Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  
Home

Bush Orders "American Civil War" Renamed "American Sectarian Violence Conflict of 1861-1865" in Light of Iraq Concerns

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Wed, 11/29/2006 - 6:17pm.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

President Bush issued an executive order today renaming the American Civil War as the "American Sectarian Violence Conflict of 1861-1865." In the name of accuracy, all references to the previous title on federal property were ordered changed by the end of December, although current history textbooks in public schools are allowed to remain in use through the end of the academic year.

"I just don't see what was so civil about the conflict," Bush noted in a press conference. "All you really had was a lot of sectarian violence between the two sides. The truth is that it wasn’t even that bad. People just got an exaggerated viewpoint because all of the terrible things the liberal media showed on TV at the time."

Bush stressed that the important thing to remember is that "the Yankees" won because President Lincoln refused to leave until the job was done and "all the Democrats kept their darn mouths shut."

"Freeing the Mexicans was pretty good, too," he added.

With Bush refusing to acknowledge civil war in Iraq despite such a declaration by a growing number of experts, news publications, and even his former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, the White House is struggling to insure the public has the correct definition of the term.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary says war is "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations," but civil war is "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." According to a White House source speaking on the condition of anonymity, the Administration's official position is that civil wars are thus semantically impossible by technicality since "war" is only between different states.

"I don't quite understand how it works myself," the source said, "but Karl was really insistent that we don't ever say the words 'civil war' under any circumstance. . . oops."

President Bush remarked during the press conference that the renaming of the "American Sectarian Violence Conflict of 1861-1865" represented a turning point for his strategy in Iraq. "The enemy wants us to change our terminology," Bush said. "The only way we lose in Iraq is if we call it a civil war. . . oops."

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

Technorati Tags:Technorati Tags:

»

Why Bush avoids the term 'Civil War'

Submitted by douglassmyth on Thu, 11/30/2006 - 1:01pm.

Civil war in Iraq means that the government, called "the unity government," (just to confuse us), is on one side of the civil war. The death squads, the police or people in police uniforms rounding up and killing people every night, as well as the "Iraq Army" that we are supporting, training, supplying--and telling what to do, most of the time--are all fighting, more or less, on the same side, along with the Shiite militias they (and the US) have helped supply, whether they know it or not. They are all fighting against: Sunnis in the insurgency and the small, radical and rabid contingent of foreign fighters organized, supposedly, by al Qaeda.

So, the US is taking sides in the civil war. What Bush doesn't want people to realize is that we are NOT protecting a "democratically elected government." We are using and being used by a faction in a civil war.

Both Shiites and Sunnis believe that Iraq's government should be dominated by one faction, since Sunnis dominated for the last many years (even during Ottoman rule). The Shiites believe it's their turn. They also believe that the US can help them achieve that goal. The US can't, and it shouldn't. The Sunnis will fight to the death to prevent Shiite dominance, ergo, the civil war.

The best way for the US to interrupt this dynamic is to announce that it will support no one in Iraq, and will leave them to their own devices (yes, leave) to settle things between them. We could also offer an incentive: war reparations WHEN the different factions have actually agreed upon a settlement and a stable, multi-sectarian government, with strong safeguards for all minorities, has been put into place.

Douglas
http://www.roman-empire-america-now.com

»

Giving it a name makes it so

Submitted by Marie-France Germain on Fri, 12/01/2006 - 2:21am.

Marie-France, BC, Canada

By giving the Iraq conflict (the illegal invasion of a sovereign country remember) its rightful name and remaining there regardless would nullify the resolution instituted by former President Clinton following the intervention in Somalia. Presidential Decision Directive-25(PDD-25) was set in place after the disaster in Mogadishu in which nineteen Delta Force soldiers were killed after their helicopter was shot down (remember Blackhawk Down?). The subsequent televising of the desecration of the remains of the soldiers led to an aversion by Americans to tolerate being involved in any further civil wars unless the parties involved were willing to assist in bringing about peaceful resolutions (consequently one heck of a lot of Rwandans were massacred, but then I guess, they were only Africans and black, besides, Rwanda had nothing of value to the US).

Iraq would seem to be different for some reason, in the eyes of this present administration. They cannot fix it, so they should pull out. Instead, this Bush administration is doing exactly counter to PDD-25 (okay, it was a Clintonian era thing) and has taken a side, that being supporting the Shiite. Looking good yet? Do you need more to refresh your memory about even appearing to have taken a side in the Somali affair regardless that you hadn't? If you took that kind of a s++tkicking when you hadn't taken a side in a civil war, imagine what will happen now that you have?

»