Is Iraq in Civil war?
147907
In my opinion, Iraq isn't involved in a civil war. It's involved in a US-induced revolution.
485183
Iraq is in a civil war.  The United States does not need to declare it for it to be true.
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.
510252
The Iraqi people are involved in a civil war now and if we leave now or later doesn't make any differnce they will be involve in a civil war, I say pull out now and let them settle it. No more American lives should be lost to a lost cause, and a misguided war from the begining.
622988
Certainly. Iraq, for instance, was secular before the invasion and Turkey still is.
902113
Absolutely and inequitably yes.  History continues to prove this, even when were were less people on the earth; the more people, the more demand for land, resources, power, etc.  There will always be war, unless we had one all powerful world dictatorship type of government, and even then civil wars would inevitably break out to reinstate liberties and freedoms suppressed by the Glorious Leader of the one government, and one subscribed way of thinking.
29312
Sure, it is! Many civil wars in countries in Africa are still raging on.
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.
280703
Which Civil War? I believe the British have had several, starting with the Norman Conquest.
387927
No, besides a civil was is between people of the same country not people from another country. Mexico couldn't win a war against a high school football team, let lone against the only super power in the world.
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.
442417
most civil wars start from minority groups, religious plurality, and ideological divisions.
932066
Religious groups have been fighting for centuries. Now that Saddam is not there to cut their heads off if they misbehave I guess there will be civil war for at least 5 more years. Then some big dictator or religious fanatic will take charge.\n\nThey have lots of oil so someone will want to be in control besides G.W. Bush and the Christian Right.
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.
1000481
This is not a good question. I would say define the fight that you see in the Muslim World, and I'll be able to tell you why you have the fight. \nIf Iraq is what you have on your mind, then Iraq has a large segment of Shia Muslims that were oppressed over the course of Sadam Hussein (who happened to be a Sunni, and who oppressed Sunnis as well) rule, and now the US enabled the Shia to claim power in Iraq. With that said now you have 3 reasons for fighting in Iraq:\n1- Getting the invaders (the US from the prospect of some Iraqis) out. \n2- Those who want to keep the old statuesque (mainly sunnis)\n3- Reprisal killings conducted by Death Squads (some infiltrating the current Interior Ministry) and those have been links to Shia factions taking out mostly Sunnis.\nHope that gives you a little bit of detail on the Iraqi situation.\n\nOne more element you need to take into account,  if I come out say "Christians in America are fighting each other, see what the Christian Eric Rudolph did to the abortion clinic run by fellow Christians, or see what the FBI Christian agents did to the Christians in Branch Davidian", I would not call these comments fair nor responsible. Muslims around the World who worship the one Creator of the Heavens and the Earth ought to get the same  fair and responsible treatment from the Christians in the West.
602003
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).\n\nUltimately the distinction between a "civil war" and a "revolution" or other name is arbitrary, and determined by usage. The successful insurgency of the 1640s in England which led to the (temporary) overthrow of the monarchy became known as the English Civil War. The successful insurgency of the 1770s in British colonies in America, with organized armies fighting battles, came to be known as the American Revolution. In the United States, and in American-dominated sources, the term 'the civil war' almost always means the American Civil War, with other civil wars noted or inferred from context.\n\nWhat is generally agreed upon is that factors such as nationalism, religion, and ideology, played little role in pre-modern civil wars. While it is quite common for nationalists to read past revolts, such as those of Scotland against England as early stirrings of nationalism, this is a somewhat suspect notion. Religion is more contentious, there are some civil wars that can be seen as fueled by religion in early years, such as the Jewish Revolts against Rome, but these can also be seen as revolts by a servile people against their oppressors or uprisings by local notables in an attempt to gain independence.
817317
Currently, it's in Iraq.