|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:17 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| I suspect it has been ignored largely because it never happened. It was, therefore, largely irrelevant to the out come. Just a guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="EFLtrainer"][quote="flip ant"]
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Lots of pasting, no commentary.
And threads on Civil War in Iraq have been started before.
So it's your thread- what's your assessment?
Civil war, or not?
Why? Why not? |
You are one bizarre little puppy. See if you can figure out from the totality of the post what my current position is. It is there for you to see once you are done carrying over your silly word games from other threads. |
Why are you afraid to state your opinion in word own words on this?
Why start a thread with a bunch of pasted articles and absolutely 0% of your own content?
That's a valid question, as were the others that you didn't answer.
Oh, that's right... YOU started this thread so it's YOURS so you control the subject, you get to decide who is right and who is wrong, because it's YOUR thread, right?
Do us all a favour and get back on your meds. |
My take is painfully obvious to all but the fool. As they say, better to keep it shut...
. |
Seems like EFLtrainer is making new friends right and left... 
Anyway my assessment would be that it is not civil war...at least not yet. And don't forget the majority group in that country does have an interest in keeping things under control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="TheUrbanMyth"][quote="EFLtrainer"]
| flip ant wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Lots of pasting, no commentary.
And threads on Civil War in Iraq have been started before.
So it's your thread- what's your assessment?
Civil war, or not?
Why? Why not? |
You are one bizarre little puppy. See if you can figure out from the totality of the post what my current position is. It is there for you to see once you are done carrying over your silly word games from other threads. |
Why are you afraid to state your opinion in word own words on this?
Why start a thread with a bunch of pasted articles and absolutely 0% of your own content?
That's a valid question, as were the others that you didn't answer.
Oh, that's right... YOU started this thread so it's YOURS so you control the subject, you get to decide who is right and who is wrong, because it's YOUR thread, right?
Do us all a favour and get back on your meds. |
My take is painfully obvious to all but the fool. As they say, better to keep it shut...
. |
Seems like EFLtrainer is making new friends right and left...
Anyway my assessment would be that it is not civil war...at least not yet. And don't forget the majority group in that country does have an interest in keeping things under control. |
Great analysis, urby. You might want to say why. What's the point, otherwise? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Urban Myth wrote: |
| Anyway my assessment would be that it is not civil war...at least not yet. |
I agree.
Why?
Well, for one thing- it doesn't appear to be the majority doing or favouring the fighting, and when I say 'majority' I mean the majority of either potential side as well as the majority of the country as a whole-
what we have here is extremists on both sides trying their hardest to incite a civil war.
Unfortunately, they'll probably be successful, eventually, as neither the Iraqi government and military (and I use those terms loosely) nor the US, UK and other allies have been able to prevent or lessen these attacks or find/punish/kill the groups responsible for them.
But civil war? No, not yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="EFLtrainer"][quote="TheUrbanMyth"]
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| flip ant wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Lots of pasting, no commentary.
And threads on Civil War in Iraq have been started before.
So it's your thread- what's your assessment?
Civil war, or not?
Why? Why not? |
You are one bizarre little puppy. See if you can figure out from the totality of the post what my current position is. It is there for you to see once you are done carrying over your silly word games from other threads. |
Why are you afraid to state your opinion in word own words on this?
Why start a thread with a bunch of pasted articles and absolutely 0% of your own content?
That's a valid question, as were the others that you didn't answer.
Oh, that's right... YOU started this thread so it's YOURS so you control the subject, you get to decide who is right and who is wrong, because it's YOUR thread, right?
Do us all a favour and get back on your meds. |
My take is painfully obvious to all but the fool. As they say, better to keep it shut...
. |
Seems like EFLtrainer is making new friends right and left...
Anyway my assessment would be that it is not civil war...at least not yet. And don't forget the majority group in that country does have an interest in keeping things under control. |
Great analysis, urby. You might want to say why. What's the point, otherwise? |
I DID say why. The majority of the population does not want civil war "an interest in keeping things under control." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As I've said before, I find this whole "civil war yes or no" debate a bit beside the point. In the situation as it currently stands, the difference between "civil war" and "not civil war" seems to me one of degree, not kind. It's a little like debating whether the employee who shows up for work drunk three times a week fits the clinical definition of an alcoholic, or whether he'd have to be drunk every day to make the grade. Either way, the guy should be fired. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well I was going to withhold the other points I had on the subject pending some sort of response from EFLtrainer, but I might as well spit them out now.
