Condemn "US occupiers in Iraq"

[Faithfulee]

What I condemn is the use by American Liberals, Democrats, the Media, and all who have used the term “US occupiers in Iraq" in past years.  I am pleased to say that other than some Islamic radicals, foreign socialist publications, and the like,  I have not seen the term used much in the past year or so.

Sadly, our enemies have picked up the phrase and are using it against.

A recent poll of Iraqis concluded

 “The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak”

Sadly, the commentary was filled with “US occupiers”,  thank you American Lberals, Democrats, etc.

Consider how much better off the US and the Iraqis would be if we had used thwords to define the true mission of US in Iraq, and the reason that we have lost more than 4000 of our brave and dedicated military.

LIBERATORS  -  That was the immediate effect of  the war in Iraq. That Mission was accomplished and the  people of Iraq now recognize this, but they fail to give the US the credit for bringing it about. 

And

DEMOCRACY  BUILDERS -  This is our current mission in Iraq and it is a very complicated and dangerous one.  Not because of  the intentions of the US but because  Islam doesn’t look favorable on Democracy and the Muslim Sects are using the “Occupier” label   to discredit of the US. while at the same time killing Iraqis.   This in the face of  elections that did set up the framework for democratic government.  Our current mission is to help the government  build a workable democracy  in Iraq.  For those like me who believe in the virtues of Democracy,  I  praise our troops and believe that their sacrifices are   worthy of this great nation   

How much better off we, the Iraqis and the world would be if instead of “US Occupiers”,  we had never used the term “occupiers” " Instead should use terms that promote what is our real  mission is in Iraq, as Liberators, and builders of Democracy.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

How 'bout "cultural imperialists"?

all

[Faithfulee]

How 'bout "cultural imperialists"?

all

Care to explain yourself??

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Well, democracy is a big part of our culture, I for one think it's a pretty damn good thing.  Is it our duty to impose it on another culture though?  Did we ever stop to think that they might not want democracy?  Is democracy and American style capitalism what is needed?  Will it be accepted by the people?  Is it our duty to meddle?

all

[Acumen]

Well, democracy is a big part of our culture, I for one think it's a pretty damn good thing.  Is it our duty to impose it on another culture though?  Did we ever stop to think that they might not want democracy?  Is democracy and American style capitalism what is needed?  Will it be accepted by the people?  Is it our duty to meddle?

all

How many nations of people do you know don't want a say in how their nation is governed?

[WorldWarrior]

"How many nations of people do you know don't want a say in how their nation is governed?"

Well--let's see.

We'll start the list with the Theocrasies in the Middle East--shall we?


Saudi Arabia

Kuwait

Syria

Israel

[Thorolf]

Spreading "Democracy" is not just an American ideal - not any more. The UN is also working to implement, monitor, and maintain democratic forms of government around the world (not to mention some of the other democratic states).

FWIW

[Faithfulee]

Well, democracy is a big part of our culture, I for one think it's a pretty damn good thing.  Is it our duty to impose it on another culture though?  Did we ever stop to think that they might not want democracy?  Is democracy and American style capitalism what is needed?  Will it be accepted by the people?  Is it our duty to meddle?

all

I am a champion of Democracy and believe in it fervently, and I hope you do also.

Did you think that the US Imposed Democracy in Iraq??  If so how do you explain the elections that set up the Iraq government? 

I guess you believe that the purpose of our liberating Iraq was so that the US could occupy the country.

"How many nations of people do you know don't want a say in how their nation is governed?"

Well--let's see.

We'll start the list with the Theocrasies in the Middle East--shall we?

Saudi Arabia

Kuwait

Syria

Israel

I can't believe that you believe that Israel is a theocracy.  But then . . . . . . . .

Spreading "Democracy" is not just an American ideal - not any more. The UN is also working to implement, monitor, and maintain democratic forms of government around the world (not to mention some of the other democratic states).

FWIW

Good point,  and most of the nations of the world participate in the "democratic"  UN.  Democracy cant be all bad now can it.

The bias here against the liberation of Iraq and our attempts at democracy is remarkable.  The point of this topic is that the bias resulted in our Libs, Dems, Media and other siding with the enemy of democracy by calling the US "occupiers" in Iraq when that was not our purpose or goal.  Our enemy and the enemy of peace in iraq  are using that mantra against us.

I condemn that as aiding and abetting our enemy.

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

"I guess you believe that the purpose of our liberating Iraq was so that the US could occupy the country."


After FIVE YEARS it's sure starting to look that way.

[Faithfulee]

FFLee says--

"I guess you believe that the purpose of our liberating Iraq was so that the US could occupy the country."


After FIVE YEARS it's sure starting to look that way.

If it is starting to look that way then you are justifying calling the US "occupiers" and aiding and abetting the enemy.

In fact it obviously was not an objective of the US from the beginning and you know it.

[Thorolf]

FFLee says--

"I guess you believe that the purpose of our liberating Iraq was so that the US could occupy the country."


After FIVE YEARS it's sure starting to look that way.

 

[WorldWarrior]

If one couintry invades another sovereign nation and then sits there for FIVE years--



There's not much les you can call it except an "Occupation."

It surely does not enhance the reputation of the US around the world.

[Faithfulee]

If one couintry invades another sovereign nation and then sits there for FIVE years--

There's not much les you can call it except an "Occupation."

It surely does not enhance the reputation of the US around the world.

