Please stop calling the US Invasion of Iraq War the Iraq War

[Laura PourMeADrink]

When we call it a WARit implies that WE were attacked and WE started a war to retaliate. This is not the case in Iraq. We instigated a selective, preemptive invasion. This criminal administration wants everyone to call it a war to retain the support of the blind patriots and to hide behind slogans like "We are a nation at war," and the government should not be critcized for its motives or spending, as if it was something we had to do and had no control over.

[OrlandoGator]

1. I have no problem calling it the Iraq War.

It is a war, and we started it under false pretenses. I'm not sure if there's any better way to phrase it.

[mike_c]

7. I agree with the OP, and generally call it...

...the invasion of Iraq or the war against Iraq. We don't generally speak of Germany's "Poland war," because that suggests some degree of mutual beligerence. Instead, we call it "the invasion of Poland" because that highlights the unilateral injustice. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is no different, IMO.

[karlrschneider]

9. I have consistently referred to "the invasion and occupation of Iraq"

:eyes:

[LynnTheDem]

22. 100% agreement here.

Germany invaded Poland.

America invaded Iraq.

No diff.

[drdtroit]

34. Word!

Blitzkrieg = Shock and Awe

[LynnTheDem]

35. Homeland = Fatherland...Patriot Act = Enabling Act

As the Germans say today;

SAME SHIT. DIFFERENT ASSHOLE.

[pattim]

28. We don't speak of a "Poland war" because Poland was merely a campaign

in the Eastern Europe front in World War II. It was not a war in and of itself. Not because of some "mutual beligerene " nonsense.

[LynnTheDem]

36. And what do you think Iraq is? Merely a campaign.

bush & his poodle bLiar spoke of Saudi and Pakistan and China nd Syria and Iran and...

[pattim]

37. But those would be different wars.

What I mean is, the invasion of Poland created a state of war between Germany (and her new "allies") and France, Britain, Poland, and assorted minor nations. Thus WW2 began, and Poland became known only as one campaign in one front in one theater of a war--the German Polish campaign in the Eastern European front (which moved into Russia), in the European theater (as opposed to the Pacific one), all of which were part of one continuous war. Should we invade further countries, they would be seperate wars, as they would neither be allied with Iraq, nor, for that matter, would it be an unbroken chain of hostilities.

Although the fact that you seem to believe that we have plans to invade Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both of which are allied with us, and China and Pakistan, both of which possess nuclear weapons, and any other nation during Bush's remaining few years, does incline me to discredit your response entirely.

[LynnTheDem]

45. *I* don't "seem to believe", but BUSH DOES.

Catch up on the news. ;)

[LynnTheDem]

46. Here you go, you can "discredit" these news agencies!

Although what with you not having known this, and instead thinking it was only myself that believed bush was set on doing more invasions, does incline me to discredit your posts entirely.

Bush to Blair: First Iraq, then Saudi

Bush told the Prime Minister two months before the invasion of Iraq that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea may also be dealt with over weapons of mass destruction, a top secret Downing Street memo shows.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article319993.ece

Bush told Blair of 'going beyond Iraq'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1592807,00.html

Bush Was Thinking Beyond Iraq
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-14-2005-78881.asp

IndiaDaily - Bush wanted ''to go beyond Iraq'', mentioned Pakistan

http://www.indiadaily.com/breaking_news/48600.asp

Bush looked past Iraq on spread of weapons
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/13/news/weapons.php

Bush Told Blair of 'Going Beyond Iraq'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1015-03.htm

Bush to Blair: First Iraq, Then Saudi
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101705Z.shtml

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

51. LOL!

You're hilarious!

[pattim]

52. "And what do you think Iraq is? Merely a campaign."

If "Iraq is part of a campaign," that means that there will be future invasions. I cannot see how you could possibly spin "Iraq is a campaign" and not mean "There will be future invasions."

Edit: in response to the post which you deleted, in which you claimed that you never implied Bush currently has plans for future invasions.

[LynnTheDem]

53. Iraq is part of a campaign. Or have you forgotten Afghanistan?

But hey, you're entitled to your own opinion. Gee, SO AM I!

Have a great day!

:)

[pattim]

56. Seperate wars for seperate ends, and you know it.

Afghanistan was about removing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Largely a political necessity, as evidenced by the lack of support after the war.

Iraq was the first step in a now-aborted attempt to convert the Mideast into a free-market, possibly pseudodemocratic wonderland.

Or do you actually buy the "We invaded them to stop Terra!" line?

[LynnTheDem]

58. You are entitled to YOUR own opinion.

The bad news for you is, SO AM I!

:)

[pattim]

59. That's fairly obvious.

But I'm sure you've heard of the concepts of "conversation" and "debate" in which two parties of differing opinions explain the relative merits and failings of their own and each others'. This type of social interaction in no way violates the idea that each may believe what they wish--rather, it depends entirely upon it, as, should either of us believe we not have an inviolate right to our own opinion, the discussion cease to exist.

