1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Curiousity question...

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Andy, Feb 1, 2009.

  1. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What exactly do you consider "occupation"? Context...


    I read this in a article written today. It confuses me slightly. Do you consider the current situation to be "US occupation"?

    First, I've always thought that occupation of a country, meant that the occupiers had complete governmental control of that country. For example, when Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the P.A. had absolutely no government authority or control whatsoever. If they had completely taken over the Gaza Strip in the recent military advance, they would have eliminated Hamas from all control.

    In Iraq, this isn't the case. The Iraqi government obviously has to deal with US forces, but their choices on reconstruction and social economic policies are independent.

    Also, in an occupation of another country, you normally don't give back land to the local authorities, nor do you have only sections that you are covering, and the rest completely under the local government.

    [​IMG]

    So, what does "occupation" of a country mean to you? Does this fit? Or is it another media spin machine in action?
     
  2. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    the fact that we took over Iraq , makes it a occupation as there was no government as it was a war with the government to take over Iraq...The System put in place is under US guidelines, and so long as US troops cover the nation, its hard to call it a real democracy...as while they may vote, it would have been hard to belive W would have pulled all troops out if they voted in a Leader they wanted, but who told the US to get out. Untill they are all out, and the Iraqi people are truly able to decided for themself, its still part of a occupation.
     
  3. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    Andy its words the media uses to make the situation seem worse than it is. Now that obama is ruling us, they will find another word that more fits the truth.
     
  4. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hell...."The West" has occupied the Middle East, since the (early) 1900s.​

    O.K., "conservatives"....carry on!

    Let's hear another round of "WHY DO THEY HATE US??!!!! :( "

    :rolleyes:
     
  5. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah.....History has a bad-habit of doing that.

    :rolleyes:
     
  6. Hobo1

    Hobo1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Move around
    If you would have followed the early days of the US entry into Iraq, you would understand that the US had dictatorial powers for several years. The Iraq Constitution that is currently in place was almost written word for word by American diplomats.

    The American forces had complete freedom of movement to go where ever they wanted, and fight (and kill) Iraqi people with complete impunity. We could set up bases, camps, etc. etc. where ever we want to in Iraq. Plus, every US soldier AND US contractor had complete immunity from Iraqi laws.

    Only recently has the Iraq government been give power to control some of the US activities. I read where the security firm Blackwater was banned from Iraq.

    With all of the powers held by the US, I can think of no better term to describe our past involvement in Iraq as an occupation. In the future, the press may start to refer to our presence as "American bases in Iraq" and "joint military training exercises with the Iraqi Army". This is they way the US bases in Germany were referred to during the Cold War.

    Let there be no doubt however, American has left a very large footprint in the current governmental structure in Iraq. Unless Civil War breaks out and completely changes the current structure, Iraq will be a puppet government of the US for many years to come.
     
  7. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yeah, actually it does, when it's spun around by partisan hypocrites who wish to cast someone they don't like in a bad light, or someone they do in a good light.

    It's happening right here on this very forum by none other than you! You posted a whole thing about Obama promoting six-way talks as a huge wonderful great thing, yet Bush supported the six-way talks himself. So you claim one person to be an idiot, and another brilliant, and they both supported the same thing.
     
  8. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    More than 2/3rds of Iraq is completely under local control, and our troop levels continue to decline as our presence is less and less required. Oddly, this is the exact plan Bush had.

    As for having a large "footprint" in the current government structure, I don't have a problem with that. Considering the tyrannical government they came from, this is not a problem. Remember, the US constitution was a culmination of experience and wisdom of many nations, combined to form our constitution that made the US the greatest of all nations, even though we were the youngest of all nations.

    Why would you want Iraq to not take the best of American policies? When you want to be better at something, don't you want to copy and learn from someone who is at the head of their field?

    One thing I can't stand about this argument, is the circular logic, or double standard.

    On the one hand, if the Iraqi government does things we like, or approve of, you are going to sit there and say "Oh well their a puppet government".

    Then on the opposite side, if the Iraqi government does something we don't like, you are going to complain about how it doesn't work, or we're screwing it up, or see what a waste this was.

    Remember when the Interim government went on break? We all had a melt down. The leftist were jumping up and down and screaming... but it wasn't that they were a puppet government, was it? Now, their doing ok, and what is the claim now? Back to the "puppet government" crap.

    Basically you have surrounded yourself in world view where you can complain no matter what they do.

    Oh and by the way, I doubt the US wrote their constitution word for word... given the numerous references to Allah, the Qur'an, Islam being the national religion, and some of the many Muslim/Arab related laws.
     
  9. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,923
    Likes Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    What word do you think that might be?

    When an army invades another country, and stays there, it is called ____________ (fill in the blank)

    The example in the OP was from a story that aired after the inauguration, wasn't it? When are they going to start using the new word?
     
  10. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But we're not staying there.

    Obviously if we had controlled 100% of the country, and now we control about 30% of it, then we are not staying.

    Also, if we were had completely control, why would their be a government of Iraq now? Why not just have the US Congress pass dictation, instead of putting together this Iraqi government, completely with a Executive Legislative, and Judicial branches, if we already control them all from here?

    Something here doesn't add up in my mind to "occupation".

    Let me put it to you this way. Do you consider Japan occupied by the US? We at one time did have 100% control of Japan, and we still have US bases in Japan. So do you consider Japan a puppet of the US?
     
  11. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene

    US Presence in Iraq

    but that doesn't sound horrible enough

    so we go with invaders and or occupied


    Now that the messiah of the liberal cause has come in, we will call it something more like our Presence in Iraq


    I love the "invades another country" part The Iraqi people wanted us to come and get rid of their leader.

    Invader in an occupation would describe white people who came here and took the land away from the Natives, but it would NOT describe the Africans who were brought here, though they also came here.

    Going into other countries, taking over their governments, taking their lands and slaughtering their people pretty much fits invaders who are in an occupation.

    IMO
     
  12. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,847
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    The role of the US has been in flux over the years. There was a period where the US simply watched as looting took place. They had no training as a police force. I thought that now, or some time soon they would be military trainers. Or we could just consider that the army is still there, but in an early process of withdrawal.

    I think most Iraqis consider it an occupation, but perhaps the US media simply doesn't know what word to use right now.
     
  13. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    [​IMG]

    Look at the poor Iraqi woman bemoaning the evil "invaders", while throwing confetti during a celebration of her freedom and the Iraqi forces. Forces that before served a cruel dictator to abuse the public, now provide protection for the public.

    Oh how horrible... how awful... how terrible... it's almost like she's enjoying herself!

    Look at these poor Iraqis being forced to celebrate the capture of Saddam by the "invaders"!! Oh the horrors!
    [​IMG]
     
  14. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    I have not seen this picture before. but I like it. Do you have a picture of when the Iraqi's kicked the "human shield" signs after the dorks who held the signs fled? I saw it on CNN and it was so funny, the news casters were shocked that the iraqi's did not like the "human shiled" morons.
     
  15. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48



    I can't find the picture of them kicking the Human Shield people out, but I do remember that :)

    Those idiot anti-war left-tards never can seem to figure it out. War is a sad unavoidable result of evil in this world. The only alternative is to doom the people in this video to more of the same horrors in the name of "peace".
     
Loading...

Share This Page