Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (1005)	5/25/2007 9:46:02 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

I don't really understand the issue. What is the preferred term, and why? You can't "occupy" a country when both the UN and Iraq have authorized military forces to deploy in defense of one of its member states. And since US forces are there ONLY because both the UN and the Iraqi government have not decided to terminate the authorization for that deployment, it can't be an occupation. Yet, Ed and WR, and so many others in the MSM, continue to refer to the coalition presence as an occupation. As for the "preferred term"? Why not "Police action".. It seemed to be what they called the Korean war. This is why I advocated about a year ago, that the Iraqi government hold a referendum so the Iraqi people could vote on whether they desire to have foreign forces in their country until they reach the point of defending themselves. It would have drastically undermined the credibility of the insurgency. And even if the people decided to have all foreign forces withdraw, it would have undermined Al Qai'da because they would no longer be welcomed by any group because the will of the Iraqi people had spoken. Their continued presence in Iraq would have been labeled illegitimate. Furthermore, had we been asked to leave, it would have likely motivated the Iraqi's to get their act together and assume responsibility for their own defense. Hawk