The central government- has not dissolved. As far as I am aware, neither the Sunni nor the Shiite members of the government have denounced the government as unworkable or illigitimate. Nor have members from these communities (extremists excepted, al Sadr and the like) done the same, and called for Sunnis or Shiites to en masse turn their backs on the government.
There are no riots in the streets calling for government members to resign, new elections to be held, etc.
And yes I am aware that this may be the case for reasons other than unreserved love of the government (such as risking one's life for the sake of a political demonstration, for example).
Similarly, we're not hearing of mobs one group attacking the other, as one would expect. There are bombers, suicide bombers, snipers, ambushers, all relatively small groups of extremists. It's not an all out Sunni vs. Shiia free for all. Yet. But that's the direction it's headed in...
But I agree it's a rather pointless discussion and implied as much in my first post here. There's nothing in this thread to distinguish it from the other similar ones we've had on the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Be all the definitions I found, it is a civil war, save the one requiring there to be organized armies in pitched battles, essentially, to qualify as a civil war.
To my mind, it is a civil war. While most consider Al Queda the prime mover in the conflict, that is not the case. As CNN showed in their CNN Presents special some time back, Al Queda is a small minority of those fighting. Thus, you have a faction fighting for control of the government and for land area.
While a government has been elected and put in place, the "insurgency" is still fighting to gain political advantage and continue reshaping the government. Fighting to do that is civil war, is it not? Also, we have to be careful to not forget that those fighting against the current government/"occupation"/whatever, are the former Baath party for all intents and purposes. So, this is a governmental faction taking up arms. A civil war. Would we not consider it a civil war in the US if, say, the Mormons took up arms to regain the right to polygamy? Or would that just be an insurrection due to scope? With regard to scope, nearly the entire area of Iraq is involved and the capital is an armed camp with scores dying daily.
The only reason, it seems, that the Kurds are not involved is simple: they are too strong and control too much territory for the insurgents to mount an effective attack against them. Also, they seem content to exist in a live-and-let-live environment. Since they are not Muslim, the insurgency essentially doesn't give a darn about them.
I suppose the proof in the pudding would be seeing what would happen should the US suddenly decamp. If the US up and left and the insurgency came to a halt, then we could make a very strong case for this not being a civil war, but a resistance of sorts (however flawed their logic might be). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Be all the definitions I found, it is a civil war, save the one requiring there to be organized armies in pitched battles, essentially, to qualify as a civil war. |
How so?
I just gave 3 clear reasons (do I have to list them again? and you just provided a fourth, above) as to why it's not a civil war.
Please give examples from the definitions you've found to support your claim that it IS in fact a civil war, because you saying "to my mind, it is" doesn't cut a whole lot of ice around here.
| Quote: |
| To my mind, it is a civil war. |
See above.
| Quote: |
| While most consider Al Queda the prime mover in the conflict, that is not the case. |
I have never seen any analysis theorizing or supporting any theory that Al Qaeda is the "prime mover" in the conflict.
Maybe a Bush admin's PR a couple of years ago might have said something to that effect, but that's certainly not 'analysis'.
I don't watch CNN- have they really been pushing the situation in Iraq as mostly al Qaeda-driven?
So I have to ask- who are the "most" you are referring to?
Or are these not your words but an unattributed cut and paste?
| Quote: |
| While a government has been elected and put in place, the "insurgency" is still fighting to gain political advantage and continue reshaping the government. Fighting to do that is civil war, is it not? Also, we have to be careful to not forget that those fighting against the current government/"occupation"/whatever, are the former Baath party for all intents and purposes. So, this is a governmental faction taking up arms. A civil war. Would we not consider it a civil war in the US if, say, the Mormons took up arms to regain the right to polygamy? Or would that just be an insurrection due to scope? With regard to scope, nearly the entire area of Iraq is involved and the capital is an armed camp with scores dying daily. |
Based on the above I would have to say that you have an overly-simplified (and therfore inadequate) understanding of the situation.
I can go into more detail if you'd like.
| Quote: |
The only reason, it seems, that the Kurds are not involved is simple: they are too strong and control too much territory for the insurgents to mount an effective attack against them. Also, they seem content to exist in a live-and-let-live environment. Since they are not Muslim, the insurgency essentially doesn't give a darn about them. |
Here is a clear example of what I mean by overly-simplified: you talk about "the insurgency" as if there is one unified insurgent movement in Iraq.
