How is it possible to have a "civil" war? ?

Question

Wha???

Answer 1

Civil has several meanings. Acting in kindness is actually the 2nd in the dictionary. Pertaining to the state is the first.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...

Answer 2

Im gonna post a most likely funny answer:

When they fought in battlefields didn't they walk and stood up in front of each other without doing anything first?

They either wait for a command or just take the shots by the opposing side until its their turn like a turn-based game. I guess that makes them a bit civil...

Answer 3

simple. A group wants to have something like their own autonomy and borders, so they claim to secede from the rest of the country. That happened back in 1861 or there abouts,and the north took exception.The north came close to losing that war, did you know?It would be possible today if a minority group decided to become independent of the rest of the country and started wars in all our major cities. Then the government would have to go on alert and fight in our own country. A war doesn't have to be fought between massed armies any more.

Answer 4

I don't think so.Uncivil war,yes.It's kind of like the goverment title of Drug Czar.Is he king of the druggies.

Answer 5

A "civil war" is a war in which different factions of the same country fight each other.

A "civil"war -- or "civilized" war is a tough question. In general it's the way wars "used to be fought" -- whatever that means. But war is not a civil endeavor. Whether your bashing each others heads in with clubs over who gets the dead mammoth, shooting arrows across a mote at each other over who gets the castle, trying to hack each other with broad-swords to see who gets a piece of real estate, or pushing buttons to launch the destruction of humanity, "the way they used to do it" was more civilized. But the bottom line is that war is, by definition not civilized.

Opposing armies, while they disagreed on major points, once still had some respect for each other. A good soldier was recognized as a good soldier by both sides. During WWII, during a Christmas ceasefire -- they used to honor those -- out in the field, some US GI pulled out a harmonica and began to play a Christmas carol. Another GI began to sing along... then another. Shortly, across "no-man's land" a German troop began to sing along... then another. Pretty soon the guys came out of their trenches and foxholes and sang carols together.

Today the opposing forces are actually fighting over those very values about which they used to agree. Today a "cease fire" is a tactical maneuver on the part of the enemy to gain time to resupply, fortify, and better prepare for the next battle. We believed them in Vietnam -- at first. After a couple of them the military understood how they were being used. The politicians and diplomats never did... or at least they didn't appear to care. So the military did what it had to do to minimize the effectiveness of the tactic.

Today US troops are held to a set of "civilized" rules (Geneva Convention and various sets of rules of engagement). The enemy is not. People who think that's fair (like the enemy) don't want the US to win.

Answer 6

It's quite easy if you have an adequate vocabulary.