Iraq,if the current democratic leader gets assassinated,would that constitute civil war?
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.
865932
If the Iraqi government is strong enough to fully exercise its authority across the country, civil war can be avoidable.
702393
Yes, Iraq is in the civil war now.
216606
who ever is in charge will become a totalitarian GOD. Heads will roll.One world governemnt?.. there isn't a government in exsistance that can handle their own country let alont all countries.. The day we have a one world gov.. there'll be a civil war, we're almost there now
869199
No predictions here. It is obvious. The answer is yes tomorrow they will meet and no nothing will come of it.  That place is in a mess and people are getting either killed by the thousands or leaving in droves by the thousand.  The only people left there soon will be the ones too poor to afford to move anywhere else. No one wants to admit the obvious it is a "CIVIL WAR". I've been in one to know one.
862381
yes i believe a small or mayb a large section the baath ( hope i've spelled that right ) sect of iraq society will martyr saddam.\nprobably not on the scale of buddha.  but enough 2 leave a power-struggle or a vacuum in an already destabilised country.\ni think the toppling of a dictator well/may make a continuing civil war in iraq 4 decades 2 come.\nthanx gw, \nhow thoughtful and sensible, NOT!\nthe lack of consideration by 1 texan village idiot & what he'll do 2 steal oil, hasn't escaped a growing band of disgruntled westerners attention & left us thinking was it really worth it.
1075203
Only if thats what he wants. I think he has retired from public office. The Iraq speech  was bad for him. He was too use to taking orders.
683642
Definitely yes, Bushite regime is attacking the heart of America, with the so called War on terrorism (is War on Democracy) the future of the US seems to be very fearsome and risky, with the organised wars made, US in whole has made a big anti-US community worldwide, the respect that US held a few years back (One of the best Democracy) has now been ruined with the so called "war on terrorism", a state representing or showing faith in democracy should respect the same for others too, how can you justify that "One person did wrong so to punish him I may kill some innocent people who has nothing to do with that person ???" This is in no way democratic, killing of the civilians has brought the US a permanent black spot in the history where no-one if unbiased would justify the wars and the US decisions. Even the US people killed and injured in the same are not less than the people attacked, I always took US as one of the most civilised and democratic and an ideal country but now I think it would be difficult for me to classify US in either of these. Its almost same what Saddam did, He did and his people paid for it, Bush sounds somewhat same but diplomatic, SUBJECT is same, representation is different, so what, PEOPLE ARE KILLED AND IT DOES MATTER (MAY NE NOT TO U.S.) BUT TO THE CHILD WHOSE PARENTS  WERE KILLED, TO THE WIFE WHO IS WIDOWED, TO THE PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN ARE KILLED, TO THE NATIONS WHOSE GENERATIONS ARE KILLED. MR. BUSH COULD YOU PLS EXPLAIN THE DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY, I THINK WE ARE UNDER A WRONG IMPRESSION OF WHAT DEMOCRACY IS? BECAUSE PEACE IS NOT SPREAD BY MEANS OF GUNS, INVASIONS AND ATTACKS, ITS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE NURTURED AND SOWN. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE I CAN SEE IS - ONE PERSON WITH A GUN IS IN UNIFORM SO HE IS CALLED A MILITARY PERSONEL AND THE OTHER WITHOUT THE UNIFORM AND SO IS CALLED A MILITANT, BUT THE MOTIVES REMAIN SAME FOR BOTH. SORRY, BUT NEVER EXPECTED THIS FROM THE MOST CIVILIZED AND EDUCATED SOCIETY LIKE - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
946576
Please......everyone is in denial that there is a civil war going on in Iraq.  Sunnis and Shiites killing and getting killed.  US troops are dying just because they are there.  The Kurds are just smart enough to stay away from civil war because when the Sunnis and Shiites annihilate each other, then the Kurds will have it all.
806938
I think I understand what your asking.  Now that Democrats have control of congress and if the next election is successful for them.. what will happen?  I don't know that answer, but hopefully the next two years will have brought Iraq the independence it needs to govern and protect itself form the insurgents.  So that if we do pull out more aggressively all of this wont have been for nothing.
1137475
The death of Al-Zarqawi will only make a small, brief difference. Cutting off the head of the leader will cause disorder for a brief moment. That means until the terrorists groups in Iraq could find a way to restore their leadership, then some significant changes can be made (which means they will have to be made fast). Once the leader is killed, the next wave of attacks will come, retalitory first. Once a head is cut off, another one will replace it. That's how those terrorists work. So, yes it'll make a difference (small, brief one that is) and yes, another evil s.o.b. will take his place.
787401
On the surface most liberal citizens wouldn't, but the far left is reveling in the instability the Iranian insurgents have caused. The far lefts thirst for power knows no bounds. \nI believe the current war is with Iran the battlefield simply happens to be in Iraq.
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.
817423
Soon...civil war in every sense of the term...is my belief. We can try to stabilize certain aspects but beyond that, they (Iraqi's) must deal with the fact that there is no more Saddam, and now is the fallout of the breaking down of secular agreements and accords inforced by Saddam....it was enevitable this was to be the moment we put boots in Iraq.
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.
884993
Of course it's a civil war, and has been ever since we failed to secure the borders with Iran and Syria.  Personally, I'd be ready to arm the Kurds and tell them to just take over the whole damn country.
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.