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.
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.
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.
a Preoccupation on Terror, I'd say.
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".
Surely many of the Iraqi citizens have felt terror at the hands of the occupying force; therefore, "occupation OF terror".
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.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).