Both are incorrect.
This is not an occupation since the US Forces do not control Govt.
This is no war sine we are not fighting a military force.
This is a police action at the request of the Iraqi Govt (which is unconstitutional).
The US does largely control the Iraqi government. We veto the latter's proposals on an almost daily basis.
Someone in my local paper said that it is not a surprise that Bush honored the Tuskegee Airmen. After all, who else will be left to send to Iraq.
woiyo wrote:Both are incorrect.
This is not an occupation since the US Forces do not control Govt.
This is no war sine we are not fighting a military force.
This is a police action at the request of the Iraqi Govt (which is unconstitutional).
I said that this is not an occupation, because of lack of control.
We are fighting an organized group, with a clear leader, soldiers taking orders. They are using missiles, RPG's and roadside explosive devices which are activated by contact or by remote control. It is a War.
Since that we
started this "war" when Sadam Huesien was the dictator, we certainly weren't "asked", by any Iraqi Government.
Advocate wrote:The US does largely control the Iraqi government. We veto the latter's proposals on an almost daily basis.
Someone in my local paper said that it is not a surprise that Bush honored the Tuskegee Airmen. After all, who else will be left to send to Iraq.
Not only does an occupation require control of the Government, it needs control of the country as far as peace and order.
Someone in your local newspaper is a moron. Can I have his Email please and name of Paper, date etc.
snookered wrote:Advocate wrote:The US does largely control the Iraqi government. We veto the latter's proposals on an almost daily basis.
Someone in my local paper said that it is not a surprise that Bush honored the Tuskegee Airmen. After all, who else will be left to send to Iraq.
Not only does an occupation require control of the Government, it needs control of the country as far as peace and order.
Someone in your local newspaper is a moron. Can I have his Email please and name of Paper, date etc.
Don't be a jerk.
An occupation does not require 'control' of the country. Russia occupied Afghanistan for a long time without ever having control.
Cycloptichorn
The thing about the Tuskegee Airmen is obviously a joke. Do you know MysteryMan? He would have considered it a serious statement.
Cycloptichorn wrote:snookered wrote:Advocate wrote:The US does largely control the Iraqi government. We veto the latter's proposals on an almost daily basis.
Someone in my local paper said that it is not a surprise that Bush honored the Tuskegee Airmen. After all, who else will be left to send to Iraq.
Not only does an occupation require control of the Government, it needs control of the country as far as peace and order.
Someone in your local newspaper is a moron. Can I have his Email please and name of Paper, date etc.
Don't be a jerk.
An occupation does not require 'control' of the country. Russia occupied Afghanistan for a long time without ever having control.
Cycloptichorn
OK, I'll try not to be a jerk.
Then Russia didn't OCCUPY Afghanistan. The very definition of Occupy is to have control.
When you quote an article it is good practise to give credit to the author.
snookered wrote:woiyo wrote:Both are incorrect.
This is not an occupation since the US Forces do not control Govt.
This is no war sine we are not fighting a military force.
This is a police action at the request of the Iraqi Govt (which is unconstitutional).
I said that this is not an occupation, because of lack of control.
We are fighting an organized group, with a clear leader, soldiers taking orders. They are using missiles, RPG's and roadside explosive devices which are activated by contact or by remote control. It is a War.
Since that we
started this "war" when Sadam Huesien was the dictator, we certainly weren't "asked", by any Iraqi Government.
This STARTED as a war and has turned into a police action with US soldiers acting as Police. The "bad guys" may be using "military issue equipment" but they are not an Army of a Central Govt.
Regardless of how you define it, this situation is a mess and the only thing happeming is our soldiers are getting killed for no apparant reason.
snookered wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:snookered wrote:Advocate wrote:The US does largely control the Iraqi government. We veto the latter's proposals on an almost daily basis.
Someone in my local paper said that it is not a surprise that Bush honored the Tuskegee Airmen. After all, who else will be left to send to Iraq.
Not only does an occupation require control of the Government, it needs control of the country as far as peace and order.
Someone in your local newspaper is a moron. Can I have his Email please and name of Paper, date etc.
Don't be a jerk.
An occupation does not require 'control' of the country. Russia occupied Afghanistan for a long time without ever having control.
Cycloptichorn
OK, I'll try not to be a jerk.
Then Russia didn't OCCUPY Afghanistan. The very definition of Occupy is to have control.
When you quote an article it is good practise to give credit to the author.
The hague disagrees with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation
Quote:There have long been customary laws of belligerent occupation as part of the laws of war which gave some protection to the population under the military occupation of a belligerent power. These were clarified and supplemented by the Hague Conventions of 1907. Specifically "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State."[1] The first two articles of that section state:
Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
Iraq is under the military authority of the US right now; there is no way to say that we're not occupying the country currently.
Cycloptichorn
I'd say it's still a war. When men and women are shooting and getting shot at and killed, what else can you call it?
Interesting that on NPR yesterday there was talk of McCains recent trip to Iraq along with another member of Congress (Sorry, can't remember who) and in the statement from the other Representative he related how they went into the market place in Bagdad and shopped for rugs, along with a couple hundred military for security and helicopters overhead.
He said he was touched that the Iraqi shop owner touched his heart and refused payment for the rugs, as if that was a signal that the iraqi's were grateful for US presence there.
