Curiousity question...

[PLC1]

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?

Japan is simply the landlord for US bases in that country. Since the military isn't controlling their government any longer, then "allied nation" is a better description of the relationship.

What word would you use for the US troop presence in Iraq? If not occupation, then what?

 

[PLC1]

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

Are you taking bets on whether the media stops using the term "occupation", and substitutes "presence" instead, now that we have a Democrat in the White House?

Some stories were using the term "presence" before, I believe.

 

[Pandora]

Are you taking bets on whether the media stops using the term "occupation", and substitutes "presence" instead, now that we have a Democrat in the White House?

Some stories were using the term "presence" before, I believe.

The media is in love with obama and the idea of obama, they will spin it in what ever way makes obama look good.


if obama decided to stay then yep they would use terms like presence far more often and occupation or invasion far less often.

if obama really does pull out then he will be the wonderful guy who pulled out of the invasion or occupation blah blah.

I think fox is probably the only news who wont change the terms used to make obama look good, since they dont seem to have the slobbering love affair

 

[PLC1]

The media is in love with obama and the idea of obama, they will spin it in what ever way makes obama look good.


if obama decided to stay then yep they would use terms like presence far more often and occupation or invasion far less often.

if obama really does pull out then he will be the wonderful guy who pulled out of the invasion or occupation blah blah.

I think fox is probably the only news who wont change the terms used to make obama look good, since they dont seem to have the slobbering love affair

Since Obama says he doesn't plan to leave Iraq for quite a while, yet (16 months sticks in my mind), are you now on record saying that the word will now be "presence", rather than "occupation" during that time?

This could be a real test of just how enamored the press is with Obama.

 

[Pandora]

Since Obama says he doesn't plan to leave Iraq for quite a while, yet (16 months sticks in my mind), are you now on record saying that the word will now be "presence", rather than "occupation" during that time?

This could be a real test of just how enamored the press is with Obama.

I dont know about the whole world, Though it does seem the world has a love affair with him, I only know about American media... I dont watch the others to know what they say and dont say.

I am not sure how you can not notice that when the war is going bad its all they talk about and if there is any tragic thing to find they blast it... but when things go well you are lucky to hear anything about Iraq at all. If you cant already see the bias, then you probably never will

 

[Andy]

Japan is simply the landlord for US bases in that country. Since the military isn't controlling their government any longer, then "allied nation" is a better description of the relationship.

What word would you use for the US troop presence in Iraq? If not occupation, then what?

US support? US presence? I really don't know for sure. I suppose occupation could be the best description.

I just had always thought of occupation as being one nation attempting to gain control over another. Since we are not trying to do that, and since more than 2/3rds of Iraq is under self rule already, then is occupation really accurate?

The French gave aid to the American colonies during our revolution where we declared independence from Briton. Did we say they had occupied the colonies during that time? They clearly had thousands of troops here.

Yet I see little difference between what we are, or have, done for Iraq, and what France did for us. I suppose the only real difference would be that France joined in a revolution already in progress, whereas we instigated the revolution of an oppressed people in Iraq.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

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!

now show the pics of Iraqis shooting at our troops, buring our flag and telling us to get out of there nation...or you only like the one sided propaganda?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Japan is simply the landlord for US bases in that country. Since the military isn't controlling their government any longer, then "allied nation" is a better description of the relationship.

What word would you use for the US troop presence in Iraq? If not occupation, then what?

dont use facts, it hurts....

its not a occupation....its just that the US army moved in, blew up there army, took over, then we told them they could have some elections,,,but of course it had to meet our approval...but dont worry its not a occupation, because we mean well...? when Iraq can run everything and has the power to remove us, then we are not the occupiers...

 

[samsara15]

Isn't occupation defined by the wishes of the citizens of the nation in question? So that whenever a foreign military imposes it will on a nation where a large segment of the citizens of that nations consider it an invasion, that would be an occupation.

 

[Andy]

now show the pics of Iraqis shooting at our troops, buring our flag and telling us to get out of there nation...or you only like the one sided propaganda?

Funny, how showing the thousands of civilians that support us, is propaganda because I didn't show the dozen or so militia people, that are being shot at by Iraq police. Nice try. The dozen of complaining people, doesn't over shadow the thousands of supporters.

 

[Andy]

Isn't occupation defined by the wishes of the citizens of the nation in question? So that whenever a foreign military imposes it will on a nation where a large segment of the citizens of that nations consider it an invasion, that would be an occupation.

In that case, this isn't an occupation.

 

[PLC1]

Since the Iraqis have learned about elections, how about putting a proposition on the ballot and let them decide?

Is it time for the Americans to go home now? Yes or no.

If they vote no, and we stay anyway, then it would be an occupation. If they vote no, then it would be a necessary presence.

Since we're promoting democracy, why not?

 

[Andy]

Since the Iraqis have learned about elections, how about putting a proposition on the ballot and let them decide?

Is it time for the Americans to go home now? Yes or no.

If they vote no, and we stay anyway, then it would be an occupation. If they vote no, then it would be a necessary presence.

Since we're promoting democracy, why not?

Sounds great. Or we can just leave as our presence is less and less required as we're already doing, and when we're no longer required anywhere, we'll be gone. Oddly, the same plan Bush had.

But I love the idea of a vote simply because I know how it will turn out.

 

[Bunz]

Ill say a few things here if I may. Firstly, we still occupy some %30 of Iraq. Including the biggest poppulation center and capital.
What do you think WE would call a situation where a foreign military was in control of everywhere in the US east of the Mississippi?

Also there is no question that the US was an absolute occupying force throughout most of the country until 2008. The situation is still very fragile and the US is one critical event away from having to go back and occupy more land.

While the US is the main security force in the capital among Iraqis and the main force defending against a foreign army, we are to a certain extent occupiers. We will most likely continue to be until we are confined to the half dozen or so permanent bases that the US will establish in the next 5 years.

 

[PLC1]

Ill say a few things here if I may. Firstly, we still occupy some %30 of Iraq. Including the biggest poppulation center and capital.
What do you think WE would call a situation where a foreign military was in control of everywhere in the US east of the Mississippi?

Also there is no question that the US was an absolute occupying force throughout most of the country until 2008. The situation is still very fragile and the US is one critical event away from having to go back and occupy more land.

While the US is the main security force in the capital among Iraqis and the main force defending against a foreign army, we are to a certain extent occupiers. We will most likely continue to be until we are confined to the half dozen or so permanent bases that the US will establish in the next 5 years.

Permanent bases? But, Andy says we're already getting out. What do we need with permanent bases? I thought we didn't elect the candidate who said we might be in Iraq for the next century.