If you disagree that the US presence in Iraq is an "occupation", are you then agreeing occupation is illegal?

Question

It appears those who defend the US presence in Iraq vehemently deny it is an occupation. Do they deny it is an occupation because they agree an occupation would be illegal or wrong under int'l law, and thus the US would not be engaged in such activity? Why feel so strongly about the term "occupation" then?

Answer 1

Occupation refers to the entry and taking over of a country... it's akin to annexation.

The US is engaged in trying to give the country back to it's people. In case you haven't noticed:
(1) Hussein (tyrannical dictator) captured and turned over to the Iraqi people, tried, convicted, sentenced, and executed according to Islamic law. (Not U.S., or international law)
(2) Free elections, the first in probably 4,000 years in which the people had a say in who governed them and how they were represented. (US did not participate in, nominate, appoint nor try to influence the elections... the insurgents tried to prevent them)
(3) Assisting their building a military and police force so the Iraqi people can fend for themselves. (The insurgents are killing elected officials, military and police)
(4) Our guys would like to come home, but they know that if they leave now, it will be Desert Storm all over again... only this time with a different megalomaniac in power... more than likely one of the insurgents who's from another country.
(5) We are not there for oil. If we were, we'd take it. It's moronic to think that Iraq could be a source of inexpensive oil when anybody with at least a modicum of intelligence knows that the price of crude is set by OPEC and the price of gas at the pump is set by the oil companies, and it's high because too many quasi-sapient people drive foreign-made gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks.
(6) We're no longer there for WMD. This is a lame excuse. The intelligence agencies of almost every country in the world were under the impression he had them. Every time Hussein twitched, Israelis dove for their safe rooms. Turkey was very concerned. So were parts of southern Russia. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia... all his neighbors coveted Hussein's oil fields. Why didn't they go in and just take them. Syria is much larger... should have been no problem for them. Because they knew Hussein was capable of anything... and because they believed he had some nuclear, biological, or chemical capability. Why do you think these countries are helping the insurgents? Because they're no longer afraid of Hussein. If you walk into a bank and tell the teller to fill up a paper bag with money or you'll blow the place up... doesn't make any difference if you have a bomb or not. There's a threat made. If a policeman shoots you, it doesn't make any difference whether or not you were "only kidding." It seems that the only people who "knew he never had them" are those with 0 foresight and 20/20 hindsight... the "Monday morning quarterbacks" who didn't know a football from a golf ball Friday evening, but after the results of the weekend's games become instant experts.
(7) It's not because Hussein threatened Bush Sr. It's because ever since Desert Storm, people have been bashing administrations for not completing the job as the military leaders on the ground recommended. Both sides of the aisle in Congress condemned the lack of action against Hussein. Both sides of the aisle voted for a law to send in the troops.
(8) Let's give diplomacy a chance? For 12 years the UN passed resolutions and sanctions against Hussein. He ignored them. Some of the members of the UN made millions of dollars circumventing the sanctions. The UN sent inspectors in. Hussein played with like a cat plays with a mouse. In the mean time Hussein lived in a dozen or so palaces and his people starved.
(9) Again... WE WANT TO LEAVE. We don't want to stay. We don't want to annex Iraq. We don't want to run the country. Heck the venal politicians we, in our infinite wisdom have elected... at all levels, can't even run ours. Neither major party has fielded a qualified candidate in over 40 years. The guys who want to take over are the terrorists. If we pull out before Iraq can defend herself, you will hear two things from the terrorists.
. . . (a) "We have driven the infidel invaders from our homeland. You don't believe? We are here. They are not."
. . . (b) "Do you remember what we able to do to you when the Americans were here to protect you? Well, they are no longer here..."

These.. the terrorists... are the people who will "occupy" and "take over" Iraq. And most of them are not Iraqi.

Show me where there has been any occupation by the US... even the intent. Perhaps I'm missing something. I see the term as merely applied by the insurgents to foster support for their efforts to "rid Iraq of the infidel occupation." Some people seem gullible enough to buy it.

I see the US involvement in Iraq is no more an "occupation" than was the French and German involvement in our fight for our own freedom. That is why I disagree that the US presence is can be construed as "occupation." The legality or illegality of "occupation" is not for me to decide.

Problem is that nobody tries to refute my position. All they can do is call me names. I was in debate. When somebody resorts to name-calling, they admit defeat. They are out of facts, logic, or strategy to continue the debate.