:)

[LynnTheDem]

61. Only you are not "conversing" or "debating".

:)

[pattim]

63. I have disagreed with you, yes.

I have told you that you were incorrect, yes. I believe you are. You have told me I was incorrect. You believe I am. I'm not entirely certain what form of debate you would prefer--one in which both parties largely agree?

Edit: This is fruitless. I'll read any response you write, but it seems my replies are merely making the situation worse.

[mike_c]

43. bush refers to Iraq as part of a "global conflict..."

...or "one front in the global war on terror." And you might doubt my credibility as well, but I have every confidence that he intended a much wider conflict before his little misadventure in Iraq went utterly balls up.

[pattim]

54. "Intended" does not mean "Intends."

That's the difference. And I have no idea why nobody understands this.

He planned to. He no longer does plan to, as he cannot. Therefore Iraq is not a campaign. Therefore it is a single war. Therefore my original point stands.

[LynnTheDem]

57. Wow you know what bush plans to do,. COOL!

And gee, ONLY YOUR opinion counts! I didn't realize that!

[pattim]

62. I have done nothing you have not.

You, and the poster to whom I was replying, have claimed Bush plans certain things. I have claimed he has plans other than those which you claim. Each believes they have valid justification for such claims.

You have claimed the opinion that mine is incorrect. I have claimed the opinion that yours is incorrect. What I do not understand is why you seem to believe that disagreement implies disrespect for the notion of your having an opinion.

[ArkDem]

60. >suggests some degree of mutual beligerence.

:wtf:

:rofl:

[texastoast]

10. Why don't we call it the American War?

Like the Vietnamese call the "Vietnam War."

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

2. I prefer to call it The War ON iraq n/t

[SteppingRazor]

3. Does use of the word "war" really imply defense?

I don't think that's necessarily true. Not that I disagree with the rest of your points -- certainly, this was an invasion by the U.S. of another sovereign state. But I don't think saying "Iraq War" necessarily means that we are defending ourselves against Iraq.

[grannylib]

4. I see your point..."invasion" is much more accurate. I have long referred

to this as the War ON Iraq but I like "invasion" better...will use that in all my LTTEs from now on.
Good way to frame the debate, as they say!

[WinkyDink]

5. EXACTLY!!!!!

I ALWAYS refer to it as "The Iraq Invasion", usually throwing in "ILLEGAL", as well.

We are a nation AT ATTACK, at AGGRESSION, at MURDER-----NOT "AT WAR"!!!!!!

I suppose GERMANY was "a nation at war" after it invaded Poland!!!

I. HATE. BUSH. and . all. REPUBLIFASCISTS.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. ha ha. I throw in "illegal" or "criminal" too !

[funflower]

6. I think that's an excellent point. The term "war" implies there are two

governments fighting each other.

I shall henceforth NOT use the term "war" to describe the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

God! That really puts it in perspective!

[endarkenment]

11. Except that it certainly fits the definition of a war.

Recall that the Iraq War started with our unprovoked attack on the nation and government of Iraq. In no sense was that not a war. Not only was it a war, it was a war crime, as we are bound to treaties that define wars of aggression as war crimes.

You cannot honestly separate our attack on the nation and government of Iraq from the subsequent occupation of Iraq and impostion by us of a new government. It is all part of the same event.

I understand the sentiment, but I think your definitional argument is silly. It is a war.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. thanks. That was certainly my intent, to sound silly.

[funflower]

20. I think it's most accurate to keep the whole discussion within the realm

of criminal behavior, rather than "war crimes." Bushco's actions have been just plain crimes.

The reason Bushco was so quick to call the 9/11 attacks an "act of war" rather than the criminal acts they were was to justify a "warlike" response.

In my book, neither the 9/11 hijackers nor Bush are warriors; they're all just common crooks.

[endarkenment]

40. Invading a nation is an act of war.

We can call it an Act of Duck, or we could call it smooch, or gedelgibrink, or fromitz, but we would be babbling. Plain english works for me.

[Teaser]

8. Read the dictionary.

Wars can be aggressive or defensive. This was, and is, an aggressive war.

[funflower]

19. Dictionary, shmictionary. The term "war" still brings to mind some kind

of equal conflict based on a legitimate controversy.

WWII became a war when the Allies became involved. Before that, it was just a series of Nazi invasions.

In propaganda terms, "wars" are glorious, while "invasions" are generally criminal acts.

[pattim]

29. Um, no.

Note the second Sino-Japanese war that began in the '30s, which became the Pacific front of WW2.

Note also that there were no Nazi invasions aside from Poland, as technically Austria and Czechloslovakia were legally incorporated into Germany by plebiscates.

[endarkenment]

41. You aren't really serious are you?

Ask the Poles when WWII started for them. Ask the Ethiopians when they think the war started. Ask the Chinese for the date when they think WWII started.

"equals based on a legitimate controversy" would eliminate approximately 95% of all wars in human history.

[NNN0LHI]

12. War is over. So is the invasion. This is an occupation n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. How about "The war that we lost in Iraq"?

