definition of occupation: "Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces. or The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory."
2007-05-16 01:26:15 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
An occupation and an excuse for Bush to invade Iraq knowing Bush and the CIA already knew there were no WMD's before they invaded. George Tenent's book came out 3 years too late but that doesn't negate the facts he wrote. Bush misled the country and he should be impeached.
2007-05-16 01:40:11 · answer #1 · answered by Debra D 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, if you want to get down to the nuts and bolts of it, technically, neither. All-out war is over there, the Baathist Iraqi government was defeated and vanquished. What is being fought there now is an insurgency, which for lack of a better word is war, but we call those low-intensity conflicts/asymetrical warfare now days. It's not an occupation because the Iraqi government has already been voted in and has asked us repeatedly to stay and we are fighting alongside thier troops. No occupier I know fights WITH the troops of the country they are inside, but rather against them. We aren't doing that. So it isn't an occupation.
2007-05-16 08:47:01 · answer #2 · answered by gregpasq 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It remains a War. With an Occupation an Army (sic Country) invades for the purpose of claiming territory as their own, i.e. 1939 Germany invading Poland, Paris, etc.
The situation in Iraq remains post defeat operations (my own term). The 'War' had ended and the immediate goal achieved "remove a Dictator from power under allowances in the UN charter".
The events occuring even togay are insurgents "not part of the original recognized army which the USA made war against" but rather "extremists" desiring to remain in power placing their own perverted control based upon an even more perverted view of the Koran, on the countries citizens and the Iraq and USA military.
The term Occupation regarding this War actually was first spoken by Democrats and is widely used as a Political driver.
2007-05-16 08:39:23 · answer #3 · answered by Wandering C 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Government never declared Iraq a war it is the same kind of conflict that Vietnam was. I just hope the people don't
treat the Iraq vets like they did us Vietnam vets. K-O
2007-05-16 16:16:56 · answer #4 · answered by K-O 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its is a war and an occupation
2007-05-16 12:25:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Purely my opinion: Iraqis supplied the monies that allowed for the growth of Al-Queda and Taliban terrorist activities that makes them culpable after (9/11) to be engaged (IN WAR as they are now.
2007-05-16 09:11:12 · answer #6 · answered by Al D 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraw WAS a War, we WON the WAR. We went in, kicked Saddam's Military @ss, took out Saddam, took the country, put in a new government, and gave that government a fighting force; that was the objective, not to stay there forever and make it a perfect country wjile spoon feeding Iraq.
2007-05-16 08:30:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Its a war.
definition of war: 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
Note the part that says "between parties within a nation".
2007-05-16 08:33:21 · answer #8 · answered by Sane 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It s an occupation.
we iraqi are fighting americans, collaborators and alqaeda which entered to the countries because of bush
2007-05-16 09:39:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Problem is we are fighting a battle unlike we have ever have had to fight.
So in strict defination both are wrong.
2007-05-16 08:37:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