Occupation or liberation?

[2pac Shakur]

Zell at the RNC yesterday:

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

I think we're an army of occupation.
What do you think?

[krank]

We'll be there in significant numbers for a long time. Take from that what you wish.

[Ebenezer Kohl]

Saddam Hussein was not a foreign power in Iraq and thus there has been no liberation. The United States has held and controlled Iraq through military force and thus there has been occupation.

[The African Queen]

Originally Posted by 2pac Shakur

Zell at the RNC yesterday:

I think we're an army of occupation.
What do you think?

Occupier for now, but eventually we will be classified as liberators. We should continue into Iran and Syria also. Wouldn't mind if we occupied/liberated every one of the Arab countries.

[Pseudolus]

Originally Posted by Ebenezer Kohl

Saddam Hussein was not a foreign power in Iraq and thus there has been no liberation.

Ooooooooo-kay.

Anyway, I vote "both". Our troops are occupying the country, and we did liberate them.

[2pac Shakur]

Originally Posted by gomer_tree

Occupation implies that our long-term goal is to occupy and run the country. The fact that there is a short-term necessity does not mean it is the goal. The goal was to topple the regime and help them establish a democracy (or close to it). The fact that we have to be there a while to maintain order and stability does not make us "occupiers" in the sense the term is used. By that definition, we were not liberators of Europe or Japan.

The fact that nobody in the country wants us there indicates to me that we are occupying.

Occupation is in the eye of the beholder.

[11pecans]

Originally Posted by 2pac Shakur

The fact that nobody in the country wants us there indicates to me that we are occupying.

Nobody?

[Malik Shabazz]

Originally Posted by gomer_tree

Occupation implies that our long-term goal is to occupy and run the country. The fact that there is a short-term necessity does not mean it is the goal. The goal was to topple the regime and help them establish a democracy (or close to it). The fact that we have to be there a while to maintain order and stability does not make us "occupiers" in the sense the term is used. By that definition, we were not liberators of Europe or Japan.

I don't think "occupation" has any connotation of long-term or short-term duration.

I think Pseudolus is right. The US liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein. The US is also occupying Iraq.

[2pac Shakur]

Originally Posted by 11pecans

Nobody?

Maybe Halliburton wants us to stay.
Including their top employee, Dick Cheney.