To those who insist on calling Iraq a "war"...

[Poiuyt]

To those who insist on calling Iraq a "war"...
by: thereisnospoon
Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 02:51:13 AM PDT

For the last time, please stop. Because the reasons for stopping keep piling up--and the GOP's new rhetoric about Iraq demands that we stop doing so, or we are going to be put in a very difficult rhetorical position in the final weeks of this campaign.

In previous dKos diaries It's Not Defeat, Dammit and How Can You Surrender If There Was Never a War? I made the basic exposition of my case for ending the use of the word "war" to describe the Iraq Debacle. The basic gist was that Iraq fit the description of an occupation, rather than a war; that wars can be won or lost, but that occupations can only end in annexation or withdrawal; and that American pride would not tolerate a "loss" in war, but would tolerate withdrawal from an occupation. And that the distinction was real, not just rhetorical, because there is no literal way to "win" this conflict, even if you do want to call it a war.

more -

http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=2977A37050651537B9E9FC10D643F50E?diaryId=12397

Wars can be won or lost, but that occupations can only end in annexation or withdrawal

[annabanana]

1. Iraq = Invasion & Occupation

there is no "war" there.

[Parche]

2. Iraq

Along with Congress never voted to declare war......................

[Bandit]

3. But but but then Bush* couldn't be "Unitary Executive"

You wish to deny Bush* his "right" to rule by dictate. Why7 do you hate Amerika?