From: "Mark" 

I'm not sure what Rumsfeld's definition of civil war is, nor do I know what
yours is, though apparently, you pine for a big bang with lots of death so
that the "chimp" Bush and his "poodles" in the UK and
Australia will look bad -- i.e. you seem to want to cut the nose off the
face of the world so that Bush fails 

I don't mean the above in a mean spirited way, but it is the way I see it
after all this time Rich. That said, lets go on to see what "General
Bob" (the senior British representative in Iraq) thinks about the
"civil war:"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/08/mil-060822-dod01.ht
m
====
GEN. FRY: Well, I think it makes a great deal of difference in this
particular case. If you have a civil war, then typically and
characteristically, you have the collapse of the central institutions of
government. In an absence of government, there's the possibility of chaos.
You also tend to lose the instruments of security, and if the army takes
part on one side or the other, then, of course, that can have equally
significant implications. So I don't think we're talking about labels or
military semantics here. I think we're talking about qualitative
differences.

There is a very intense sectarian conflict going on, but it is
geographically defined. It is not resulting in the mass movement of
population, which is characteristically what civil wars do. And it's still
being conducted in an environment which has the central institutions of the
state functioning. Now, that's the situation that I recognize at the
present time. I do not see that as civil war, and neither do I draw glib
differences between civil war and sectarian conflict. I think the
differences are very substantial and still in existence in Iraq today.

...
I think what we've got -- if you look at the whole of Iraq at the present
time is sectarian conflict, which is highly specifically defined in
geographical terms. This is essentially defined by the area between
metropolitan Baghdad and somewhere like Baqubah, which is about 30 to 40
miles away from Baghdad.

Now, within that area, there is a sectarian conflict going on. But I think
that if you're talking in terms of civil war, you would have to look to the
rest of the country. Fourteen out of 18 provinces in this country are
almost free of violence at the present time. We have a government which is
legislating every day, or will be legislating when they come back from the
process of recess, and certainly is governing every day. We have
instruments -- the security instruments are entirely answerable to central
government, and are vigorously being employed on the streets of Baghdad at
the present time. So what I think we have is something which is at the very
best civil war in miniature, at the very best. But I don't think it
actually even meets that definition. I think we have something which is
localized, relatively difficult to deal with, but we're now beginning to
take measures which are genuinely eating into the sectarian violence which
has been operating up until now.
=====

So I dunno Rich, have your way and continue calling it a civil war, I'll
keep assuming that it's going to be fine in the end -- I don't expect that
end any time soon, never did.



"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:44ec8761$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Yep - just cause Rumsfeld doesn't know the definition of civil war doesn't
> mean it's not happening. The only 'frenzied' activity will be the
> apologists for the Bushies seeking explanation for an 'involuntary' call
> up when just several months ago they were parroting a reduction of forces
> and denigrating those who said that was unrealistic in the face of civil
> war.
>
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:44ec83b5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> You guys have been parroting "civil war" since days
after Saddams statue
>> fell (hell, I bet if two Iraqis, a Sunni and a Shia, were shinnying up
>> the rope at the same time that would be the first sign of it), maybe
>> someday it'll be true, but I doubt it.
>>
>> Here's the less frenzied version of the IRR call up: > Reuters version is causing such excitement escapes me, they've always
>> said troop levels will go up and down according to need>
>> http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?id=534
>> The authorization allows up to 2,500 Marines to be on involuntary active
>> duty at any time. But the actual number will depend on how many Marines
>> volunteer for deployments within the global war on terrorism. The service
>> has set up a Web site, https://mcmps.manpower.usmc.mil/MCMPS/GIDA/, to
>> allow IRR Marines and recent retirees to volunteer for war on terror
>> assignments.
>>
>> Officials envision a much smaller number of involuntary activations than
>> the maximum authorization. "There is that chance (of calling up the
>> maximum authorized), even though it seems rather slight,"
O'Connor said.
>>
>> Involuntarily activated Marines will receive at least five months notice
>> before they have to report for an average of 12 to 18 months of
>> additional active duty, officials said. The service is specifically
>> targeting Marines in the combat arms, communications, intelligence,
>> engineer and military police career fields.
>>
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:44ec8060$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> It's the out of control civil war  that will expend all the Pentagon
>>> resources for some time to come.  Were fucked if we stay and probably
>>> more fucked in the region if we leave. George W Bush the best 'fuckin'
>>> president we ever had?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Phil Payne"
 wrote in message
>>> news:44ec6cdd$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> "Phil Payne"
 wrote in message
>>>> news:44ec5a55$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> "Rich Gauszka" 
wrote in message
>>>>> news:44ec53cc{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> > How long will it take before the pool of 35,000
is exhausted?
>>>>>
>>>>> A news item here today suggests that half of the British troops
>>>>> currently
>>>>> engaged will be withdrawn next year, leaving half
"indefinitely".
>>>>
>>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1221071.ece
>>>>
>>>> "A force of around 4,000 British troops will stay
behind in Iraq for an
>>>> indefinite period, even after all provinces controlled by the UK are
>>>> handed
>>>> over to the Baghdad government in nine months' time, senior defence
>>>> sources
>>>> said yesterday."
>>>>
>>>> Just over half.  It looks like the US is building pretty permanent
>>>> bases,
>>>> too.  Welcome to your Northern Ireland - the Iraqi
resistance will not
>>>> rest
>>>> until you're gone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5