"War" or "Occupation" - Which Is Correct?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Can we really call what we are doing in Iraq a war anymore, or do we have an occupation?

What is the difference? I think the difference is that a war is fought and then over with in a few years, and occupation can take a decade or several decades.

Do we have a war, or are we stuck in an occupation of undetermined length that can go on for many years?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,288 • Replies: 70

No top replies

Our goal is not to rule in Iraq, or steal their resources. Our goal is to help the weak, fledgling democracy to survive, while anti-democratic forces, either intent on power, or intent on promoting Islamic fanaticism try to destroy it. Because we destroyed the dictatorship which governed Iraq, we assisted in the creation of a replacement government, one of the few democratically elected governments in the Middle East. Naturally, we are trying to protect it and make it viable before we leave. If there were no insurgents, we would certainly be long gone.

BTW, I did not deliberately put these jpegs in my post. I will assume that it has something to do with today's date.

0 Replies

So Brandon, does that make this a war or an occupation? Or what single word would you use?

0 Replies

Jack Kerouac wrote:

So Brandon, does that make this a war or an occupation? Or what single word would you use?

I think that the word used is kind of irrelevant. What I said is the relevant point. Our goal is to help them, not ourselves.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Jack Kerouac wrote:
So Brandon, does that make this a war or an occupation? Or what single word would you use?

I think that the word used is kind of irrelevant. What I said is the relevant point. Our goal is to help them, not ourselves.

So kelticwizard has to re-phrase his thread and ask for your relevant point.

0 Replies

Personally, I'd go with fiefdom.

0 Replies

When every child of Iraq can sit contentedly on a heap of burned out rubble, Hershey Bar in hand, the war will have been won. All two or three of them.

0 Replies

Alex Trebek wrote:

Personally, I I'd go with fiefdom.

It does show many of the the main features of it.

0 Replies

It can't be an occupation until we are in control. Right now I believe that the war has turned into a Civil War.
How Stupid Bush is. This is an unwinable war. What a mess

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Jack Kerouac wrote:
So Brandon, does that make this a war or an occupation? Or what single word would you use?

I think that the word used is kind of irrelevant. What I said is the relevant point. Our goal is to help them, not ourselves.

That sounds suspiciously like a dodge..

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Jack Kerouac wrote:
So Brandon, does that make this a war or an occupation? Or what single word would you use?

I think that the word used is kind of irrelevant. What I said is the relevant point. Our goal is to help them, not ourselves.

So kelticwizard has to re-phrase his thread and ask for your relevant point.

I answered the specific question asked, but I refuse to accept the implicit assumptions contained in the question. I gave my answer to his question, not the answer he wanted.

Your suggestion that I must slavishly answer each query only in the positive or negative, with no expression of my own thoughts, isn't sensible, and if I did it, I'd be the only one. It's clear that you'd rather disqualify an opinion you don't like than respond to it.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I answered the specific question asked, but I refuse to accept the implicit assumptions contained in the question. I gave my answer to his question, not the answer he wanted.

Your suggestion that I must slavishly answer each query only in the positive or negative, with no expression of my own thoughts, isn't sensible, and if I did it, I'd be the only one. It's clear that you'd rather disqualify an opinion you don't like than respond to it.

How in God's name do you get such from my response?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

So kelticwizard has to re-phrase his thread and ask for your relevant point.

You usually behave a bit .... well, but Monday mornings seem to be worse.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Jack Kerouac wrote:
So Brandon, does that make this a war or an occupation? Or what single word would you use?

I think that the word used is kind of irrelevant. What I said is the relevant point. Our goal is to help them, not ourselves.

That sounds suspiciously like a dodge..

You wish. I simply refuse to answer a question along the lines of "Do you still beat your wife," which contains inherent misconceptions. Anytime an army enters another country uninvited, such as in this case, it would not be unreasonable on purely technical grounds to call it an occupation, but the post author wants someone to answer in the affirmative so that he can immediately then equate an occupation with a bad occupation, like Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait. You can call it an occupation if you want, but we are not there to steal or control anything they've got. The initial motive was fear of doomsday weapons in the hands of an evil madman, and the current motive is to defend their fledgling democracy against anti-democratic barbarians. What name you give to our presence there is simply symantics and of no importance whatever. That is my answer to the question asked. Sorry if it interferes with your agenda.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I answered the specific question asked, but I refuse to accept the implicit assumptions contained in the question. I gave my answer to his question, not the answer he wanted.

Your suggestion that I must slavishly answer each query only in the positive or negative, with no expression of my own thoughts, isn't sensible, and if I did it, I'd be the only one. It's clear that you'd rather disqualify an opinion you don't like than respond to it.

How in God's name do you get such from my response?

Walter Hinteler wrote:
So kelticwizard has to re-phrase his thread and ask for your relevant point.

You usually behave a bit .... well, but Monday mornings seem to be worse.

Why is it that most liberals are constitutionally incapable of debating a political point without dragging in some insult to the opposing poster? It's very pathetic. Your point appears to have been that unless I give a simple yes or no, I am being unresponsive to the thread topic, which is nonsense. My opinion is that the name given to our presence there is only insignificant symatics, and the important point is our intention in being there.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

It's clear that you'd rather disqualify an opinion you don't like than respond to it.

Love that quote. I'm gonna steal it.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/106207/6_22_bush_mission_banner.jpg

The occupation of Iraq is neither a humanitarian excercise, nor an act of war.

It is simply a decision to remain, on the premise that Iran is the next target.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

You can call it an occupation if you want.....

Okay, so we have Brandon down for "occupation" then.

0 Replies

Quote:

Your point appears to have been that unless I give a simple yes or no, I am being unresponsive to the thread topic, which is nonsense.

My point is that you either answer tha question or not.

Quote:

My opinion is that the name given to our presence there is only insignificant symatics, and the important point is our intention in being there.

Your earlier reply was:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I think that the word used is kind of irrelevant. What I said is the relevant point. Our goal is to help them, not ourselves.

So perhaps you have scruples to write down "it's an occupation"?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:

Your point appears to have been that unless I give a simple yes or no, I am being unresponsive to the thread topic, which is nonsense.

My point is that you either answer tha question or not.

Quote:

My opinion is that the name given to our presence there is only insignificant symatics, and the important point is our intention in being there.

Your earlier reply was:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I think that the word used is kind of irrelevant. What I said is the relevant point. Our goal is to help them, not ourselves.

So perhaps you have scruples to write down "it's an occupation"?

For God's sake, I'm being perfectly clear. Any time at all that an army is in a country without having received an invitation to enter, one can, technically, use the word occupation. That's just the definition of the word "occupy," and of no political or ethical significance. It is NOT a bad occupation in which a one country tries to control another. At this point, all we're doing is trying to protect the present democratically elected government against insurgents. We are not doing what Saddam Hussein did when he invaded Kuwait, or what Hitler did when he invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland. If there were no insurgency to protect the government from, we would certainly be somewhere between 99% and 100% out of Iraq now.

I did answer the question. You just don't like my answer, and so, like most liberals, try to disqualify it. If I slavishly answered only yes or no to every question asked here, I'd be the sole A2K member doing so.

"War" or "Occupation" - Which Is Correct?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know