“It’s not just groups A,B, and C, but also the number of foreign insurgents there.
I know and I acknowledged that many times. Goodnight.”

You forgot to respond to:

“Again, if this were simply a war between groups A, B, and C of native Iraqis, then yes, it
would be a civil war. But, once foreign insurgents are involved, especially in large numbers,
this ceases to be simply a civil war but something far different.

Sorry, but I just don’t see any true civil war here, and the Democrats are being disingenuous
by employing that spin, instead of just coming out with their true position, cut and run.”

Or maybe you couldn’t?

It’s not just groups A, B, and C, but also the number of foreign insurgents there.

I know and I acknowledged that many times. Goodnight.

It’s not just groups A, B, and C, but also the number of foreign insurgents there. Again, if
this were simply a war between groups A, B, and C of native Iraqis, then yes, it would be a
civil war. But, once foreign insurgents are involved, especially in large numbers, this
ceases to be simply a civil war but something far different.

Sorry, but I just don’t see any true civil war here, and the Democrats are being disingenuous
by employing that spin, instead of just coming out with their true position, cut and run.

saying that this is turning into a war between Shiites and Sunnis is not the same as saying
that this is a civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites themselves.

No doubt. The religious affiliation really doesn’t matter that much. The Kurds could very well get pulled into the mess too. The only thing that affects whether or not it is a civil war is the degree to which Iraqi groups A, B, and C are fighting with each other.

“I would focus solely on the nature of the current violence. I don’t think it matters what
triggered the current situation. The only question I would ask is: Has the violence between
Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites reached the point of being “war”?”

First, it’s not only a matter of what triggered the violence, the foreign terrorist
insurgents are still there and very much active.

Second, while you are going in the right direction by pointing out a war between the
two Islamic factions, it still falls short of being a civil war. Forgive me if I don’t
know which faction is being helped by the insurgents (is Iran Sunni or Shiite?), but,
saying that this is turning into a war between Shiites and Sunnis is not the same as saying
that this is a civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites themselves. Obviously one party
is now fighting in response to the overwhelming violence from the other party aided by foreign
insurgent terrorists.

Sorry, but I just don’t see any true civil war here, and the Democrats are being disingenuous
by employing that spin, instead of just coming out with their true position, cut and run.

If you agree with my conclusion, i.e. that this is not a civil war

I don’t agree. I haven’t formed an opinion on that.

exactly what reasoning would you employ to demonstrate that this is not a civil war as the Democrats are claiming?

I would focus solely on the nature of the current violence. I don’t think it matters what triggered the current situation.

The only question I would ask is: Has the violence between Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites reached the point of being “war”?

The violence after the war began principally by incoming insurgents from Iran and Syria, later Palestine
as well as what little remnant of the Baath Party that was left to resist. This does not make up a
Civil War.

The Democrats are using the term Civil War to try and get everyone to see that we should just
pack up and leave Iraq to their fate, since we can’t possibly stop a civil war. This is just
a clever spin tactic to cover up what they are really calling for, cutting and running.

If you agree with my conclusion, i.e. that this is not a civil war, but not my reasoning as I have
restated above in this comment, exactly what reasoning would you employ to demonstrate that this
is not a civil war as the Democrats are claiming?

Jeff, this whole conversation between you and me has been about my characterizing the Democrat’s use of “civil war” to describe what is happening in Iraq as being disingenuous. And yet, now you want to pretend like you never agreed with the Democrats?

Go back to comment 10. I disagreed with your reasoning, not your conclusion.

I’m losing patience, Clay. For the fifth time, I have made no such assertion.”

And I am losing patience with you. Jeff, this whole conversation between you and me has been about
my characterizing the Democrat’s use of “civil war” to describe what is happening in Iraq as being
disingenuous. And yet, now you want to pretend like you never agreed with the Democrats?

how can you continue to
maintain, along with the Democrats, that this is a civil war

I’m losing patience, Clay. For the fifth time, I have made no such assertion.

If the violence in Iraq had come from Iraqis themselves in an attempt to thwart a democracy
then, you might have a case.

Some of it is.