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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cyclo, is that true? Wow!!!

BTW, the other person with McCain is Graham, who happens to be my idiot senator.

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.

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.

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.