Foreign means from another country. Invader is someone who attacks, especially without provocation, from outside the border.
Are we really the foreign invaders in Iraq? It sounds so terrible. Maybe we can petition the crusty guys in Oxford and Cambridge to amend the language so it doesn't sound so incriminating?
2007-01-11 01:29:15 · 17 answers · asked by Murphy 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Riddler, I think we should just change the language so it doesn't sound bad, so it doesn't sound like we do anything bad in the world. I mean, we're the good guys. Right? We're the good guys, we're the good guys. If I keep saying it, maybe it will be true.
2007-01-11 01:34:15 · update #1
Paul H -- are you saying the UN is the governing body that legitimizes acts of aggression -- that their stamp of approval is definitive?
I thought the UN was useless and evil, and we should lob a few dozen stories off UN headquarters. I'm so confused. I thought the UN was a powerless bunch of blowhards.
Even then, I thought 1441 said to use force as a last resort. We didn't. The UN inspectors weren't finished, and the UN Security Council did not agree that we had reached the point of last resort.
Anyway, isn't the UN to be mocked and ridiculed? Why do you cite them as an authority?
2007-01-11 01:47:00 · update #2
Turbo, don't we use a lot of euphemisms here? How about the "Defense Department", "Clean Air Act", "Collateral Damage", "Evildoers", "Terrorists", "Genocidal Dictators", "The Enemy", "War on Terror", "War on Drugs", "War on War"?
Why can't we just add one more euphemism for the war in Iraq, just one more little one?
2007-01-11 02:01:48 · update #3
Panama Jack -- oh my God. What have I done?! You are so right. If I had a conscience, I should bury my head in shame. If I were a genuine Christian, I should fall to my knees, weep, and beg Christ for forgiveness for sponsoring policies that so grotesquely oppose His teachings -- like Mary Magdalene annointing His feet with precious oils.
But, then I'm a red blooded, steak eating American. Christianity is a networking culture, nothing more. Get real, you pansy, or move to Canada where all the other wussies live on ice rocks.
2007-01-11 03:43:32 · update #4
Steven, Canadians were the traitors to America, loyal to the loony king. They have no balls. No other provocation needed. I'm proud of our tradition of wanton violence here. Those dovey pacifists who believe children should be raised free from fear can move to beautiful and breath-taking Canada where they wil be taken care of, as fas as I'm concerned.
2007-01-11 08:32:30 · update #5
Wake up, murphy. Your country is an invader, killing innocent women and children who live on the opposite side of the world. Are you proud of that? Your country are not the good guys, as you hoped. They are the bad guys, the evil-doers. This cannot and should not be dressed up 21st century spin, just so you can sleep at night.
Is that what you want: to pretend? Is it? So the world won't get to see what a monster your government is?
The government you voted for.
2007-01-11 03:35:00 · answer #1 · answered by Panama Jack 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
We ARE foreign "invaders", but with a purpose. The English language is often inadequate or misleading if you take it literally. We were authorized by the UN to go kick Saddam out, and we ARE trying to establish a democracy in Iraq. Unfortunately, this is a definite case of "easier said than done".
2007-01-11 01:33:51 · answer #2 · answered by Paul H 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Nice job Murphy lashing out at Canadians makes us Americans look even more like aggressors.
So what was the provocation there?
2007-01-11 05:36:54 · answer #3 · answered by Steven R 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Technically, yes, we are. Actually, "were" is more correct.
We're still there in support of the new Iraqi government - it is they who are the legitimate government of that country. We do not run the country, we seek no territory or gains, and we hope that upon successful completion of the mission (no thanks to Dems) we can leave.
I don't understand your aversion to plain language, however. Calling a spade a spade is the best way to communicate. Using delicately crafted words or phrases to disguise the truth is intellectual dishonesty.
Like the use of "phased redeployment" for "orderly retreat and defeat", or "undocumented immigrant" for "illegal alien", or "differently-abled" for "retarded" or "handicapped".
The sooner we stop hiding the truth in flowery phrases, the better off we'll all be.
2007-01-11 01:49:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
It is Bad! We have no right in Iraq. Very few Americans reside there. This makes American' a foreign invader. You are Joking on the PC, Right?
2007-01-11 01:41:32 · answer #5 · answered by janshouse justice for all 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think it was back in 2003 or 2004 that Wolfowitz said, without a hint of irony, words to the effec of, "Foreigners should quit meddling in Iraq".
2007-01-11 01:33:49 · answer #6 · answered by Morgy 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes we are in effect "foreign invaders" We fit the definition of "mercenaries", or a military group, controlling foreign soil. This is especially true, when our troops are working under the United Nations flag.
2007-01-11 01:36:26 · answer #7 · answered by Beau R 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
We're not Iraqi's and Iraq did not attack us. Changing the language so that the truth is more palatable come right out of "1984".
2007-01-11 01:33:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
We are invaders to some Iraqis and to other Arab despots that worry about their own tenacious hold on their people but to the vast majority of Iraqis we are friends and liberators.
2007-01-11 01:34:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It has long been said in Europe that Americans don't get sarcasm. I didn't really believe it but the answers you've gotten so far seem to suggest otherwise
2007-01-11 01:41:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