why does the civil wars begin after an invation from another country?
442417
most civil wars start from minority groups, religious plurality, and ideological divisions.
660227
The origins of the American Civil War lay in the complex issues of slavery, politics, disagreements over the scope of States' rights, Manifest Destiny, sectionalism, economic competition, modernization, and competing nationalisms of the Antebellum period. Although there is little disagreement among historians on the details of the events that led to war, there is disagreement on exactly what caused what and the relative importance. There is no consensus on whether the war could have been avoided, or if it should have been avoided.
273076
civil war has already started in iraq,otherwise how do we explain the killings of vegetable venders,or butchers,barbers,shopkeepers,etc on thair id ?. in 1990 iraq had 50 well trained divissions with 70 years of accumilated experiance and an 8 years of savage war with iran,and all these forces were barely able to maitain security,how do you expect that onlt 2 divissions of ill trained men with light weapons can controle 450,000km2,and 3500 kms of boarders.how can they controle 28 millions living in cities,mountaines,deserts,and marshes.think of this well.\nif the us forces withdrow now,it will not be a civil war only,but halfe of iraq will be kaeda-stan,and the other halfe will go to iran.
3911
well it's a long story. It starts with the independence process of latinoamerian countries. Originally, Bolivia used to belong to the peruvian "virreynato", but it was severed by Bolivar wishes. Since then, Peru didn' have any borderline with Chile, while Bolivia did. Time after there was a saltpeter boom worldwide. Saltpeter was used for agriculture. Bolivia had saltpeter and so did Peru, but not Chile. Then started the 1879 war. Chilean historicians say that the war started for other reasons, but peruvian an bolivean say that the reason was the saltpeter.\n\nPeru and Bolivia had a treaty: In case of being attacked any of those, the other would militarly help the other country. It was a terrible war. Bolivia was defeated and abandoned the war and lost all it's coast (that's why Bolivia does not have a sea). But the war still went on and Peru stood alone fighting. Peru was inferior militarly speaking and lost the war and land too. Chilean soldiers conquered Lima and started to destroy the cities they conquered. It was painful for peruvian people, for both losing land and having the cities raped.
397421
There are 4 primary causes of the US civil war (I'm assuming this is the one you want).\n\n1.  federalism--favouring a strong centralized government as opposed to strong state governments.\n2.  slavery\n3. expansionism--extending control into new territory\n4.  sectionalism--blind focus on the interest of a section or region instead of the whole.
588568
I can't believe that someone is asking this question.  Are you American?  Have you never heard of that horrible thing called the "Civil War"?  It's a shame people are so uninterested in American history, especially history that reshaped our country.\nGet a book and read it.\nWhile you are reading that book, you might want to look at a dictionary so you can find the correct spelling of the word "what".  I know, it's a tough one.
280703
Which Civil War? I believe the British have had several, starting with the Norman Conquest.
654469
Just read this:  http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm\n\nThe war started out as a dispute between Austria-Hungary and Serbia over the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, but escalated as other countries entered the melee.\n\nHistory can fault Germany because they lost.
686801
The Civil War wasn't about immigration.
573663
You are going to have to restate your question.  And which civil war are you talking about?  There have been many (not everyone on this service will assume that you are talking about the War of the Roses, like I am).
1124275
They are too wrapped up with domestic issues. There has been a civil war there for over a decade. Who else is not a member? Aren't there only 72 nations...shouldn't there be more?\n\nWhale Killers Suck!
932876
when a nation is at war with it's own people
696213
Unfortunately there is not definition for Civil War in any Military Dictionary in the United States, and the CIA won't say because the information is classified. Experts say that due to the level of violence, the death toll and the way the Country is splitting up, it has already reached civil war status. The death toll has exceeded that of a number of civil wars in recent history although I can't remember which ones. Other experts say that if it isn't a civil war than it is much worse because instead of just two groups fighting there is fighting between the Sunni's and Shittes, different groups of Shiites fighting each other as well as Kurds fighting the Arabs. So to answer your question, our Republican Government will never admit it's in civil war until they are out of office and can blame it on the Democrats because there is no definite definition of what classifies a Civil War. But what is clear is that it is a terrible situation that could have been avoided had we had responsible people running our Government.
652298
The two major reasons for wars have been religion and nationalism.  If we did not have religion but still had nationalism, we would still have wars although I imagine they would be much less.\n\nThe current conflicts in Iraq between muslim factions is caused by religion and not by nationalism yet the problems in Ireland are of religious and nationalistic origins.\n\nIts funny when the clergy on both sides claims that God is on their side..just like when boxers get into a ring and each one prays to God to have the strength to beat the crap out of the other one....
20036
I think I understand your question.  To engage in a civil war, it would take the participation of an enemy to the "conservatives" (e.g., the "liberals").  Fundamentalist right-wing ed conservative radicals are paid no more attention by educated liberals than the grasshoppers jumping from weed to weed in the sunny summertime, so the civil war isn't likely to transpire.
65923
The reason for all our fighting is simply access to resources and perception of power. There is always going to be limited resources somewhere or another. People will always hoard in times of crisis, and will not think of their neighbors' welfare. Religious, cultural and racial allegiances will always be important dividers. Rich lands, poor lands, water, my pollution going to your country, my poor migrating to your country, my technology, your oil, etc. Who decides who gets to keep that? Several powers are entitled to it by one reason or another, so they'll tear it off each other's hands.
386169
Good question!! So many possible reasons.  The obvious fact is that starting war with many of those might start a war so big no one can win.  It might destroy humanity.  WWlll.  They have nuclear and we are unable to dominate or change them.  They are who they are.  \nIt might also be because we have somewhat of a foothold already in those countries, being more accessible.  Unlike the latter three.  But historically to what you are talking about overall...although you might want to rephrase your question to be clearer.  To answer that, because that is how the right continues their reign of power in the world.  By conquering weaker less dominant countries, thus destroying them and leaving some sort of colonial foothold in that country so that we have access to resources, territory and well, cheap labor...slave labor for example.  This is how England and various other colonies dominated the world, by taking over countries little by little and ultimately how they gained their power and stance in the world.  Not by hard work or brilliance, but by domination and oppression.  \nIn response to many of the other comments, they're right...it's not always the Repubs or Consevs because a name is just a name...a front.  How the they conduct themselves in the world is what truly describes their stance.  Are they truly progressive or conservative and not moving forward to benefit all their countrymen or humankind is how they should be judged..not by their title! \nNevertheless, reactionaries and the media can bash the left but the TRUE BLUE progressives do not oppress or take over other people's countries.  Maybe some in sheep's clothings calling themselves a Democrat or what ever have conquered or attacked other countries but they were not progressives, humanitarians. \nNew conservatives(Neocons)/new Republicans(instead of true traditional Repubs) feel that sense of entitlement, you know...maninfest destiny.  As their ancestors did(read history).  God told them to do it, they are entitled by God or by race..etc.  It's tied in with religion, race and monetary philosophies that drive people like that to conquer others.  I have also noticed that people on the right, throughout history whatever they call themselves, tend towards less compassion, less humanity and more brutality.  They seem almost able to separate themselves from humanity to justify their actions of domination and expansion.  (Columbus, Pinochet, Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Bush(es), Thatcher etc...)  All destroy humankind by some form of brilliant propaganda tied in with God and money/resources.  \n\nHope that helps!  \n\nMy question is...when will is stop?? Can it be changed in the minds of many humans....it seems that many people don't care about others and do feel it is ok to conquer or dominate others.  Sad but true. \n\nPeace.