if 30-200 people per day were dying in your state from violence/bombs...

[harpo]

would you consider that a civil war in the state?

[Lasher]

1. No, I would call it bringing democracy and freedom to my state

If I lived in the state of Neocon, that is.

[Imagevision]

2. If you saw a group of men killing your neighbors would you shoot back?

if you had a gun?

[MADem]

3. My guess would be it was a regional civil war, myself! But point taken!

I live in a tight New England state--we all carp about our interstate differences here at home, but if we meet up in Timbuktu (say, a Massachusettsian and a Vermonter and/or a New Hamshirite) we'd be a veritable band of brothers.

So, if any midwesterners, southerners, mid-atlantic or western types wanna throw down, it is probably a clever idea to telegraph some of your intentions!

[file83]

4. War + Civilians fighting Civilians = CIVIL WAR, so Yes, I would. Plus...

...throw in a mix of Imperial Occupation, random terrorism, threat of regional war, I might even call it HELL ON EARTH.

[radfringe]

5. no - it would be considered progress

the more people kill each other the less people there are and therefore the level of violence decreases because there are less people committing violence....

</end :sarcasm: >

[shenmue]

6. Yes

That's pretty much the definition.

[malaise]

7. Mind-numbing isn't it n/t