You say that the "insurgency" leaves the Kurds alone only because they are not Muslim, saying nothing about geography, political and military organization, etc.
You mention religion as a motivation but fail to take into account that while the split may be along religious lines, what has been taking place hasn't been a religious schism but a political power struggle.
Religion is simply one fault line.
It's no great coincidence that the AUG 31 podcast from Stratfor deals with exactly this subject (the current state of Iraq and specifically the possibility of a civil war), and- since they do not publish transcripts- I strongly urge anyone interested on this subject (like, for example- somebody interested enough to start a thread on the subject) to listen to it.
https://www.stratfor.com/reports/podcasts.php
As per George Packer's Assassin's Gate (the single most important book to date in understanding the recent history and ongoing conflict in Iraq) you'll know the civil war has really started when Kirkuk explodes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkuk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Re-read my post. Virtually everything you said about my post was incorrect. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.
Since I have to go to work in, literally 3 minutes, I don't have time to answer in full. However, one observation makes it plain you are just being argumentative: The definitions were posted in the OP. Perhaps you never bothered to read it?
You're getting to sound a lot like gopher: quibbling over nothing just to be quibbling.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:48 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What?
That's your entire re-buttal?
No how, or where, or why?
"I'm right and you're wrong, nyah, nyah, nyah!"
I should have guessed as much.
Last edited by Bulsajo on Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.
|
Not at all. You started this thread based on definitions.
If the thread was "things sure are *beep* ed up in Iraq right now" you'd hear nothing but agreement from me.
But you didn't.
You oh-so-cleverly cut and pasted a bunch of definitions and asked Civil War ??
I asked for your own opinion, and you oh-so-slyly said it could be found in the words of others.
I listed 3 reasons (and you provided a fourth) why it isn't a civil war, and I provided two sources.
I also explained why and how and where your rebuttal failed (and spectacularly at that, IMO).
And your response is 're-read- you're wrong'?!?
Who are you fooling?
You started this thread on definitions and now you're whining again about how anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, instead of dealing with the substance of the thread.
| Quote: |
| You're getting to sound a lot like gopher: quibbling over nothing just to be quibbling. |
And you are sounding like the same old EFLTrainer- trying oh so hard to sound knowledgable without actually saying anything of substance.
Did you listen to the podcast I linked to?
Of course you don't have to, that's your prerogative, but here it is again:
| Bulsajo wrote: |
It's no great coincidence that the AUG 31 podcast from Stratfor deals with exactly this subject (the current state of Iraq and specifically the possibility of a civil war), and- since they do not publish transcripts- I strongly urge anyone interested on this subject (like, for example- somebody interested enough to start a thread on the subject) to listen to it.
https://www.stratfor.com/reports/podcasts.php |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.
|
Not at all. You started this thread based on definitions. |
I started it "based on" nothing. Since I expressed NO opinion whatsover, there was nothing to be basing anything on. Get to RC class.
| Quote: |
If the thread was "things sure are *beep* ed up in Iraq right now" you'd hear nothing but agreement from me.
But you didn't. |
Agreement? Until my post above I had posted no opinion whatsover. That you saw one where none was only makes you look petty. Assumptions make one look an awful lot like an ass.
| Quote: |
| You oh-so-cleverly cut and pasted a bunch of definitions and asked Civil War ?? |
I oh-so-cleverly asked a question. That is what I was trying to get you to understand with my early responses. But, it was entertaining to watch you go through gyrations dealing with an opinion you were just dying to play stupid word games with where none had even been expressed.
A question mark is used to show the asking of a question. Get thee back to punctuation class. It was truly bizarre watching you twist a question into a dissertation.
| Quote: |
| I asked for your own opinion, and you oh-so-slyly said it could be found in the words of others. |
I said nothing of the sort. I said the answer to your question was already obvious. And it was. I posted a question with some resources to aid discussion. The anwer was quite simple: I didnt HAVE an opinion at the time. I was asking a QUESTION.
| Quote: |
| I listed 3 reasons (and you provided a fourth) why it isn't a civil war, and I provided two sources. |
So?
| Quote: |
| I also explained why and how and where your rebuttal failed (and spectacularly at that, IMO). |
I didn't post a rebuttal. I posted an opinion with some questions. It's called a discussion. Look up rebuttal. You don't seem to understand what it means.
| Quote: |
| And your response is 're-read- you're wrong'?!? |
You were wrong. When I have time I will educate your sorry ass further.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| You're getting to sound a lot like gopher: quibbling over nothing just to be quibbling. |
And you are sounding like the same old EFLTrainer- trying oh so hard to sound knowledgable without actually saying anything of substance. |
If you were more intelligent, you would understand what's being written. You respond to me with an agenda, so you see what you want to see.
| Quote: |
| Did you listen to the podcast I linked to? |
Did you not read the posts above? See, some of us have jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Be all the definitions I found, it is a civil war, save the one requiring there to be organized armies in pitched battles, essentially, to qualify as a civil war. |
How so?
