What is a [ENC]civil war[/ENC]? Is there a civil war in [ENC]Iraq[/ENC]. Was there a civil war in [ENC]America[/ENC]? A continuation of the discussion in the 'best interest thread'. http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63224 A civil war doesn't have to be between two parties. Where did you get that idea??? A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. 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.[1] wiki
A rather interesting article. Peaceworks 7 Self-Determination Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession Patricia Carley
Some good information that should contribute to whether the War between the State was a Civil War, or a Revolution. It presents three main theories of secession that are applicable to all or part of the various states. http://www.secessionist.us/secession_intro.htm "The denial of the right to secede from a voluntary union is itself a primary justification for secession" American Secession Project Dedicated to placing secession in the mainstream of political thought as a viable solution to contemporary problems. Secession Primer Secession in the United States is a much maligned and misunderstood right. However, Ignorance and hatred of the concept in no way diminish its status as a right. Our very Declaration of Independence is a secessionist document. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; and that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, to effect their safety and happiness. Abraham Lincoln himself was a defender of secession at one point in his career: Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one which suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right-a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own so much of the territory as they inhabit. This excerpt is taken from Lincoln's "If You Can Secede You May" (Mexico) speech, cited in Rupert Emerson, From Empire to Nation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967), p. 450. The right of secession in the US goes to the very heart of how and who formed the United States. John C. Calhoun in his work "Discourse on The Constitution and Government of the United States" lays out the argument that: 1) the United States is a federal, not national government. It is a government representing a collective of states, each of which retains its own sovereignty. 2) The People established their respective states; the states established the federal government. 3) The United States government and the various states have a contractual arrangement (a compact to use Calhoun's word), when either violates the contract it can be nullified or terminated. Many libertarians take a more overarching view of sovereignty. They may recognize the legitimacy of governments at the state level but ultimately they feel that sovereignty resides with the individual. Milder forms of libertarianism are not incongruent with Calhoun's theories. More radical libertarian viewpoints hold that each generation must renew the contract and individuals can withhold consent collectively or individually at any time. There are then, three main theories of secession that are applicable to all or part of the various states
By that reckoning, Los Angeles is definitely involved in a civil war! I wonder if perhaps New York, Chicago, Detroit, Miami and other major cities also are involved in a civil war? By that reckoning, the American civil war would have to be called a "civil war"; but mostly ONLY due to that little blurb "control over a separatist state". If that wasn't in there, the civil war would have been a revolution instead. Baron Max
The American Civil War was most definitely a revolution out of the same mold as the American Revolution of 1776-1789. I always maintained that Lincoln acted illegally in his prosecution of the war and that if the southern states had enacted an emancipation before seceding, they might have gained the recognition from the European powers they needed to survive. That and they never should have invaded the north. You might as well call the Iraq War a civil war, too, though it's a bit more complex than that with Iran, Syria and Saudi heavily (presumably) involved. There's also really no stable political structure to gain control of. Because the fighting is carried out along sectarian lines, and since those lines spill over into neighboring countries, it seems likely that the war will become regional rather than stay confined to the borders of the old Iraq. So this "civil war" phase may be temporary, sandwiched between the invasion phase and the regional phase. Kind of reminds me of the Thirty Years' War, with country after country sucked into a religious war that originally was confined within the German principalities.
You gave a pretty good definition, except the math was a bit funky at the end... ("The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.") Where the hell that additional 800 dead come from? Yes, complicated by an insurgency against the occupying powers...and extra help from the neighbours. No. Actually BR is right in his post. Few people know, but it wasn't even called a civil war for quite sometimes. It was refered to as the War between the States, and Lincoln was a traitor asshole....
Political power to control those regions of the drug trade and anything else they want to control ...like prostitution, gun sales, theft, etc. Spider, I know you don't want or like to call that "political" power, but, pray tell, what the fuck else is it?? Baron Max
You say 'yes', but what is/are the political aspirations of the fighting parties? I've not heard or read one single thing about what they're plans are or how they're going to do it, etc. Even the gangs wars in LA have stated, specific, reasons and aspirations for control of the regions. What is it for those fighting in Iraq? He threw me for a loop on that one, too. I still ain't figured it out yet. Baron Max
Can somebody please tell me how you can have a civil war with a 3rd party playing in it? (nevermind instigating it?)
Hell, there could be any number of parties involved. It would just make things messy and complex and weird. But that's like many, many of the sub-Saharan "wars" in Africa ....many, many different groups are fighting for power of one kind or another, and most or all of them have names like "XYZ Liberation Front" or "People's Liberation Army", etc. They're all trying to "liberate" everyone else from someone else! Baron Max
Seems to me that "political power" specifically deals with making decisions for and /or on behalf of the population (of whatever size). Gangs control profitable activities and the sources of their power (guns and the people to supply the violence). In that sense gangs are not interested in making decisions about the whole series of subjects that concern the body politic, but only about evading the law, making money and accumulating the power surrounding a small subset of those issues. Now if gangs enter the true political arena by killing politicians that block their activities, or by coercing them, or by buying them off, then in that sense they are participating in politics (but only indirectly). This seems to be the situation in places like Colombia and Russia. I have no idea what the specific political aspirations are of, let's say, the Mehdi Army. Presumably it is to exert control over turf, to protect / exploit / control the local population, and to restrict the expansion of rivals. This is more or less what Saddam did - he was one of many thugs, unremarkable except that he managed to claw his way to the top. His "gang" took control of the whole country. One other thing - political power is amenable to growth or restriction through the political process, whereas gang activity and the killing in Iraq is not. Only force can change the shape of it.
But civil is within the nation / country involved though. You can't have 3rd party "outside" of the nation involved and call it a civil war. (not as a major day-to-day player anyways) .
But they don't have to! Why should they take on more than necessary to control the population in a region of a already-functioning city? That would be stupid in the extreme ....even for gang members! I would also suggest that many city governments don't control "all" of the things that happenin their own cities. The state governments control lots of things; the national gov control others. See? Even big city goveenments don't control it all. Thru the political process? Is that what you think revolutions are? And the gangs are, in fact, supplying that force to change the political power. Baron Max
Why not? If, for example, the National Group #2 invites Outsiders #1 to help in their fight against National Group #1, why does that change the name of the game? And if National Group #1 invites Outsiders #2 to help them, how does that change anything? Baron Max
I logged off to see BM's post since he's one of my Ignored 7, I have to reply: You think the daily mass killings and bombings, daily, that have crippled Iraq for years is equal to little gangbanger hoodlums in LA!!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You are a joke! LOL!! (You'd get along Great with Rummy I bet!)
