Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Civil War??
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: Civil War??

http://fsi.stanford.edu/news/civil_war_definition_transcends_politics_20060410/

Quote:

civ|il war (siv-el w�r), n. 1 a violent conflict between organized groups within a country

By James D. Fearon, PhD

Does the conflict in Iraq amount to a civil war? In many ways, the public debate over this question is largely political. Calling Iraq a "civil war" implies yet another failure for the Bush administration and adds force to the question of whether U.S. troops still have a constructive role to play.

Politics aside, however, the definition of civil war is not arbitrary. For some -- and perhaps especially Americans -- the term brings to mind all-out historical conflicts along the lines of the U.S. or Spanish civil wars. According to this notion, there will not be civil war in Iraq until we see mass mobilization of sectarian communities behind more or less conventional armies.

But a more standard definition is common today:

1) Civil war refers to a violent conflict between organized groups within a country that are fighting over control of the government, one side's separatist goals, or some divisive government policy.

By this measure, the war in Iraq has been a civil war not simply since the escalation of internecine killings following the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, but at least since the United States handed over formal control to an interim Iraqi government in June 2004.

(There's more there to read.)

http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-war-1

Quote:

Dictionary:

civil war, n.
A war between factions or regions of the same country.

Quote:

Legal Encyclopedia:

Civil war exists when two or more opposing parties within a country resort to arms to settle a conflict or when a substantial portion of the population takes up arms against the legitimate government of a country. Within international law distinctions are drawn between minor conflicts like riots, where order is restored promptly, and full-scale insurrections finding opposing parties in political as well as military control over different areas. When an internal conflict reaches sufficient proportions that the interests of other countries are affected, outside states may recognize a state of insurgency. A recognition of insurgency, whether formal or de facto, indicates that the recognizing state regards the insurgents as proper contestants for legitimate power. Although the precise status of insurgents under international law is not well-defined, recognized insurgents traditionally gain the protection afforded soldiers under international rules of law pertaining to war. A state may also decide to recognize the contending group as a belligerent, a status that invokes more well-defined rights and responsibilities. Once recognized as a belligerent party, that party obtains the rights of a belligerent party in a public war, or war between opposing states. The belligerents stand on a par with the parent state in the conduct and settlement of the conflict. In addition, states recognizing the insurgents as belligerents must assume the duties of neutrality toward the conflict. See also U.S. Civil War; war.

Quote:

WordNet:

The noun civil war has one meaning:

Meaning #1: a war between factions in the same country

Quote:

Wikipedia:

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject:

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?

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject:

I think the Civil War, while it cost the United States a lot of blood, ultimately resolved a burning problem and contradiction. In a lot of ways, from the North's perspective, this war was the 'good war,' if a war characterized by disease, bayonetting, and spraying people with bullets and cannons can be called good. The United States preserved its unity, while effectively preventing the outgrowth of slavery to the South, by which I mean south of the current border into South America, which was the South's open aspiration (hey, let's compromise, you get Canada, we get the Southern hemisphere, I mean, our cotton is destroying our land and we gotta go South!).

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:22 pm Post subject:

The Europeans were pretty close to sending in "peace keepers" because of the American Civil War. Between what seemed like inhuman carnage and American attacks on European shipping, they had George Bushian reasons to intervene. One of the things keeping them out is it would have perpetuate slavery. What would America be like today if they didn't have their little blood fest?

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:09 am Post subject:

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.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:11 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

The Europeans were pretty close to sending in "peace keepers" because of the American Civil War. Between what seemed like inhuman carnage and American attacks on European shipping, they had George Bushian reasons to intervene. One of the things keeping them out is it would have perpetuate slavery.

What would America be like today if they didn't have their little blood fest?

I've never heard that before. Links? I disagree with the portrayal of their reasons and Dumbya's as being on par, but, again, this is news to me...

Boodleheimer

Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Location: working undercover for the Man

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:35 am Post subject:

does this mean that the first george bush was right in not "finishing the job" in 1991? looks that way.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:02 am Post subject:

Nearly everything on this thread so far except any discourse about whether or not Iraq is now in a civil war.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:36 am Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

mindmetoo wrote:

I've never heard that before. Links? I disagree with the portrayal of their reasons and Dumbya's as being on par, but, again, this is news to me...

I'm always amazed that so many Americans never learn Lincoln feared European intervention and the Brits were very close to entering the war against the Union.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:18 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

What would the world be like today? A lot worse for the extension of Southern slavery. Britain was wise to stay out, the history of Latin American intervention by America would have been replaced by a history of Latin American conquest.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject:

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?

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.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject:

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?

My take is painfully obvious to all but the fool. As they say, better to keep it shut...

What a fool. There is a good issue to discuss here, yet all you can do is engage in an irrelevant pissing contest. Have fun pissing all over yourself.

flip ant

Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Location: He's got high hopes!

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject:

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?

What, are we to get your "take" from your shrill blathering on other threads? What you pasted were other people's opinions, not yours. I think Bulsajo's questions were legitimate and your responses (or lack thereof) show just how far you have to come to be able to discuss anything in a mature, adult fashion. Now, back to Romper Room with you!

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:35 pm Post subject:

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?

