|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 04/05/2007 : 05:19:29
|
For awhile, I've felt that the phrase "Iraq War" no longer applies when talking about the US (er, "allied") involvement in that country. In general, the definition of war involves nations or governments, or at least a military force that answers to a leader or group of leaders. Clearly this isn't the case. If the US wanted to offer a truce, to whom would it be offered?
Some have talked about the term civil war, I I find even that inadequate. Even if we reduce the violence to Shiites vs Sunnis (which is almost certainly too simplistic), is there a single person on each side who can, if wanted, call a complete halt (or nearly complete halt) to the voilence?
I'm not sure what it is, but referring to it as a "war" seems almost meaningless, except as a place holder.
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 06:50:17 [Permalink]
|
There are other terms sometimes used which seem more appropriate than "Iraq War". I've seen the word "occupation" used, "occupying forces", "occupying army", and the like. I tend to refer to it as an "invasion" rather than a "war". I think it more accurately describes the situation.
|
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 06:50:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
For awhile, I've felt that the phrase "Iraq War" no longer applies when talking about the US (er, "allied") involvement in that country. In general, the definition of war involves nations or governments, or at least a military force that answers to a leader or group of leaders. Clearly this isn't the case. If the US wanted to offer a truce, to whom would it be offered?
Some have talked about the term civil war, I I find even that inadequate. Even if we reduce the violence to Shiites vs Sunnis (which is almost certainly too simplistic), is there a single person on each side who can, if wanted, call a complete halt (or nearly complete halt) to the voilence?
I'm not sure what it is, but referring to it as a "war" seems almost meaningless, except as a place holder.
I see your points, but the term is useful, especially as there is no other clear term that defines such a mess. The intensity and organization of the violence, I think, makes it a "war," while multiple nature of the local factions makes it no less a civil war than a conflict with just two sides. I think there is now a form of warlordism in Iraq (like China in the early 20th Century, or Somalia for decades prior to the Islamic Courts), which may eventually evolve into a more clear-cut Shi'ia-Sunni civil war as the US leaves and leaders emerge to dominate each sect. (But there's also the possibility that when the US departs, Iran, Syria, Turkey, and/or Saudi Arabia might move in.)
War is Hell, and is this not Hell?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 04/05/2007 06:51:25 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 07:25:13 [Permalink]
|
| This is just another phase of U.S. Empire-building. Call it the "Iraq phase." |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 08:05:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
There are other terms sometimes used which seem more appropriate than "Iraq War". I've seen the word "occupation" used, "occupying forces", "occupying army", and the like. I tend to refer to it as an "invasion" rather than a "war". I think it more accurately describes the situation.
But the invasion is over. Right? Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky, but when someone aks (me or a politician or a pundit on TV or radio) something like "what do you think of (or what would you do about) the Iraq war" they are of course talking about the here and now. But to me, the Iraq war ended awhile ago. (As did the invasion, at least as I see it...) Now it's just borderline anarchy. One could say "the situation in Iraq" but that sort of glosses over things. I don't know. I don't have a point really, except that I can't think of a better way to describe what's happening now, and I don't think "war" (or "civil war") works. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 08:38:03 [Permalink]
|
| It's a war against the people of Iraq. It's an occupation. It's a continuing criminal action. It's a classic divide and conquer strategy. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 08:45:37 [Permalink]
|
How about big goddamn bloody mess?
But more seriously, I think GeeMack's suggestion of "occupation" is most accurate for the US involvement, and once we're more out of it, I think "civil war", however complex the conflicts might be, is most accurate. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/05/2007 08:46:57 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 09:37:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist...
But the invasion is over. Right? Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky, but when someone aks (me or a politician or a pundit on TV or radio) something like "what do you think of (or what would you do about) the Iraq war" they are of course talking about the here and now.
Granted. I haven't thought so much about it in those terms. But if we continue to invade, you know, "surge", then might it not be thought of as an invasion, even in the perspective of a current situation? I don't know.
The question of semantics, the words we use to describe the situation, is a good one. Supporters seem to consider the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq as part of a "war on terror". They often use the word "terrorists" to describe the people of Iraq who are defending their homeland. Even the term "insurgents" has a somewhat negative connotation, like they're "the bad guys", making it seem more acceptable to kill insurgents than it would be to kill Iraqi citizens. So what would be a more accurate way to describe the action and those involved? Again, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 09:46:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
It's a war against the people of Iraq. It's an occupation. It's a continuing criminal action. It's a classic divide and conquer strategy.
I don't think any "classic divide and conquer strategy" involves a giant cluskerfuck like the current situation. If this was the planned outcome, it's not criminal it's batshit insane! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 09:48:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist...
But the invasion is over. Right? Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky, but when someone aks (me or a politician or a pundit on TV or radio) something like "what do you think of (or what would you do about) the Iraq war" they are of course talking about the here and now.
Granted. I haven't thought so much about it in those terms. But if we continue to invade, you know, "surge", then might it not be thought of as an invasion, even in the perspective of a current situation? I don't know.
The question of semantics, the words we use to describe the situation, is a good one. Supporters seem to consider the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq as part of a "war on terror". They often use the word "terrorists" to describe the people of Iraq who are defending their homeland. Even the term "insurgents" has a somewhat negative connotation, like they're "the bad guys", making it seem more acceptable to kill insurgents than it would be to kill Iraqi citizens. So what would be a more accurate way to describe the action and those involved? Again, I don't know.
Ugh. I hate the use of "war on terror" and find it to be completely devoid of meaning. (Unlike "Iraq War" as I at least know what that refers to.) As with all the other lame US "war on..." tags (drugs, poverty, crime, etc.), it's pure propogands and unwinnable. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 14:13:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Ugh. I hate the use of "war on terror" and find it to be completely devoid of meaning. (Unlike "Iraq War" as I at least know what that refers to.) As with all the other lame US "war on..." tags (drugs, poverty, crime, etc.), it's pure propogands and unwinnable.
I think Borat was dead on in saying to an American rodeo audience "I support your War of Terror".
Comedy really seems the best way to deliver such a truthful statement, and also conjure up the image of Penn&Teller's guest appearence in the Babylon 5 series.
Edited to add:
Did Borat say "war of terror" or "war on terror"?
To me, when I heard it, it sounded more like "..of..".
Maybe that's just confirmation bias?
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 04/05/2007 14:19:23 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 14:25:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Edited to add:
Did Borat say "war of terror" or "war on terror"?
To me, when I heard it, it sounded more like "..of..".
Maybe that's just confirmation bias?
No, he definitely said War of Terror. The confirmation bias was when the people responded with thunderous applause. 
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/05/2007 14:25:50 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Iraq "War"?