A recent survey showed that the Iraq People are pleased to be rid of sad man.  Liberation was one of the goals of our war in Iraq.  Do you think America and our servicemen should get credit in the free world for this effort??  Calling us "occupiers" tends to diminish the reputation of the US and I condemn everyone who uses the word instead of "Libeators"

Following the Liberation we had a moral obligation to help the country establish a form of government.  The elections that followed were another tribute to US policy, and the US should gain in stature and reputation for that.  Indeed, at the time we were.

What happened was that Islamic radicals got into the act and the violent struggle for power ensued and is continuing.  Today McCain predicted that our mission will be complete by the end of his first term.  That is, a functioning democracy will evolve and the Iraqis can maintain its own security.  The threat to Iraq's secutiry is NOT the US,  but radical Islamists. 

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

"A recent survey showed that the Iraq People are pleased to be rid of sad man"

Recent surveys also show that 65+% of Iraqis want us out of their country.


FFLEe says--

"Today McCain predicted that our mission will be complete by the end of his first term"

Why would it take so long? if we can't do it in FIVE YEARS--why does he think we could do "it"--whatever "it" is--in NINE YEARS?



What is our "mission" in Iraq anyway?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

I am a champion of Democracy and believe in it fervently, and I hope you do also.

Yes, I do. 

Did you think that the US Imposed Democracy in Iraq??  If so how do you explain the elections that set up the Iraq government?

I only think that the US imposed Democracy in Iraq from the perspective that if the US had not gone in, there would not be democracy in Iraq. 

I guess you believe that the purpose of our liberating Iraq was so that the US could occupy the country.

Please don't assume because I disagree with you, that I am stupid.  The reason given for going into Iraq was due to the statement that there were WMD stockpiled to be used against us and our allies, either in a formal declaration, or by terrorists.  I don't place any emotional value on that statement.  It gets us no where.  But, fact of the matter is, it was at least faulty intel.  So now we are in.  Saddam was a brutal dictator, and his sons were at least 10 times worse.  So I'm not saying that the liberation of Iraq was a bad thing, from my perspective, or from the perspective of the Iraqi people. 

In fact, now that we are there, we need to stay.  Leaving before the job is done is going to cause us more problems down the road than we had before.  That's what happened with Afganistan during the soviet invasion.  That's why we had the problems that lead us to this point. 

I have just seen, all to often, how the best intentions backfire.  I don't think it is our place to go tinkering around in other cultures so that we can give them our "better" system. 

all

[Thorolf]

If one couintry invades another sovereign nation and then sits there for FIVE years--



There's not much les you can call it except an "Occupation."

It surely does not enhance the reputation of the US around the world.

 

[Thorolf]

FFLee says--

"A recent survey showed that the Iraq People are pleased to be rid of sad man"

Recent surveys also show that 65+% of Iraqis want us out of their country.

Yep, a recent poll does indicate that they want the multinational coalition to leave...

Of course, that same poll indicates that 40 percent want the US to play a bigger role in reconstruction, and 38% want more involvement from the British.

FFLEe says--

"Today McCain predicted that our mission will be complete by the end of his first term"

Why would it take so long? if we can't do it in FIVE YEARS--why does he think we could do "it"--whatever "it" is--in NINE YEARS?


What is our "mission" in Iraq anyway?

"it" is pretty clear - to stabilize a democratic form of government in Iraq.

"It" can be done in the next few years, considering how successful the last several months have been.

Of course, acknowledging that is not politically expedient, so I expect you to deny or ignore it. 

[Faithfulee]

FFLee says--

"A recent survey showed that the Iraq People are pleased to be rid of sad man"

Recent surveys also show that 65+% of Iraqis want us out of their country.


FFLEe says--

"Today McCain predicted that our mission will be complete by the end of his first term"

Why would it take so long? if we can't do it in FIVE YEARS--why does he think we could do "it"--whatever "it" is--in NINE YEARS?



What is our "mission" in Iraq anyway?

Our mission is to Leave Iraq with a functioning government that can handle its own security.  That I how I have defined Victory for years.

And I remind you that neither Ob ama not Clinton have said that they would be out of Iraq by the end of their first term.

If the libs had gotten real years ago and dropped the "occupier" lable for our efforts, I know that we would be much further along than we are now.

I am aware of the survey results and say that the poeple believe that "occupier" label that libs have pinned on or brave troops.  Who wants to be occupied anyway.  The Iraq governmen will have to deal with this and I believe that they will.  It seems to be working.  When the people realize that we are not occupiers, but rather trainers of those Iraqis who will get the job that US troops do now.  You libbers have made the job of the Iraq government even more difficult.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

And I remind you that neither Ob ama not Clinton have said that they would be out of Iraq by the end of their first term.

That's because both Obama and Clinton realize that such a thing would be unrealistic, and as soon as they make a show of trying, something will come up, and they'll make a show of "being forced" to stay. 

all

[Akiva]

Argue semantics all you want, but these facts remain:

In March 2003, the United States, as the Coalition Provisional Authority, assumed a political monopoly over the State of Iraq. 

Nearly a year later, the United States began to cede power, at least ceremonially, to an interim Iraqi government (put in place by the US Administration-- just like Saddam)

In January 2005, elections were held in Iraq; yet, many of Iraq's Sunni's boycotted the vote because of US interference.  Shockingly enough, the US refused to allow international watchdog agencies in the country for the elections.

The fact that 150,000+ American troops remain in the country controlling the borders with military bases set up in the nation's capital is enough to name the presence an occupation. 

Not to mention the myriad of infractions against international law as cited in the Geneva and Vienna conventions.  I will cite these, if anyone is interested, but for now I will not take the time; most of those who cannot understand that our presence in Iraq is an illegal occupation usually do not hold ideas of international law in regard anyway.  Odd, as our nation helped draft such laws.