Why Do They Call The Occupation In Iraq A WAR?
Never has been, never will be.
"You have no right to call your home theater a home theater until you get Blu-Ray"
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Brothers at War (2009) Discussion > Why Do They Call The Occupation In Iraq ...
i've got a question ... what type of person goes to the message board of a documentary about two brothers going to iraq with no other intention than to insult them by questioning the purpose of their sacrifice?
logical answer: someone who is content in complaining about everything even though others have done all the work and made all the sacrifices to make that complaining even possible. in other words ... a whining leech.
It makes me laugh every time some pro-war prick tries to glorify the military by saying they "defend our freedoms". Just the paranoid, gung-ho mindset that creates wars.
shareyou don't know what position i take on the war ... and your assumptions about who i am and what i stand for are nothing but wishful conjecture ... all in all, you're just another idiot with an unoriginal opinion ... boring.
shareWhat the *beep*? You are a backwards retard clearly. You make a post defending the military and then say I don't know what your attitudes are? How much of a knucklehead can you be? I based my post on your post, thats what noticeboards are for. By the way, pro-war didn't necessarily mean the iraq war.
And what the *beep* is an original opinion? Should I believe the military should be painted purple and populated with llamas? Is that original? I gave my opinion because it was my own, because I arrived at it having looked at the evidence and thought it through. If someone else has had the same opinion before me then so be it.
My husband served 2 times in Iraq and once in Kosovo while I had 3 of his children and recieve a AABA and an award of appreciation and recognition from the Department of the Army. I am proud that my husband stands for something, believe's in something (even if it a great idea but not reality and he knows it). Everyone fights everyday for something they believe in, be it survival or just putting the next meal on the table, so who has balls to judge other's for their beliefs, duties, or purposes in life. Deal with it, don't try to understand it. The war may not be agreeable to everyone but were we asked to bail out all of the big business corporations but yet pay taxes on that so called stimulus check we Americans recieved last year? No, we the people were not, but we have to deal with it. Understand?
shareUh oh. You weren't supposed to pay taxes on that stimulus check. Get an accountant. Oh well.
Aye mate, you seen Taxi Driver?
Well, well...the raving lunatic hippie comes to the Brothers at War board. Shouldn't you be bitching at people who didn't enjoy Fear and Loathing because they aren't deviant drug users like yourself? Why don't you just shut up, go find a new bean bag chair, polish off your lava lamp and brush the pot ashes off you Che shirt and leave the regular, human, sane people to themselves.
shareWow,
Someone asks a simple question and he's attacked and painted as someone who hates the people involved instead of the situation. I'll say it again...
Why does the United States call the occupation of a country that had never threatened their country a War?
I mean, War is defined as a "contention by force; or the art of paralyzing the forces of an enemy." But Iraq was never an enemy to the U.S. The definition also goes on to say...
"National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive."
Now only if the U.S. invaded Iraq before 9/11; then again they didn't because there was no reason to, seeing as how they had as much to do with it as the U.S.
'angelatatum', please understand that I don't look down on your husband or the thousands of other men and women who have dedicated their career, and in some cases lives, to be soldiers. But something that you said really intrigued me...
"Everyone fights everyday for something they believe in, be it survival or just putting the next meal on the table,(I PERSONALLY PREFERRED THIS NEXT QUOTE) so who has balls to judge other's for their beliefs, duties, or purposes in life. Deal with it, don't try to understand it."
- The very reason why the U.S. should get (correction: IS GETTING) out of Iraq. Couldn't have said it better. Unfortunately at this point, 4,200 + families won't be as lucky as yours.
"You have no right to call your home theater a home theater until you get Blu-Ray"
"Well, well...the raving lunatic hippie comes to the Brothers at War board. Shouldn't you be bitching at people who didn't enjoy Fear and Loathing because they aren't deviant drug users like yourself?"
- I suppose, but you took the time to reply to the post of a irregular, non-human, insane person so I figured it be polite to reply back.
"Why don't you just shut up, go find a new bean bag chair, polish off your lava lamp and brush the pot ashes off you Che shirt"
- Well first I'd have to go out and buy them, seeing as how I own none those things (Anyone who owns a Che shirt should go outside an burn it right now, it goes against the very ideas of capitalism and commercialism Che fought against)
If you've got something intelligent to say or, god forbid, an attempt to actually ANSWER my original question, I'll check back later.