Answer 2

Had it been sanctioned by UN(May be the sanction was obtained 'under duress', it would not have been an occupation but it has been there defying the world opinion and non-cooperation of even the closest allies. And moreover none of the reasons whey it was launched have turned out to be well founded.The mere plea of the citizens not to leave is due to the fact that by occupying and inflicting all sorts of demages USA has not left the Iraquees in a very unenviable situation where while they hate the occupation they re afraid that the post-vacation period will be The deluge.The best way out would be for stationing a Peace Keepig Force,preferably of Arabic forces for the time being.

Answer 3

True, but Hitler used his friend and foe alike and this is whats happening right now. The King of Saudi Arabia supports Iran in the region and with good cause, as much as people want to deny OIL they must understand the control of it. Don't rule out this mastermind plan, have the US leave Iraq let the Iranians come to Iraq and take control of the OIL, then entice the US go back to Iraq, but now where will we put our troops, in Israel? The The Saudi now aliened with Iran, will not let us use Saudi Arabia as a lunching pad to fight the Iranians.They are pursuing Iraq just as hard as we are and spending way less money.

Answer 4

It was an unjustified invasion and has become an occupation. If the world thought what the US is doing is justified, there would be a UN peacekeeping force in Iraq now. Unless the next President tries very hard to restore our dignity in the world, we are destined, as a nation, to fail. We can not be an adversary or enemy of the world. This President and his administration are about power, MONEY, and more MONEY. I bet you will never hear or know about how much the "blind trust" that W and the Dick has grown during their 8 years at the helm. I would not be surprised if both are billionaires when they get out of office. They have made a lot of millionaires, so it is only fair they should be billion with a B. I wish they could both be tried as war criminals and forced to give all the profiteering money back to the US to help pay the horrible debt they have put on the backs of our citizens, their offspring, and their offspring. I am an American Patriot, veteran, and I am ashamed what this administration has done to our image in the world.

Answer 5

It is not an occupation, because the US is in Iraq as part of a UN authorized multinational Force.

Approved by the UN Security Council by a 15-0 vote in 2004, and reapproved every year since.

UN Security Council resolution 1546 (2004)

extended by

UN Security Council resolution 1637 (2005).

and extended again by

UN Security Council resolution 1723 (2006).

For some reason, i don't believe you knew that.

How come ????

Answer 6

For those who do not think its an occupation or an illegal invasion you might want to think about this....

Right now this country is great turmoil due to most of America and its dis satisfaction with the administration, our loss off freedoms and the list goes on.
Not all people feel the same way but we all have to agree that this country is in major conflict with the goings on in the administration. Many Americans are distressed to the point of questioning a revolution to get America back. Granted we Americans have many views everything from being happy to completely miserable.
What if another country came here to help us like we helped Iraq?
Then what would we call it?

Answer 7

The US occupation of Iraq is legal under the international law because it has been approved by the UN.

The initial invasion of Iraq perhaps wasn't fully approved by the UN. But since then the UN has approved the US occupation of Iraq.

Answer 8

it's not occupation as there's a gradual handover of power

but to use the word assistance is taking things too far

The motivation was to finish the job his daddy had started
and that's not a good reason to send warplanes cruise missiles and troops

As for justification ... a pack of lies (WMD)

But Saddam was responsible for thousands of deaths in Iraq

there's no clear cut right or wrong illegal on some fronts, justified on others

Answer 9

It's probably a semantic distinction--the Iraq government (puppets we prop up) invited us in, therefore we're not ocupying. We are occupying the country, obviously. The theory is that the lawful government invited us in, therefore our presence is legal and legitimate.

Answer 10

Your question contrdicts itself.

Yes it's occupation. It's illegal, immoral, undemocratic, fascistic, cruel, selfish.

There is no military objective other than to prevent the Iraqi people democratically finding their own leader. The claimed Al Qaeda connection never existed, the claimed WMD's never existed. So what is the objective? Oh yeah, to maintain the possession of the Iraqi oil industry which was sold off to UK and US oil companies against the will and benefit of the Iraqi people.

The people who support the Allied prescence in Iraq are the kind of people who would have gone along with Hitler's world tour plans quite happily.

Same goes for Afghanistan - the only military acheivement the West has made is to ensure that Afghanistan is the world's largest Heroin producer.