It's Occupation, Not War

RolandTD20Kdrummer

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=12680

"It's always helpful to call things by the right name. One of the ways using the wrong word can trip us is illustrated by John McCain's campaign theme. We have to win the war in Iraq, he keeps saying. Ending a war implies either winning or losing. No such baggage is attached to an occupation. You can end an occupation without either winning or losing. You just withdraw your troops."

"On the other hand, there's never been civil war in Iraq. There were rebellions against the Baathist government and, before that, against the British-sponsored governments, but before our occupation, Sunnis and Shia intermarried and lived side by side. There were always Christians in Iraq and, until the state of Israel was created, Jews. That was, in fact, true throughout the Middle East. "

lazymoon13

who cares

RolandTD20Kdrummer

lazymoon13 wrote:

who cares

Your logic gets scarier as time goes on....

lazymoon13

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Your logic gets scarier as time goes on....

no really, who cares. I see no difference it what the Iraq situation is called. it makes zero difference. hows that for logic?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

lazymoon13 wrote:

no really, who cares. I see no difference it what the Iraq situation is called. it makes zero difference. hows that for logic?

Your thought process would appear to denounce logic.

sorry, I don't know what to tell you?

perhaps there is a pill for that?

lazymoon13

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Your thought process would appear to denounce logic.

sorry, I don't know what to tell you?

perhaps there is a pill for that?

well apparently you have yet to show any logic yourself. all you did want post a link and prove you have the ability to cut and paste. yea, you're a star!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

lazymoon13 wrote:

well apparently you have yet to show any logic yourself. all you did want post a link and prove you have the ability to cut and paste. yea, you're a star!

The logic is in the article which you skipped over as per your usual...

calling names already? tsk... run along

lazymoon13

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The logic is in the article which you skipped over as per your usual...

calling names already? tsk... run along

awwwww little sensitive today are we? I read the article and think its a bunch of useless garbage as per your usual.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

lazymoon13 wrote:

awwwww little sensitive today are we? I read the article and think its a bunch of useless garbage as per your usual.

Sensitive? haha no. I have a lot thicker skin than you do, no question.

Address the thread topic or go away...

lazymoon13

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Sensitive? haha no. I have a lot thicker skin than you do, no question.

Address the thread topic or go away...

I did address the topic. it makes no difference what you label the Iraq situation. none.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

lazymoon13 wrote:

I did address the topic. it makes no difference what you label the Iraq situation. none.

Ok voila....I'll label it a party/wedding

Oops that didn't work. duh...gee...I guess it does matter after all

holy...

SilverSeed

I agree that the vocabulary they use is important. Repeated rhetoric shapes ideas. Hell, there are people on here who want to go to the Mexican border with guns to stop terrorists. There's no possible explanation for that except the repeated idea that "we must secure our borders". We've been hot on Nazis lately, Hitler was largely succesful due to his ability to spread and indoctrinate a message.

At all levels we need to question the stories coming from our government, and certainly getting them to describe their actions clearly is a good start.

Hooray on topic!

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

i prefer Operation:Iraqi Freedom

JordyWordy

SilverSeed wrote:

I agree that the vocabulary they use is important. Repeated rhetoric shapes ideas.

At all levels we need to question the stories coming from our government, and certainly getting them to describe their actions clearly is a good start.

I agreed the wording is important. A presidential candidate that presents this situation in Iraq as something the US can become winners of....is scary in my eyes.

It also shows he's missing the point. Iraqi interests should supercede US ones at this point..... Maybe thats a naive european point of view, but its true.

If its a war, then take over the fucking country McCain.
Otherwise call it what it really is.

Byrnzie

Most people don't realize that the U.S invaded South Vietnam. The wording may baffle some people. But the U.S invaded South Vietnam.

Invasion Newspeak: U.S. & USSR
Noam Chomsky
FAIR, December, 1989
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/198912--.htm

'Consider the following facts. In 1962, the United States attacked South Vietnam. In that year, President John F. Kennedy sent the U.S. Air Force to attack rural South Vietnam, where more than 80 percent of the population lived. This was part of a program intended to drive several million people into concentration camps (called "strategic hamlets") where they would be surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. This would "protect" these people from the guerrillas whom, we conceded, they were largely supporting.

The direct U.S. attack against South Vietnam followed our support for the French attempt to reconquer their former colony, our disruption of the 1954 "peace process," and a terrorist war against the South Vietnamese population. This terror had already left some 75,000 dead while evoking domestic resistance, supported from the northern half of the country after 1959, that threatened to bring down the regime that the U.S. had established. In the following years, the U.S. continued to resist every attempt at peaceful settlement, and in 1964 began to plan the ground invasion of South Vietnam. The land assault took place in early 1965, accompanied by the bombing of North Vietnam and an intensification of the bombing of the south, at triple the level of the more publicized bombing of the north. The U.S. also extended the war to Laos and Cambodia.

