Slog - Comments on No War http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war What's happening in Iraq is not a war but an occupation. This distinction is very important. A war and an occupation are not the same things. The expression, "war on terror," has the echo of some sense; the expression, "occupation on terror," makes no sense at all. Yet that is what Americans are paying for: a nonsensical occupation on terror. A state of war requires a state. Iraq as a state is not at war with the US. It doesn't have an army, and barely has a government. What's there, what rules, is the force of an occupying power. Not... Copyright 2008 Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:16:50 -0800 Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:11:17 -0800 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Comment by Lola You are so right, C. I try to always call it for the occupation it is.

And if anyone has doubts about that fact, watch The Battle of Algiers.

]]> Lola http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war#c851417 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war#c851417 News Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:31:54 -0800 Comment by New Deal Demoncrat Air America has been trying to call it an occupation for a couple of years. (Randi Rhodes particularly will say we need to call it an occupation but then turn around in the same show and call it a war again.)

Democrats are wimps when it comes to commitment.

But give it a shot at calling it that Charles and good luck!!

BTW, there is an ANTI-WAR demonstration at Westlake starting in an hour. Notice it's not called an anti-occupation demonstration.

]]> New Deal Demoncrat http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war#c851451 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war#c851451 News Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:58:20 -0800 Comment by adrian oooh, charles. keep that talk up and you'll find yourself decomposing in an oil drum somewhere in the nevada desert. i know. i've been there.

]]> adrian http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war#c851511 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war#c851511 News Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:36:26 -0800 Comment by davidLBC a Preoccupation on Terror, I'd say.

]]> davidLBC http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war#c851532 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war#c851532 News Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:53:42 -0800 Comment by M I never have, and never will, call what we are involved in a "war". It is indeed an Occupation. Not only that I refer to it as an "ILLEGAL OCCUPATION".

]]> M http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war#c851632 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war#c851632 News Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:13:26 -0800 Comment by Toby Surely many of the Iraqi citizens have felt terror at the hands of the occupying force; therefore, "occupation OF terror".

]]> Toby http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war#c851634 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war#c851634 News Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:14:02 -0800 Comment by douglas i'd have to disagree that the expression "war on terror" has any sense to it. terror in this context is nothing more than a tactic for clandestine groups pitted against larger, more powerful enemies. declaring war on a tactic is ridiculous, it's tantamount to declaring war on flanking movements or something. there is no sense to it, it's simply flashy sounding.
and yes iraq is an occupation of sorts rather than a war.

]]> douglas http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war#c851685 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/no_war#c851685 News Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:11:17 -0800