"You have no right to call your home theater a home theater until you get Blu-Ray"
your subject line asked a question ... then you made a definitive statement in the post itself that indicated you already had the answer to your own question. with a provocative subject and statement deliberatly put on the messageboard of a documentary that depicts the lives of 3 brothers in a war zone ... i have a question for you:
what the hell do you expect?
to expect a serious, non-flaming answer ... don't come across so high-and-mighty by daring anyone to even question your point of view ... your intent was obviously inflammatory ... you got what you wanted: an opportunity to irritate and drawn attention to yourself only to get defensive when people don't jump in line with your opinion.
if you really want to debate the issue, here you go:
i agree with you, the situation in iraq is no longer a war ... we won and the war is over. don't agree? then how so? iraq is a weak, but budding democracy ... there is not revolt in the streets ... al qaeda is pretty much impotent in iraq. additionally, when the media no longer focuses on a body count ... it's a telltale sign. i believe it's only called a war for american political purposes ... when americans die, politicians use those deaths as a tool to gain power ... when they don't, they go elsewhere (like afghanistan).
the next thing someone will likely point out: "they're still bombing people over there ... it's still a war!" really? i live in blacksburg, va; a deranged gunman killed 32 students in a few minutes 2 years ago ... are we at war here? point is, violence isn't going to go away and anyone with any knowledge of the history of the middle east realizes that middle-eastern society is dominated by an ideology that focuses on male-domination and death ... it's spread throughout the koran.
then someone can point out: "hey, we still hae troops over there ... we're occupying the country/still at war!" okay, we still have troops in germany and japan ... can the point be made that we are still occupying those countries or that we are still fighting world war II? last i checked the country of iraq does eventually want us to leave, as does the US itself, even when bush was running the show. it would take an idiot to believe that any american president wants to be at war, period.
likely next point to be brought up: "bush lied!" well, maybe, maybe not ... maybe the politicians who accuse bush of lying are lying themselves. IMHO, the president has only so much control and the vote to go to war was supported by many individuals who suddenly opposed it later (the fact that the majority of the opposition were on the other side of the politcal aisle shouldn't be overlooked either). but, my point is ... if someone votes to send other people to a place to die in the name of the US, they'd better know what their vote is based on and making the excuse that someone else lied to them about info is a pathetic, cowardly way to avoid responsibility for their decision. it's truly disgusting to see our "leaders" clamor for credit when things are successful and do nothing but deny blame and fingerpoint when things go wrong ... the same behavior that we preach to our kids as being unacceptable, immature and irresponsible.
so, IMHO, it's no longer a war and when the country (not just a random iraqi politician the media props as the sole speaker for every iraqi citizen) is ready for our troops to leave we'll leave ... when their gov't wants us there, we're not truly occupying the country. if the job is done in a hasty-poll-driven manner, i guarantee that the US will be forced to go back ... next time, the fighting force might no be all voluntary ...
Al qaeda were never strong in Iraq, so its no surprise that they still aren't.
Oh and Bush did lie, no doubt about it, hope that clears it up for you.
So, are you one of those naïve people that thinks they know more than the people making the decisions ... Or someone who believes every the media tells you?
Bottom line ... You and I can't even fathom the what, how and why involved with this issue, no matter how smart you think you are ... How's that for clarity?
"I agree with you, the situation in iraq is no longer a war"
- You obviously weren't listening. My view is not that Iraq is no longer a war, my view is that it never was a war. War was never declared against Iraq, it has and always will be an Occupation.
=============================================================================
"We won and the war is over."
- Has and never will be a War, but I'll humor you. I would argue that the first rule (or better consequence) of war is there are no winners. There is heartache, pain and loss on both sides. Sure America prevailed in doing exactly what they fought so hard to destroy during their own revolution against the British Empire but then again, I say that and people will think I'm being unpatriotic.
=============================================================================
Don't agree? then how so? iraq is a weak, but budding democracy
- Currently embroiled in a weak, but budding civil war.
=============================================================================
"There is not revolt in the streets."
- Save for the occasional car or school bombing.
=============================================================================
"Al Qaeda is pretty much impotent in Iraq."
- That was kinda the case before the occupation.