Then the reporter went to that shop owner and interviewed him. He said he recognized them as visitors and that as American visitors he refused their money because basically he didn't know what would happen if he took it. (Notice the opposing views of touching ones heart and refusing money for ones goods) He referred to our presence as an occupation. He asked why they got all this security and yet shop owners have to deal with constant threaats of violence.
If that is how the Iraqi's view it, as an occupation, then I say that is what it is. It's the view of those that live there that get to define it, not us. If they view it as an occupation, it is an occupation.
squinney wrote:Interesting that on NPR yesterday there was talk of McCains recent trip to Iraq along with another member of Congress (Sorry, can't remember who) and in the statement from the other Representative he related how they went into the market place in Bagdad and shopped for rugs, along with a couple hundred military for security and helicopters overhead.
He said he was touched that the Iraqi shop owner touched his heart and refused payment for the rugs, as if that was a signal that the iraqi's were grateful for US presence there.
Then the reporter went to that shop owner and interviewed him. He said he recognized them as visitors and that as American visitors he refused their money because basically he didn't know what would happen if he took it. (Notice the opposing views of touching ones heart and refusing money for ones goods) He referred to our presence as an occupation. He asked why they got all this security and yet shop owners have to deal with constant threaats of violence.
If that is how the Iraqi's view it, as an occupation, then I say that is what it is. It's the view of those that live there that get to define it, not us. If they view it as an occupation, it is an occupation.
21 people were dragged from that same market and executed the day after McCain rolled through there. Shot right in the head, in the streets.
Cycloptichorn
Cyclo, is that true? Wow!!!
BTW, the other person with McCain is Graham, who happens to be my idiot senator.
Advocate wrote:Cyclo, is that true? Wow!!!
BTW, the other person with McCain is Graham, who happens to be my idiot senator.
Yeah, it's true. Some peaceful market
Cycloptichorn
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.
You have omitted,
"When the US invaded and occupied Iraq, destroying a secular society, causing death and destruction on a massive scale"
Brandon I've said it before, "you are suffering an illusion of grandeur, you really believe you have an extraordinary debating skill; from the way I read your posts it seems you are suffering from the Rambo Syndrome, that is you believe all your own fiction!" Get back into the world of reality.
Cycloptichorn wrote:snookered wrote:Advocate wrote:The US does largely control the Iraqi government. We veto the latter's proposals on an almost daily basis.
Someone in my local paper said that it is not a surprise that Bush honored the Tuskegee Airmen. After all, who else will be left to send to Iraq.
Not only does an occupation require control of the Government, it needs control of the country as far as peace and order.
Someone in your local newspaper is a moron. Can I have his Email please and name of Paper, date etc.
Don't be a jerk.
An occupation does not require 'control' of the country. Russia occupied Afghanistan for a long time without ever having control.
Cycloptichorn
Isn't the difference that Russia installed a puppet government that simply did its bidding, whereas we only arranged elections? Russia didn't hold elections, but simply installed their choice.
Brandon9000 wrote:Isn't the difference that Russia installed a puppet government that simply did its bidding, whereas we only arranged elections? Russia didn't hold elections, but simply installed their choice.
The Soviet Union followed the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that Taraki had signed with the USSR. After Taraki had been killed by Amin, Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan and captured Amin, who was subsequently executed by the Afghan Revolutionary Central Committee. The committee then proceeded to elect Babrak Karmal as head of government.
The only reason we didn't essentially annex Iraq, and install a puppet government, is that we couldn't get away with it. We invaded to seize the oil, and even had maps drawn dividing up the country among the US oil companies. We quickly found out that we couldn't really subjugate the country and grab the oil.
Brandon9000 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:snookered wrote:Advocate wrote:The US does largely control the Iraqi government. We veto the latter's proposals on an almost daily basis.
Someone in my local paper said that it is not a surprise that Bush honored the Tuskegee Airmen. After all, who else will be left to send to Iraq.
Not only does an occupation require control of the Government, it needs control of the country as far as peace and order.
Someone in your local newspaper is a moron. Can I have his Email please and name of Paper, date etc.
Don't be a jerk.
An occupation does not require 'control' of the country. Russia occupied Afghanistan for a long time without ever having control.
Cycloptichorn
Isn't the difference that Russia installed a puppet government that simply did its bidding, whereas we only arranged elections? Russia didn't hold elections, but simply installed their choice.
You're joking, right?
You think the Iraqi government wasn't installed by us? Jeez
Cycloptichorn
We haven't given up our efforts to grab the oil.
Was the Iraq War for Oil?According to the Bush Administration, the notion that the occupation of Iraq invasion was a means to gain control over that country's vast oil reserves is "nonsense" and "a myth." However, in February, 2007, the proposed draft of a new law to structure Iraq's oil industry was leaked, and it is now being considered by the Iraqi parliament. Several key features of the law would:
Allow two-thirds of Iraq's oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.
Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which would include foreign oil companies;
Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.
Overall, the law would secure the agenda of ExxonMobil, Chevon, and the other majors, robbing the Iraqi people of their most basic source of wealth. Much is at stake. With 112 billion barrels of proven reserves ($7 trillion worth at $62 per barrel) and another 300 billion possible or likely (another $18 trillion), there's a million dollars of oil for every Iraqi citizen. It's a vast and precious national resource?-but only if Iraqis are allowed to control it themselves.
--iraqoillaw.com
