It would seem, that blood is being used to fill our SUVS and not oil—unfortunately, for the many thousands dead—the world has learned, what having a “tiger in their tank,” really means.

So it’s cool to call it a civil war now.  How long until we get to say Iraq was better off with Saddam?

Eleanore, if ONLY it would morph into a South American-style dictatorship. Or even an Egyptian or Libyan-style one. Loathsome as these are, they would still kill fewer Iraqis than what’s happening now. I’m afraid that it’s inevitable that Iraq will become Afghanistan with oil. Instead of a dominant Sunni state fighting renegade ethnic areas like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, it will be a dominant Shiite state fighting a Sunni sector in Iraq’s west, with a breakaway Kurdish statelet in the north. Three-way conflict, with masses of poor people having to move into their ethnic ghettos while under attack, a la partition of the Indian subcontinent 1947.

And the cancer of anarchy will spread to the surrounding region, fueled by fuel oil and the money it generates. Americans will be sending dollars to the people who are plotting terror attacks on America every time they fill their SUVs. I see no way out of it. The law of unintended consequences says the blowback is gonna be a bitch. Batten the hatches! (Easier to do in Canada and Australia, eh?)

What word is there for “destroying an entire country of 25 million people”? I’d say “country-cide” but that sounds too pleasant when it falls off the tongue.

Bukko,

That was very clever.  A cynic might conclude, that chaos in Iraq is intentional—anarchy paves the way for acceptance of a new dictator—a new Saddam—“our” Saddam—a guy the U.S. could do business with. 

A civil war instigated to promote a fascist regime—democracy in Iraq will morph into a “70’s style South American dictatorship—it’s too bad history does repeat itself.

I am tired and fed up of hearing daily, all the “confusion” regarding the current state of IRAQ; here is the scoop - -
As per the DICTONARY:
civ·il war (plural civ·il wars)
noun Definition: war within country: a war between opposing groups within a country

As per the ENCYCLOPEDIA:  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. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.
Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict.
So there you have it folks, IT IS A CIVIL WAR !! - -  - - - on its way to a full scale REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!

How brave, how courageous, what heros have we here!  Far from the odor of gunshot but braving the ire of a weakened government they will actually say the words…Civil War.
Gentlemen, we are overwhelmed.  You can believe it, no one impagined such a fearless act…after how many years?

Just few weeks after the election.
Bravo, National Broadcasting Company….you scooped Katie Couric!

Ofcourse it is a Civil War! There are clearly lines of religious divisions that are so violently opposed to one another that they are willing to kill each other. The majority, the Shia in Iraq, entertain the thought of commiting genocide on the Sunnis. The only reason our government has been able to sell the sectarian violence as merely isolated, civil strife, is because neither side is well organized or funded, but those criteria are changing fast. Now the U.N. and other nations are seeing it for what it is becoming…A CIVIL WAR! And the U.S. had better get their troops out of the way or we are going to see a very dark day in Iraq!

Now there’s going to be more debate over a phrase. “Is it time to call it a civil war?” And by the time that even the most willfully ignorant right-wingers (by that I mean President Cheney and his sock puppet) are willing to admit what it is, it will have become something even worse.

What word is there for “a war of each against all”? Even “anarchy” does not suffice. “Assass-anarchy” perhaps? What word is there for “destroying an entire country of 25 million people”? I’d say “country-cide” but that sounds too pleasant when it falls off the tongue. Jeers to you, pseudo-religious right-wing spawn of Hell—you’ve started something so evil that there are no words in the English language to describe it. When we do come up with a label for this agonising slaughter of millions, that will be your legacy in the history books.

How do American soldiers know who to shoot? For that matter, how do the Iraqui factions know who to shoot? Someday the only ones left in that part of the world will be the goats.

“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet”

Call the chaos, violence, mayhem, and murder whatever you like—now let’s get the hell out of there!

People die every day during wars. When the daily death toll amounts to double digits in Iraq, it is a war by any definition, civil war or not.

Seems as though months ago people knew this was going to be a civil way, the best minds in Washington (Chaney,Rumsfeld, etc.) denied and denied as though they really thought the american people were going to let these religious, nonlying people back into office, I say that the job is not completed, the administration still has not answered the questions, the lying the unreligious religious talk (all bull) but these people actually that thought the american people were going to stay asleep at the war until Bush left office, I say he can still do a lot of damage, impeach the whole administration, Rummy was the beginning, but some people will not be satisfied until they all go.

Marge from Vancouver,Washington

No surprise at all. The civil war in Iraq broke out long time ago and only “blind people” in the stupid administration of King George didn’t see it.

How can we survive with a bunch of such myopic leaders ?

King George’s foreign policy is a kind of “blow job” program which was carried by an ineffective and shallow secretary.

I’m speechless!!! A patriot, an all-American boy, a Matt Lauer has become a leaker, an enemy of freedom, a turncoat, a subversive, a Bin-laden wannabe, and finally a fascist. Tap him, tape him, it’s off to Gitmo he goes.

Iraq is not in a civil war until the Decider says it is.

My first thought was, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc., but, I will settle for “Well, it’s about time”.

If a change in terminology gets us out of this debacle faster, then I guess thanks to NBC for the nod.

I love the way the right wing loves to blame the media for 1,000,000 differnet problems and only stops long enough for the left wing to blame the media for 1,000,000 different problems. It’s like tag team wrestling. I’m sure that the NBC decision the right wing is now in the ring.