Korean Job Discussion Forums

[EFLtrainer]

According to Daniel Schorr, there are currently 75 Iraqs dying a day from sectarian violence. That's 27,375 a year should it continue. By contrast, US casualties were down to about 1 a day in March as the violence was turning inward. (Hey! Only 365 Americans will die in the next 12 months!! Victory!!! )

I can't help but imagine that the lower number of Americans dying has that idiot in the WH thinking it's a sign of *improvement.*

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5320427

[Hollywoodaction]

It's actually not an easy thing to determine. Some would say it's a civil war when organized armies fight conventional battles, while others would argue that it occurs when there is a long term violent conflict between two opposing factions. Apparently, by both definitions, it isn't a civil war just yet in Iraq (don't forget that North and South Korea were already exchanging artillery shells long before the Korean War officially broke out)...but things are obviously headed in that direction.

One of the problems in assessing the 'conflict' is that the factions not well known or understood yet, but that's to be expected. But, then again, that's because combatants in civil wars don't always wear uniforms or carry identification like conventional soldiers.

[Bulsajo]

Good points. The two main Kurdish parties were fighting each other for over a decade (and maybe still are?), but since Kurdistan didn't technically exist nobody called it a civil war.

[EFLtrainer]

As I posted on another thread: wheat and chaff. 27k people a year is a war in my book. (Didn't we lose all of 50k during the Korean War?) Call it a sectarian war, a jihad, a civil war, a mad romp by the insane, the revenge of the nerds...

[On the other hand]

It is possible to get too hung up on terminology. 75 Iraqis are dying every day as a result of sectarian violence. That's pretty bad, whether or not you call it a civil war, a sectarian squabble, or a Teddy Bear's Picnic.

[Bulsajo]

No doubt.
I'm not trying to play semantic games, just trying to answer the question.
And stating the obvious here- Kurdish fighting pre-dates the US invasion.

Of course these threads, and these questions all boil down to one question that we discuss over and over:

Should the US pull out or stay in Iraq?

Does anyone know if there will be more or less Iraqi casualities if the US pulls out? (Certainly there will be less US ones, as has been pointed out many times already.)

But does calling Iraq a civil war, or not, have any bearing on whether or not the US should stay?

We all seem to be in agreement that it does not.

[mithridates]

[On the other hand]

Mith:

I think an image is missing from your reply to my post.

[Bulsajo]

I can see it, but I'm still confused...

I get the reference to Teddy Bear's picnic, but.... wtf?


[if you can't see it try right clicking on the image icon and select "view image"]

[mithridates]

Nothing to see here, just a Nazi bear with a knife. I was just imagining what kind of scaryass teddy bears OTOH had in his house when he grew up.

[Bulsajo]

[jaganath69]

When is a civil war not a civil war? When you stick your hands in your ears and sing "lalalalalalalalala not happeneing, everything is good and the media is to blame".

[jinglejangle]

When is a civil war not a civil war?

When it would be politically inconvenient to label it as one.

Somewhere along the lines of where blowing up a pair of buildings full of civilians is terrorism, but razing DPRK cities with no military presence wasn't.

[EFLtrainer]

And so it repeats, repeats repeats.....repeats repeats repeats repeats...

[Bulsajo]

You started the thread- do you have an idea of whether Iraqi casualities will go up or down upon withdrawal of US and UK forces?
Why or why not?