I just gave 3 clear reasons (do I have to list them again? and you just provided a fourth, above) as to why it's not a civil war.
Please give examples from the definitions you've found to support your claim that it IS in fact a civil war, because you saying "to my mind, it is" doesn't cut a whole lot of ice around here.
| Quote: |
| To my mind, it is a civil war. |
See above.
| Quote: |
| While most consider Al Queda the prime mover in the conflict, that is not the case. |
I have never seen any analysis theorizing or supporting any theory that Al Qaeda is the "prime mover" in the conflict.
Maybe a Bush admin's PR a couple of years ago might have said something to that effect, but that's certainly not 'analysis'.
I don't watch CNN- have they really been pushing the situation in Iraq as mostly al Qaeda-driven?
So I have to ask- who are the "most" you are referring to?
Or are these not your words but an unattributed cut and paste?
| Quote: |
| While a government has been elected and put in place, the "insurgency" is still fighting to gain political advantage and continue reshaping the government. Fighting to do that is civil war, is it not? Also, we have to be careful to not forget that those fighting against the current government/"occupation"/whatever, are the former Baath party for all intents and purposes. So, this is a governmental faction taking up arms. A civil war. Would we not consider it a civil war in the US if, say, the Mormons took up arms to regain the right to polygamy? Or would that just be an insurrection due to scope? With regard to scope, nearly the entire area of Iraq is involved and the capital is an armed camp with scores dying daily. |
Based on the above I would have to say that you have an overly-simplified (and therfore inadequate) understanding of the situation.
I can go into more detail if you'd like.
| Quote: |
The only reason, it seems, that the Kurds are not involved is simple: they are too strong and control too much territory for the insurgents to mount an effective attack against them. Also, they seem content to exist in a live-and-let-live environment. Since they are not Muslim, the insurgency essentially doesn't give a darn about them. |
Here is a clear example of what I mean by overly-simplified: you talk about "the insurgency" as if there is one unified insurgent movement in Iraq.
You say that the "insurgency" leaves the Kurds alone only because they are not Muslim, saying nothing about geography, political and military organization, etc.
You mention religion as a motivation but fail to take into account that while the split may be along religious lines, what has been taking place hasn't been a religious schism but a political power struggle.
Religion is simply one fault line.
It's no great coincidence that the AUG 31 podcast from Stratfor deals with exactly this subject (the current state of Iraq and specifically the possibility of a civil war), and- since they do not publish transcripts- I strongly urge anyone interested on this subject (like, for example- somebody interested enough to start a thread on the subject) to listen to it.
https://www.stratfor.com/reports/podcasts.php
As per George Packer's Assassin's Gate (the single most important book to date in understanding the recent history and ongoing conflict in Iraq) you'll know the civil war has really started when Kirkuk explodes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkuk |
So...how's your hamster's algebra coming along?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is it a civil war, or isn�t it?
| Quote: |
There are objective characteristics that all modern civil wars share. Harvard public policy professor Monica Toft lists six criteria. Hint: Iraq meets all of them.
By Monica Duffy Toft
[email protected]
There are six criteria for considering a conflict a civil war.
Q. Is the focus of the war control over which group governs the political unit?
Q. Are there at least two groups of organized combatants?
Q. Is the state one of the combatants?
Q. Are there at least 1,000 battle deaths per year on average?
Q. Is the ratio of total deaths at least 95 percent to 5 percent? In other words, has the stronger side suffered at least 5 percent of the casualties?
Q. Is the war occurring within the boundaries of an internationally recognized state or entity? |
There's much more to this article. Click on the linked title to read the rest.
FORUM GUIDELINES
| Quote: |
| 11. Articles that are more than 300 words may be edited or deleted. Try to keep your comments concise. If an article is longer, post a link and quote only the really important parts to your argument. |
I've certainly been known to over-quote from time to time, but I don't do it flagrantly in a blatant attempt to "bury" perceived "opponents" in "paperwork." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