Which is far more accurate than what the ongoing attempt to put lipstick on the pig that is occurring.

The U.S. has accomplished none of it's alleged goals in Iraq and is on the verge of being thrown out by the hostile populace of the country.

No WMDs

No "stability" in Iraq or the middle east

"Democracy" has not been spread

Women had more rights under Saddam than they will have under the new constutution

"Terrorism" is more of a threat around the world than it was before BushCorp decided to save us from it

America is demolishing it's own infrastructure to pay for it

We are now more in debt to other nations than ever before

Oil prices have skyrocketed despite the promised windfall of Iraqi oil

Iraq's infrastructure, that we destroyed, is still in a shambles

We are now seen by the rest of the world as a dangerous rogue state

We have had our civil liberties curtailed

Our much vaunted military has been shown to be highly vulnerable to, and incapable of, fighting a guerrila war (again)

To name a few of the flaws in the "Mission Accomplished" statement of His Highness the Supreme Frat Boy.

[NVMojo]

14. I agree, we invaded a sovereign nation to take them over, we are

warring them...

[shanti]

15. ITA

i've ALWAYS called it what it was - a friggin invasion!

[wtmusic]

18. The Iraqi Civil War

prolly more accurately reflects the current state of affairs

[LynnTheDem]

21. "war" implies fighting another military. This was an INVASION.

Aka per the Nuremburg Tribunal, The SUPREME CRIME.

[endarkenment]

42. D-Day was an invasion too.

What Nuremberg found to be a crime was a war of aggression. Note the use of the term 'war'. 'fighting another military': I realize that it was over two years ago when we invaded Iraq, but when we did so we were opposed by a third rate military power, the army of the former nation of Iraq. We decimated that army, the remnants of which continue to fight us in the ongoing war.

[Poiuyt]

23. I always refer to it as BUSH'S war on Iraq

He's the one who wanted it so badly

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. Ok, How about the Bush/Cheney Illegal Invasion of Iraq -BCIII

[greygandalf]

25. WWI and WWII

Should be renamed Germany invasion one and two.

[pattim]

26. No, it does not mean that at all.

The WW2 Axis called their wars "war" as well. We called Vietnam and Korea "Wars." War does not or has not ever implied retaliation. You know, "Start a war," "Warmonger," such words? Those words exist because one can start wars.

Definition of war: " A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." This does not mean retailiation. A war started by an invasion is a war nonetheless.

The war is over. There is no state of war in Iraq. There is a military occupation in Iraq. Perhaps one can make the case that there is actually a guerilla or civil war in Iraq, but a state of war no longer exists between the nation of Iraq and the United States of America.

[Texasgal]

27. Oh good GOD!

Hey! Let's just split hairs over what to call the Iraq fiasco!

Uggggg. :eyes:

[Jim Warren]

30. You're right......pure propaganda

This has pissed me off from the start.

Also, the way a complicit msm refers to "insurgents", "rebels", and "militants" like they are ONLY peopled by a lunatic fringe minority.

Reagan got away with "freedom fighters" for a time.

[Disturbed]

31. Sometimes words are important.

I call it the illegal Invasion of Iraq and the illegal Occupation of Iraq. I feel that those terms are accurate.

[blindpig]

32. It will be known as Oil War II

if there's anyone around to write history after Oil War IX.

[LittleClarkie]

33. What would you suggest?

It had better be as short as "Iraq War" or people will NOT use it.

[NoPasaran]

38. There's precedence

We instigated a war with Mexico and called it the Mexican War.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

39. I agree

I always refer to it as "the illegal invasion of Iraq". In other words, the GI's in Iraq have been sent to support the "illegal invasion' etc, etc,etc,

[otohara]

44. I Hate NBC's "War FOR Iraq"

makes me sick that they try to spin this immoral invasion/occupation into a noble cause.

[callady]

47. Massacre in Mesopotamia

It's not a war. It's banditry, cultural annihilation and possibly genocide.

[LostinVA]

48. Agreed! I call it the Invasion of Iraq (or Poland)

Calling it a "war" gives it legitimacy and a rationale purpose for starting it.

[bigwillq]

49. ! (nt)

[Selatius]

55. Do you have a problem with the "Vietnam War" as well?

That's what a lot of people called it. Only those who wish to be PC call it the "Vietnam Conflict" over the fact that the US never officially declared war, but that's cold comfort to the estimated 2,000,000 civilians who died in that war and the 58,000 Americans who were killed. Regardless if you call it a war or not, it makes not one damn difference to the person on the ground the bomb falls on. It feels like war to him even if they insist it isn't, and it makes no difference to the families who had to bury their loved ones.

[dchill]

65. OK, so it's a war...

We just don't know who the opposition is...

[dchill]

64. Agree totally! There is NO war...

in Iraq, it is an illegal occupation. There is no war on terror - only a part-time PR campaign by the White House (and the media.) The REAL war is the one the administration is waging against the general population of the USA. (general population = not rich)