More pissing. Too bad it isn't winter, we could all write our names.

BTW, there were no opinions posted by me. They are all definitions. So, what is your opinion about Iraq, as opposed to the size of your dick?

I'll wait for an intelligent lifeform to show up to explain to you all why Bulsa's question(s) was unnecessary and pointless. I myself will point out that it was not asked in good will or with good intent, which made it even less worthy of reply than the fact it was a stupid question to begin with.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:14 pm Post subject:

Quote:

EFLtrainer wrote:
mindmetoo wrote:
The Europeans were pretty close to sending in "peace keepers" because of the American Civil War. Between what seemed like inhuman carnage and American attacks on European shipping, they had George Bushian reasons to intervene. One of the things keeping them out is it would have perpetuate slavery.

What would America be like today if they didn't have their little blood fest?

I've never heard that before. Links? I disagree with the portrayal of their reasons and Dumbya's as being on par, but, again, this is news to me...

I'm always amazed that so many Americans never learn Lincoln feared European intervention and the Brits were very close to entering the war against the Union.

Not to perpetuate stereotypes here, but Americans are likely too self-absorbed to know anything about foreign involvement in their own affairs, and Europeans are too pumped up on their own self-righteousness to admit they ever had any connection to American slavery. Hence, British support for the Confederacy goes largely unmentioned in the popular discourse.

Karl Marx wrote about British sympathy for the slave states while the Civil War was going on. He was pro-Union, seems to have regarded Lincoln the same way that southern partisans did, ie. as a social revolutionary.

Quote:

London, October 20, 1861
For months the leading weekly and daily papers of the London press have been reiterating the same litany on the American Civil War. While they insult the free states of the North, they anxiously defend themselves against the suspicion of sympathising with the slave states of the South. In fact, they continually write two articles: one article, in which they attack the North, and another article, in which they excuse their attacks on the North.

In essence the extenuating arguments read: The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty. Finally, even if justice is on the side of the North , does it not remain a vain endeavour to want to subjugate eight million Anglo-Saxons by force! Would not separation of the South release the North from all connection with Negro slavery and ensure for it, with its twenty million inhabitants and its vast territory, a higher, hitherto scarcely dreamt-of, development? Accordingly, must not the North welcome secession as a happy event, instead of wanting to overrule it by a bloody and futile civil war?

Point by point we will probe the plea of the English press.

The war between North and South -- so runs the first excuse -- is a mere tariff war, a war between a protectionist system and a free trade system, and Britain naturally stands on the side of free trade. Shall the slave-owner enjoy the fruits of slave labour in their entirety or shall he be cheated of a portion of these by the protectionists of the North? That is the question which is at issue in this war. It was reserved for The Times to make this brilliant discovery. The Economist, The Examiner, The Saturday Review and tutti quanti expounded the theme further. It is characteristic of this discovery that it was made, not in Charleston, but in London. Naturally, in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place. When South Carolina had its first attack of secession in 1831, the protectionist tariff of 1828 served it, to be sure, as a pretext, but only as a pretext, as is known from a statement of General Jackson. This time, however, the old pretext has in fact not been repeated. In the Secession Congress at Montgomery all reference to the tariff question was avoided, because the cultivation of sugar in Louisiana, one of the most influential Southern states, depends entirely on protection.

But, the London press pleads further, the war of the United States is nothing but a war for the forcible maintenance of the Union. The Yankees cannot make up their minds to strike fifteen stars from their standard. They want to cut a colossal figure on the world stage. Yes, it would be different if the war was waged for the abolition of slavery! The question of slavery, however, as The Saturday Review categorically declares among other things, has absolutely nothing to do with this war.

It is above all to be remembered that the war did not originate with the North, but with the South. The North finds itself on the defensive. For months it had quietly looked on while the secessionists appropriated the Union's forts, arsenals, shipyards, customs houses, pay offices, ships and supplies of arms, insulted its flag and took prisoner bodies of its troops. Finally the secessionists resolved to force the Union government out of its passive attitude by a blatant act of war, and solely for this reason proceeded to the bombardment of Fort Sumter near Charleston. On April 11 (1861) their General Beauregard had learnt in a meeting with Major Anderson, the commander of Fort Sumter, that the fort was only supplied with provisions for three days more and accordingly must be peacefully surrendered after this period. In order to forestall this peaceful surrender, the secessionists opened the bombardment early on the following morning (April 12), which brought about the fall of the fort in a few hours. News of this had hardly been telegraphed to Montgomery, the seat of the Secession Congress, when War Minister Walker publicly declared in the name of the new Confederacy: No man can say where the war opened today will end. At the same time he prophesied that before the first of May the flag of the Southern Confederacy will wave from the dome of the old Capitol in Washington and within a short time perhaps also from the Faneuil Hall in Boston. Only now ensued the proclamation in which Lincoln called for 75,000 men to defend the Union. The bombardment of Fort Sumter cut off the only possible constitutional way out, namely the convocation of a general convention of the American people, as Lincoln had proposed in his inaugural address. For Lincoln there now remained only the choice of fleeing from Washington, evacuating Maryland and Delaware and surrendering Kentucky, Missouri and Virginia, or of answering war with war.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe