If another country invaded us and provoked Americans into a civil war...

[NNN0LHI]

...would that really be a civil war?

Suppose China invaded and occupied us and then found every extremest they could find and gave them badges, uniforms and guns.

Then they sent all the extremist cops of one religious persuasion or color to go off and police the people living in a town predominantly made up of a different religion of a different color in some other state. Find a bunch of racist white people to police decent black people somewhere and then find a bunch of racist black people to go and police decent white people somewhere else and see what happens.

Kind of like throwing a bunch of dogs and cats into a 55-gallon drum together and closing the lid. Isn't it?

How long until Americans would began killing one another like the Iraqis are doing? And would that be a civil war? Or would that just be a psy-ops program? Because that is what Bush is doing in Iraq.

Don

[bluerum]

1. That is what * is doing here too.

[napi21]

2. Sure, and that's part of it, but only part!

I think everyone agrees that Saddam was an evil arrogant guy who ruled Iraq by fear, BUT the people had water, air conditioning, gasoline, food, jobs, etc, and all they had to do was not pi** off their leader.

The Americans invaded and took out that leader, and promised a better life for the Iraqi people. INSTEAD, they have no water, little food, no job, extremely long lines to get gasoline or buy it on the black market for $4.00/gal, part time electricity so they have no A/C in the 120+ degree temps, and they can't leave their homes for fear of getting killed!

IF we could have actually MADE life better for the Iraqi's, it MIGHT be a dfferent story, but we FAILED miserably!

[iamjoy]

3. Shiites And Sunnis Wouldn't Get Along

regardless of whether or not we were there.

[NNN0LHI]

4. Very common for Shiites And Sunnis to intermarry before we arrived

Some poorer Iraqi towns could afford only one Mosque and both Shiites And Sunnis would practice their religion there.

During the destruction of Fallujah by us the Shiites brought food and other assistance to that mainly Sunni city. The USA shipped in Kurdish snipers to kill Sunnis in Fallujah.

Don

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. They got along fine before we got there.

The last time there were overt problems between Shia and Sunni communties in Iraq was in the 20s, when the Brits played up the hostilities to better work their 'divide and conquer' imperialism. Consider, if it was not a mixed, blended community, wouldn't it be a lot easier to control the sectarian violence? There would be no ethnic cleansing if people were already self-segregated. But they weren't. They worked at the same offices, they attended the same schools, they used the same public transport. They worshipped at different mosques.

What's happening there now can only be laid at the feet of GWB.

[RethugAssKicker]

10. They were getting along just fine!!!

They were not warring with each other, as a matter of fact they intermarried quite frequently...

Dont believe the hype!

[leftofthedial]

5. In a US as lawless as Iraq

I'd be knocking off repukes by this time next week . . .

Okay. Maybe not. BUt I can fantasize about it . . .

I think there are murderous extremists in the US--racists, fundamentalists, etc.--who would start using violence almost immediately. But I think so many Americans are so deeply apathetic that it is unlikely to erupt into full-blown civil war. Still, the ideological divide in this country is deep, so who knows?

[Fridays Child]

6. It's a good point...

The other day, I tried to explain why it's not a civil war, over there, and why it's important that we not get hung up on that term.

Bush keeps parroting the phrase "unity government," because it forms the basis of his argument that Iraq is not in a civil war. Based on our own civil war, he defines the term as a splitting apart of the national government into two separate governments. Technically and to a degree, he's correct.

And he has a lot riding on his definition because Congress is threatening to make him seek re-authorization, if Iraq descends into a civil war.

Like our own civil war, Iraq is in an ideological and sectional war. Three main points, however, distinguish the situation in Iraq from the American Civil War: it's a conflict based on religion, the (nominal) government remains intact, and it developed because of a foreign invasion. Of course, the differences are meaningless to the victims, and that's the point we need to make to our representatives. Congress can't wait until the conflict meets every definition of a civil war. Right now, we need to start demanding that Bush seek re-authorization for the continued deployment of troops in Iraq.

[Minnesota Libra]

8. What makes you think that isn't already going on?? Oh yea, we.........

.....haven't resorted to actual weapons yet - well a civil war that isn't truly a civil war doesn't happen over night anyway. I truly don't think it's a question of IF an Iraq style civil war could happen on these shores - rather I think it's a question of WHEN it happens.

[enigma000]

9. I don't know if a civil war would erupt in the US

The ethnic and ideological divides aren't as deep. Saddam played the various ethnic groups against each other while in power, to stay in power. Plus he favoured his tribal group from Tikrit (sp?) which was Sunni over the other provinces. I'm not sure that could be played out in the US.

If the Chinese occupiers installed Ned Lamont as "President" and had elections" that placed Democrats in power, would Freepers be attacking Blue state civilians? I guess no.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. I would probably want the Chinese leaders tried for war crimes

. . . and I would be in the hills with the resistance and planting IEDs by roadsides for Chinese military vehicles.

[Greyhound]

12. It's physically impossible for this to happen, no military or combination

of militaries in existence could successfully invade this country. Many could destroy it with nukes/bio-weapons, but a traditional military invasion is impossible.

The domestic extremists already have guns and many of them have badges, and we're not doing it yet, but if/when they "suspend" the elections, we'll see.

[EstimatedProphet]

13. Sssshhhh! Don't give them any more ideas!

[NNN0LHI]

14. The Rand Corporation was pushing this concept in 2004

http://www.dawn.com/2004/12/28/int6.htm

Differences among Muslims be exploited: US study's recommendation

SAN FRANCISCO, Dec 27: A new study of the Rand Corporation - a leading US think tank - advocates that Sunni, Shia and Arab, non-Arab divides should be exploited to promote the US policy objectives in the Muslim world.

The recently released Rand study - titled "US Strategy in the Muslim World After 9/11" - has been conducted on behalf of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, US Air Force.

One of the primary objective of the study was to "identify the key cleavages and fault lines among sectarian, ethnic, regional, and national lines and to assess how these cleavages generate challenges and opportunities for the United States."

The Study pointed out that the majority of the world's Muslims are Sunni, but a significant minority, about 15 per cent of the global Muslim population, are Shias. It went on to say that the expectations of Iraqi Shia for a greater say in the governance of their country presents an opportunity for the United States to align its policy with Shia aspirations for greater freedom of religious and political expression, in Iraq and elsewhere.