I'll say that again sixty thousand Iraqis dead since the WAR ENDED.

This isn't small armed conflicts.

WHY do the US and British government want to hide from what is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Has it finally hit home that they shouldn't have gone into Iraq. A poll to day in Britain had 80% of those asked saying that the invasion was wrong and Britain should never have gone in.

Also, I believe it is extremely likely that the use of the term "civil war" was a rough, loose translation of what the leader of Iraq actually said. He almost certainly wasn't speaking in English, and even if he was, I doubt he understands the subtleties of the term "civil war"

Now the Iraqi leader didn't know what he was saying?

He was speaking in very good English and he was complaining at the Bush /Blair camp for making statements that his country is not suffering a civil war.

Do you realise how pompus your last post sounds jonnythan?

[url]=https://truthout.org/docs_03/041503A.shtml[/url]

ack.....can't work the external links button.....but this is an old and favorite article of mine. This was written 3 years ago...and there are tons of articles just like it.

All the experts...anyone who knows any wee thing has said this would happen and I think Americans don't realize the duplicity that has been involved with whitewashing this whole bloody mess.

When Guantanemo and the real wheelings and dealings of this administration come to light in the upcoming decades I honestly believe that this will become an utter blight on the honor of the presidential office.

Iraqis against Iraqis for leadership of the country, would be a civil war. i don't think that all those Iraqis died fighting each other. They were fighting allied forces and law enforcement more so than themselves.

"We are in civil war," Ayad Allawi, a former U.S.-picked interim prime minister, told the BBC over the weekend. "We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people through the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

The FORMER interim PM clearly thinks that a "civil war" is any situation in which a country loses 50 or more people per day.

He clearly doesn't know what a civil war is.

This ain't one.

Come on guys... being a powerful politician doesn't mean you know everything. These guys misuse terms all the time. Many high level US politicians (senators, presidents, etc) say blatantly incorrect things all the time about US laws. the Constitution, etc etc.

The actions in Iraq do not constitute the historian's definition of Civil War. End of story.

it is an insurgency, I knew I'd remember the word!
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=PHS&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:insurgency