The U.S. protested that it was invited in, but as the Economist recognized in the case of Afghanistan (never in the case of Vietnam), "an invader is an invader unless invited in by a government with some claim to legitimacy," and outside the world of newspeak, the client regime established by the U.S. had no more legitimacy than the Afghan regime established by the USSR. Nor did the U.S. regard this government as having any legitimacy; in fact, it was regularly overthrown and replaced when its leaders appeared to be insufficiently enthusiastic about U.S. plans to escalate the terror. Throughout the war, the U.S. openly recognized that a political settlement was impossible, for the simple reason that the "enemy" would win handily in a political competition -- which the U.S. therefore deemed unacceptable.

For the past 25 years I have been searching to find some reference in mainstream journalism or scholarship to a U.S. invasion of South Vietnam, or U.S. aggression in Indochina -- without success. Instead I find a U.S. defense of South Vietnam against terrorists supported from outside (namely, from Vietnam), a defense that was unwise, the doves maintain'.

rebornFixer

Byrnzie wrote:

Most people don't realize that the U.S invaded South Vietnam. The wording may baffle some people. But the U.S invaded South Vietnam.

Invasion Newspeak: U.S. & USSR
Noam Chomsky
FAIR, December, 1989
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/198912--.htm

'Consider the following facts. In 1962, the United States attacked South Vietnam. In that year, President John F. Kennedy sent the U.S. Air Force to attack rural South Vietnam, where more than 80 percent of the population lived. This was part of a program intended to drive several million people into concentration camps (called "strategic hamlets") where they would be surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. This would "protect" these people from the guerrillas whom, we conceded, they were largely supporting.

The direct U.S. attack against South Vietnam followed our support for the French attempt to reconquer their former colony, our disruption of the 1954 "peace process," and a terrorist war against the South Vietnamese population. This terror had already left some 75,000 dead while evoking domestic resistance, supported from the northern half of the country after 1959, that threatened to bring down the regime that the U.S. had established. In the following years, the U.S. continued to resist every attempt at peaceful settlement, and in 1964 began to plan the ground invasion of South Vietnam. The land assault took place in early 1965, accompanied by the bombing of North Vietnam and an intensification of the bombing of the south, at triple the level of the more publicized bombing of the north. The U.S. also extended the war to Laos and Cambodia.

The U.S. protested that it was invited in, but as the Economist recognized in the case of Afghanistan (never in the case of Vietnam), "an invader is an invader unless invited in by a government with some claim to legitimacy," and outside the world of newspeak, the client regime established by the U.S. had no more legitimacy than the Afghan regime established by the USSR. Nor did the U.S. regard this government as having any legitimacy; in fact, it was regularly overthrown and replaced when its leaders appeared to be insufficiently enthusiastic about U.S. plans to escalate the terror. Throughout the war, the U.S. openly recognized that a political settlement was impossible, for the simple reason that the "enemy" would win handily in a political competition -- which the U.S. therefore deemed unacceptable.

For the past 25 years I have been searching to find some reference in mainstream journalism or scholarship to a U.S. invasion of South Vietnam, or U.S. aggression in Indochina -- without success. Instead I find a U.S. defense of South Vietnam against terrorists supported from outside (namely, from Vietnam), a defense that was unwise, the doves maintain'.

Of course the wording baffles people, because its classic spin. Its only a newsflash that U.S. troops invaded South Vietnam when the reason they did so is curiously omitted from the discourse ... Reading this makes one think that the U.S. wanted to turn Vietnam into the 52nd state.

Byrnzie

reborncareerist wrote:

Of course the wording baffles people, because its classic spin. Its only a newsflash that U.S. troops invaded South Vietnam when the reason they did so is curiously omitted from the discourse ... Reading this makes one think that the U.S. wanted to turn Vietnam into the 52nd state.

Go ahead and elighten us to the truth then. You've hinted that you are in possession of the truth on this matter. Don't go keeping it to yourself. We're all here to share and share alike afterall.

fuck

lazymoon13 wrote:

I did address the topic. it makes no difference what you label the Iraq situation. none.

that's like saying it makes no difference whehter you label someone a terrorist or a freedom fighter....

Byrnzie wrote:

Go ahead and elighten us to the truth then. You've hinted that you are in possession of the truth on this matter. Don't go keeping it to yourself. We're all here to share and share alike afterall.

especially since he's shown that he's clearly a better source than noam chomsky...

lazymoon13

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

that's like saying it makes no difference whehter you label someone a terrorist or a freedom fighter....

I call them terrorist, you call them freedom fighters. kinda like that?

it makes no difference if this is a war or occupation. its actually both.

fuck

lazymoon13 wrote:

I call them terrorist, you call them freedom fighters. kinda like that?

it makes no difference if this is a war or occupation. its actually both.

so you're saying it makes no difference whether hamas are considered terrorists or freedom fighters? is that your logic with the analogy?

i just don't understand what you're trying to say....

lazymoon13

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

so you're saying it makes no difference whether hamas are considered terrorists or freedom fighters? is that your logic with the analogy?

i just don't understand what you're trying to say....

you brought the analogy into this, not me. the debate is about Iraq, war or occupation. it that specific case, its makes no difference. they are one in the same.