Curiousity question...

[Andy]

What exactly do you consider "occupation"? Context...

After strong polling for the provincial elections Saturday, Iraqis are looking out for new signposts of political recovery from the U.S.-led invasion and occupation.

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.

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

 

[pocketfullofshells]

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.

 

[Pandora]

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.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Hell...."The West" has occupied the Middle East, since the (early) 1900s.​

"The modern problems in the region result not from ancient hostilities but from the actions of modern governments on behalf of big business. To understand what’s going on in the Middle East today, we need to go back only a hundred years.

A century ago, the map looked much different. There was no Iraq, no Jordan, no Israel, no Lebanon. The Ottoman Empire, stretching from the Balkans to North Africa, enveloped much of the region. Powerful, industrialized European nations with empires of their own — especially Great Britain — had a keen interest in the Middle East.

Thanks to backing from the U.S. government, Exxon and Mobil together gained a guarantee of one-fourth of the oil produced. The British-controlled Iraqi government received just four shillings per ton of oil. Exxon’s profits per barrel between 1934 and 1939 were more than twice the royalty paid to Iraq.

The oil rush that began in Iraq soon embroiled the Arabian peninsula. Standard Oil of California (Chevron) gained the Bahrain concession on the Persian Gulf in 1929. Four years later, Chevron outbid the Iraq (formerly Turkish) Petroleum Co. to obtain a 60-year concession for Saudi Arabia’s oil — for $250,000 in golden coins. In 1933 Gulf Oil and British Petroleum agreed on a 50-50 joint venture that controlled Kuwaiti oil. In 1936, Chevron joined with Texaco to found the Arab-American Oil Co. (Aramco) to better exploit Arabian oil reserves.

These deals began the process that would lead to the U.S. replacing Britain as the dominant power in the region."

In January 1952, democratic elections produced a majority for a grassroots political party, the National Front. The Shah had little choice but to appoint Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq, a National Front leader, as prime minister.

CIA operatives disguised as Mossadeq supporters harassed and threatened religious leaders. General Norman Schwarzkopf (father of the Gulf War general) smuggled more than $1 million into Iran. The CIA staged riots and bribed top military and police officials. In August 1953 the Shah returned to power, backed by the military, the U.S. and Britain. The following month the U.S. granted the Iranian government $45 million.

The brief period of democracy and independence ended. Formerly a kind of British colony, Iran was now firmly in the U.S. sphere of influence."

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

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

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Andy its words the media uses to make the situation seem worse than it is.

Yeah.....History has a bad-habit of doing that.

​

 

[Hobo1]

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.

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

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.

 

[Andy]

Yeah.....History has a bad-habit of doing that.

​

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.

 

[Andy]

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.

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.

 

[PLC1]

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.

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?

 

[Andy]

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?

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?

 

[Pandora]

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?

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

 

[Lagboltz]

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

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.

 

[Andy]

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

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!

 

[Pandora]

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!

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.

 

[Andy]

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".