is the civil war in Iraq called democracy?
439739
I guess only UK, USA and Iraq leaders are insistently rejecting the civil war. I wonder how many more tortured death Iraqi bodies should be found in the streets to make them accept it, accept the CIVIL WAR and that IT WAS A MISTAKE. I am against foreigner interferrence in Iraq since the beginning. But I hope USA & UK is not planning to leave Iraq without cleaning up THEIR MESS. \n\n\nOFFICIAL: UNDECLARED CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ\n\n".....\n\nDespite the violence, U.S. officials have discounted talk of civil war. However, A SENIOR IRAQI OFFICIAL said Saturday that an "UNDECLARED CIVIL WAR" had already been raging for MORE THAN A YEAR.\n\n"Is there a civil war? Yes, there is an undeclared civil war that has been there for a year or more," Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal told The Associated Press. "All these bodies that are discovered in Baghdad, the slaughter of pilgrims heading to holy sites, the explosions, the destruction, the attacks against the mosques are all part of this."\n\nHis comments were echoed by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.\n\n"Civil war has almost started among Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and those who are coming from Asia. The situation is uneasy and I don't know how would Iraq be brought together," Mubarak said in an interview broadcast Saturday on Al-Arabiya satellite television.\n\n...."  \n\nhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-08-iraq_x.htm\n\n\n"..We have replaced a military dictatorship with a religious one, for the time being. Now we have Islamic parties, both Sunni and Shia and they are imposing their ideology on the people. No-one is capable of standing up to them. Lots of the killing we are seeing, and the violence, is because of this kind of ideology. \n\nIf you stand up, you will be eliminated. SO WHAT'S NEW? It's the same thing as under Saddam, but now we are dealing WITH SEVERAL SADDAMS, not just one..." Saad Al-Izzi /Iraqi\n\n\n" I want my message to reach the Americans themselves. If their goal was to create the new Middle East and the foundation of a democratic example of a country that chooses its leaders, then I will tell them that the result of their military action is totally the opposite. \n\nThe majority of people in the Middle East are now holding their leaders close to them even if they are unfair, because they fear facing the same fate as Iraq. \n\nTHE MILITARY ACTION DID NOT WORK....." Samir Ali / Iraqi\n\n\nLife in Iraq: Ask our panel \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4883964.stm
687100
I'm sure there will be several posts to suggest that the recent violence in Iraq this month, and certainly during April, are evidence of a brewing civil war in Iraq, but the reality based upon fact, is simply not there.\n\nSati al-Husri, considered the 'father of modern Iraq,' purported before his death that there would be struggles within the frame of the Iraqi State because of the religious factions existing within her borders.  This is a fundamental issue, and the West has come to recognize it all too well.  \n\nHowever, despite Iraq's cultural/religious inequity, Sati taught his children and grandchildren, that Sunni Muslims of which sect he belonged, could equally coexist with the Shi'a and Kurds. There was no conflict in his family's inner circle.  He proved that enlightened intellectual thought could countermand extremist ideology without compromising religious piety.\n\nBut although al-Husri's ideas are easy to agree with, especially from a Western point of view, they are not so easy to implement, especially in the current climate of terrorism.\n\nThe underpinning to all of the conflict in Iraq is not a brewing civil war among its Muslim factions, but rather an insurgency that cannot see the value of peace in the Middle East.  They tend to look through their extremist eyes with a 'jihadi' philosophy.  The insurgents will attempt to insight the Iraqi people into warring with each other.  This is not for the gain of the Iraqi people; it merely creates the atmosphere of unsettled violence for them. And the insurgents could care less about an Iraqi unified state either. Instead, they want their terrorist agenda to move forward...at all costs.\n\nTo that end, they will foment unrest, spatter the media with words of 'Civil War,' and create a masterful stroke of using the West against itself.  Fortunately, the Iraqi people are resolved to follow Sati al-Husri's example:  Freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of commerce are the seeds to grow an independent state.  Violence and terrorism have no place in such a united country.  Democracy is the manifold weapon against al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, and the insurgents simply can't stand it.\n\nAs to the $4.00 gallon of gas, I doubt this will come to fruition, much as the media seems to hope it will.  We cannot discount those politicians who have a stake in the November elections either.  They seem to throw out this vague threat as though it were a weapon.\n\nThere is no doubt that we may come close to the mark in some sections of the country, especially over the summer months. But Americans in general will not accept this increase, and the government knows it.  So do the oil companies and our allies producing oil.  It is not in their best interests to price themselves out of the market.  There will likely be caps before the $4.00 per gallon rate is reached.  After all, once again, this is an election year.  Politicos have a reason to make sure the voters are looking at their names with favor. The first place the voter’s feel the pressure of Washington is at the pump.  You may be assured that the first place Washington will compromise is also at the pump.
698921
I can't be very specific but I know a democracy is a system where the people vote for their representatives and all the laws/bi-laws that govern the country.
929332
Leaders do not have to die for it to be a civil war.  It IS a civil war because you have one faction within a country fighting another faction inside that same country for control.  I don't care what the White House wants to call it, those who decide not to be ignorant will recognize a civil war when they see one.
865490
No ... How can someone force democracy on someone else? If it's forced, then is it really a democracy? If there is ever to be democracy or peace over there, then they will have to resolve it themselves.
12618
Iraq can become a secular democracy by building secularism (secularity?) into their constitution.  By explicitly establishing that church and state should remain separate, and by further defining the limitations of one upon the other, they can establish a secular democracy.\n\nOf course, any true democracy will reflect to some degree the moral/religious leanings of a majority of its voting citizens.  A democracy is not inherently secular or religious.  It is inherently of, by, and for its people and nothing more.
