According to your logic because Iraq's people died with weapons supplied partly by USA and approval of American government under Saddam, it justifies the occupation today. Let's see in the same time that CIA officers and Rumsfeld was meeting Saddam who was helping the opposition in Iraq according to new president elect in Iraq, Mr. Talabani President Jalal Talabani heaped flattering praise on Iran Sunday night, saying the Iraqis feel owed to its eastern neighbor because of the assistance they received during the rule of former dictator Saddam Hussein. "The Iraqi people, especially the Kurds, do not forget the Islamic Republic's assistance and we are all owed to Iran," the Iraqi leader said in a speech carried by the state TV, monitored at this border city. "During the years of struggle against the Iraqi dictator (Saddam Hussein) and homelessness of thousands of Iraqis, it was the Islamic Republic which stood beside the Iraqi people," Talabani said. "We do not forget how Iranians came to assist Iraqis when Saddam attacked Halabja with chemical bombs, transferring thousands of the injured to Iranian hospitals," the Iraqi president recalled. Iran opened its borders to the flood of the Iraqi refugees, fleeing the Baath regime's ruthless crackdown which followed after the Kurds in northern Iraq and Shias in the country's south had risen up against Saddam at the end of the first Persian Gulf war in 1991. President Talabani: Iraqis are owed to Iran I didn't say I was part of your country, I was commenting on Mia post that anyone who doesn't agree should leave, but I do not believe USA is your country either. May be your ideas will have support on some parts of deep south among those who miss the good old times of hunting the Ni*gers but I think the majority are too smart to accept your brand of hatred.
You have really got to learn English if you want to understand my posts. I realize it is a second language to you so I will help you out. I never said anyone that does not agree should leave. Show me where I said that or how on earth plain English translates to that in Canadian? You are really sick. Hunting what? You are a sick deranged fool, racist and full of hate. Go away. BTW, Peter Jennings was a great American. Not Canadian as someone mentioned in the Gentlemen's Club. He escaped the mother land and defected to the US. 9/11 made a big change in his ideology. May God Bless his family and rest his American soul.
Love the use of the word 'occupation', maybe you need to look up in the dictionary. U.S. is not occupying Iraq if you used the proper definition, we are there helping and not taking over. It is their people in government not those from the U.S.A. I am sure this will start a flame war since someone hates the US with such passion.... proper use of definition: palistinians are currenly occupying much of Israel.
oc·cu·pa·tion Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces. Dictionary.com The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections. On June 30th, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and will not be replaced. The occupation will end, and Iraqis will govern their own affairs. The White House- President Bush The occupation is not disputed, what kind justification and story you want to attach to it afterward, is another story.
Hey, Gworld, I am pleasantly surprised by your break down of those facts. So you accept that they are transferring full sovereignty to the govt of Iraq, but are you acknowledging that we do not have sovereignty now? If we had that sovereignty, then we would be occupying as in the full definition, wouldn't you agree? Interesting...
None of which is happening. It is a good thing you used Dictionary.Com to look up the definition, because now you see that there is no "occupation". Very good gw, you're getting there I think you are confusing your tense. Occupation in the context of the statement above would be past tense. As indicated in this thread we are not currently "occupying" nor is Iraq "occupied" by the US. Present tense? No occupation. Can't get much clearer than that. Not only are you confusing your tense, you are also confusing your governments. The "occupation of the former Iraqi government was the "occupation" that ended. There currently is no longer any such government, nor occupation. Again, can't get much clearer than that. Thank you for pointing this out gw. That's two we all owe you now. Way to go. We'll make an American out of you yet. We did it to Jennings, we can surely help you as well. You crack me up. You've come a long way bud. You're just about there.
Vichy France, or the Vichy regime (in French, now called: R駩me de Vichy or Vichy; at the time, called itself: ɴat Fran硩s, or French State) was the de facto French government of 1940-1944 during the Nazi Germany occupation of World War II. ............................ was essentially a Nazi puppet state which collaborated with the Nazis, ........................................... Vichy France was established after the country had surrendered to Germany in 1940 (see also: World War II). It takes its name from the government's capital in Vichy, south-east of Paris near Clermont-Ferrand. Vichy France There is nothing new under the sun. Look at the world history and you will find many examples of occupation and installment of puppet governments.
I think you might be cross posting from another thread. Slow down. What on earth does this half to do with the price of tea in china, let along this thread? Answer = Nothing. Just when I thought you were making progress. Hang in there. You make it.
We are there at the request of their government. If they want us to leave, we will. Why do you want the terrorists in Iraq to win so bad? What other terrorists do you support?
What government? The one chosen by American for the American? I don't think that I want the terrorists win because if you look at the definition: ter·ror·ism The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion Dictionary.com It seems this definition is applicable and includes both the terrorist groups and present US foreign policy and I do not want any of them win. I think that democratic movements should win and violence and terrorism from both side should be condemned.