Thats just rediculous. I have talked with you enough on here to know you know that too.
Of course.. but why do I have to make ridiculous statements to get you to pay attention?
I never said the sunni's would win there conflict with the shi'a, the numbders are not on there side.
Then can it really be considered a "civil war"? Do we see armies from both sides fighting one another (ala: American Civil War)?? No.. we see violent acts (car/suicide bombings, kidnappings, and IED attacks, being committed by small cells of unknown terrorists. We do not see them in larger formations engaging in conventional warfare (capturing territory).
And since they won't even come out in small to moderate sized formations (company/battalion sized or greater) to fight, how can it seriously be called a civil war at this time?
Military strategists segregate war into three stages/phases: LIC, MIC, and HIC (Low, Middle, and High Intensity Conflict).
en.wikipedia.org
Iraq still remains in the LIC phase. Now were we to see formations of armed groups openly operating and combatting one another then I can see the logic in calling it a civil war. But these guys still have to hide, specifically, and primarily, because the US will hammer them good should they dare to operate in large formations (eg: the battles in Tal Afar, as well as Al Qa'im).
Take away that Coalition sledgehammer and guess what happens? They come out and start operating in larger groups and you have MIC. And that is something that could be classified as "civil war".
If the conflict between the shi'a and sunni expands across borders, then the formula changes.
Isn't that exactly what I said??
But a REGIONAL ARAB civil war between Sunnis and Shi'a is a different question. There are significant populations of Shi'a who live in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and we could see this conflict in Iraq between Sunnis and Shi'a crossing borders.
Message 23088350
And this is exactly what the Saudis are threatening should the US pull out:
news.yahoo.com
Hawk |