506504
I think each country must fight it's own wars if it wants democracy.  If the people want it badly enough they'll do so, it's not up to others to step in and hand it to them or cram it down their throats.
179764
We may be the cause of a civil war in Iraq.  What the U.S. did was wrong trying to impose our type of government upon others.  Democracy is not for all countries.  Who has killed (or will be killing) more Iraqies?  Saddam or the U.S.(directly or indirectly)\n\nAlso, the U.S. wants democracy yet will not support Palestine's democratic results.  I do not agree with Palestine's point of view but, if they were elected, we have no say in the matter.  Bush wants democract only if the people elect those who Bush wants elected.
772623
The Bush Dictatorship has nothing to do with Democracy, just look at his working example in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is enough radiation in those Countries to light them up for decades.
536984
Yes they are in civil war and until it is over and they decide who is going to lead them we won't know, it could be worse then Saddam before it is over. There is nothing that we can do to change it.
541874
iraq has a chance if they let their government run the country without interference fron the religious zealots...by the way..we are not trying to impose democracy on them, we are trying to bring freedom from a tyrant to them..if you think about it..we would have allready been out of there if it wasnt for the fascist terrorists the liberals love making excuses for and trying to appease\niraq has a better educated class of people than most middle east countries and intelligence is a prerequisite for wanting to be free...its only when the religious leaders and civilian leaders and family leaders work in concert to keep their citizens oppressed and out of the loop of information that a society stays behind the world that is succeeding...\nif iraq wqants to come into the 21st century and use information the right way instead of stifling it, then it will eventually become successful
763952
Well, one difference is that the U.S. Civil war began over the issue of State's rights.  The federal government wanted more control over what went on in the states and the southern states believed that the Federal government should have limited power (as outlined in the U.S. Constitution).  Although it is often thought of as a war over slavery, the real issue was whether or not the Feds could control the states.\n\nThe "civil war"  (not really offcially declared at this point) in Iraq has to do with groups of people who flat out don't like each other and don't want to live with each other.
991842
What is happening now is what will happen when we leave.  There is no real democracy in Iraq, democracy is a heck of a lot more than votes.  It is a collection of shared social and political values put into a formal construct.  Iraqis do not have the values, the experience, and the sharing that would produce democracy.  Sectarian strife will continue, intensify when we leave, and the only thing that will keep Muslim extremists from taking over will be a situation much like the one we ruined, rightly or wrongly, by invading.
167017
Personally, I do not have a definition for a “Civil War,” because I believe that such a thing does not exist. Now grant  it that war is an unavoidable thing on this earth, and that will probably never change. Yet, to call the deaths, torture, bombing, massacring, and hurting and capturing of innocent people “civil” is beyond me. The same to can be said about the whole notion of a “Holy War.” There is nothing holy in war at all - even if it is for a particular belief.
1156101
I think you have a grasp on the situation in Iraq, we do have no business there in the first place and in all wars innocents are killed. Americans for the most part have no idea what war does to a country and its people because we have had none here since 1860. The death, the destruction that we have caused Iraq in the name of democracy is just wrong. I know that Saddam was not a  cool dude but we cannot and should not try to right every wrong through out the world. It just isn't possible.
943775
After the war is won, Iraq is a functioning Democracy, and the Iraqi government and military can stand alone.
943590
According to the definition in American History,\nThere must be TWO separate governments.\nStrangely, the British might look at the American Revolution as a colonial civil war.\nAlso, the South might look at the American Civil War as the Southern Revolution (albeit failed).\nThe French Revolution was to the Louis XVI, possibly a Civil War, although I think he would have considered it a Revolt, at least in the beginning.\n\nThe Winners always write the History Books and Define the terms.\n\nAs for Iraq, One of my friends said this new "Two or Three Separate states" idea may carve it up like former E/W Germany, but not for the same reasons.\n\nCurrently neither government in Iraq is firmly established (Their American supported leaders or the "Insurgency"). It is under a military occupation and an ongoing state of semi-anarchy.\n\nIsrael and Palestine is much more a case for Civil War. As the Palestians have established a government that has recognition by foreign leaders and seeks independence.\n\nThe schism between Sunnis and Shi'ite Muslims dates back to the death of Mohammed and who would be his sucessor and properly interpret his message. \n\nAs I recall there were centuries of violence and opression between Christian factions (some still continue), we are fools to think we can resolve this issue for Islam. Change must be internal.\n\nWe continue to damage the country with our presence, leaving early would still damage it further. We have a moral obligation to resolve Iraq, but not the capability or ideal strategy at this time. It is a real conundrum.\n\nPersonally, I think the division is the ultimate (meaning final and inevitable, but not "best") solution. It may be 40 some years, like in the case of Germany, for them to put aside their differences, if not a day short of forever.\n\nAfter all this blood shed, no one is going to forget or forgive easily.\n\nOne IMPORTANT note: This hasn't been a horrible American War by any means. It has actually been one of the safest. LOOK AT THE DEATHS OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. If you add ALL Deaths from 9/11, casualties of war, and deaths of Iraqis it barely comes close to the American Revolution (100,000+). Or either World War.\n\nAre we chickening out? Giving up? Calling it quits?\nMaybe leaving now will save more American lives?\nMaybe it will led to more violence in Iraq?\n\nThere are no easy answers facing the nation.\n\nBut as to answer you questions, in my opinion,\n\nIraq is a sorry mess, but not a True historical Civil War.\nThat remains to be written.