=============================================================================
"Additionally, when the media no longer focuses on a body count ... it's a telltale sign."
- Of what exactly?
=============================================================================
"When Americans die, politicians use those deaths as a tool to gain power."
- Why did a shot of two burning towers enter my mind when I read that? followed closely by a report with the words "Patriot Act" on the front?
=============================================================================
"the next thing someone will likely point out: "they're still bombing people over there ... it's still a war!" really? i live in blacksburg, va; a deranged gunman killed 32 students in a few minutes 2 years ago ... are we at war here?"
- No because like I said earlier, in order to be at war you need to declare war, which the U.S. never did against Iraq.
=============================================================================
"Point is, violence isn't going to go away."
- So why send men and women to die over there trying to make it go away?
=============================================================================
"And anyone with any knowledge of the history of the middle east realizes that middle-eastern society is dominated by an ideology that focuses on male-domination and death ... it's spread throughout the koran."
- Sure and anyone with any knowledge of the history of gun violence realizes that the United States has more gun deaths than any other country on the planet. What are you getting at?
=============================================================================
"then someone can point out: "hey, we still hae troops over there ... we're occupying the country/still at war!" okay, we still have troops in germany and japan ... can the point be made that we are still occupying those countries or that we are still fighting world war II?"
- No because, first off, World War II officially ended in 1945 and second, we're not trying to impose our beliefs and ways of life onto them so forcefully as we are in Iraq.
=============================================================================
"last i checked the country of iraq does eventually want us to leave, as does the US itself, even when bush was running the show. it would take an idiot to believe that any american president wants to be at war, period."
- I would agree that no American President wants to be at war, still the United States averages a major war every twenty years or so. War is a big business; it's quite astonishing how much money is made off the deaths of others.
=============================================================================
"IMHO, the president has only so much control and the vote to go to war was supported by many individuals who suddenly opposed it later."
- Well, once they realized the "facts" they were given were b*u*l*l*s*h*i*t, I guess they felt they had to.
=============================================================================
"if someone votes to send other people to a place to die in the name of the US, they'd better know what their vote is based on."
- They thought they did. They were told that Hussein had WMD's and he was aiding Al Queda.
=============================================================================
"and making the excuse that someone else lied to them about info is a pathetic, cowardly way to avoid responsibility for their decision."
- So, lets say you were watching a friend's pet dog for the weekend. Another friend comes over and wants to feed the dog chocolate, he lies to you and tells you that it's OK to feed the dog chocolate, and he has animal vet documents with him saying that it's OK, so you let him feed the dog chocolate, and the dog dies, when your friend confronts you about it you wouldn't say "He told me it was OK!"? Or more importantly "I didn't feed your dog the chocolate, it was him!"
=============================================================================
"it's truly disgusting to see our "leaders" clamor for credit when things are successful and do nothing but deny blame and fingerpoint when things go wrong."
- Kind of the way America tried to deny that they had themselves essentially trained Osama Bin Laden to carry out the attacks of 9/11? And the way they finger pointed Saddam Hussein and Iraq as the ones to blame for it when no evidence, real evidence that is, suggested they had anything to do with it?
=============================================================================
"so, IMHO, it's no longer a war and when the country (not just a random iraqi politician the media props as the sole speaker for every iraqi citizen) is ready for our troops to leave we'll leave when their gov't wants us there, we're not truly occupying the country."
- Of course their government wants us there because it's our government.
=============================================================================
"if the job is done in a hasty-poll-driven manner, i guarantee that the US will be forced to go back ... next time, the fighting force might no be all voluntary.
- Well, I hate to say it but, that's the way it should be. Violence should never be voluntary, it should only occur when no other possible peaceful means is accessible. I agree that the U.S. can't leave now and that's the point. They dropped the glass of milk on the kitchen floor, now they're gonna have to clean it up.
"You have no right to call your home theater a home theater until you get Blu-Ray"
i'm not going tit for tat on this. obviously, you have your opinion and i'm not going to attempt to reform you (it wasn't ever my intention). however, your definition of war is dead wrong and history proves it ... germany never "declared war" on the soviet union in 41 ... and you'd be hardpressed to convince any rational person that the "event" between the two countries from june 1941 - may 1945 was anything but a WAR.
you have some points, but lost in it all was your overwhelming desire to try and disprove any/every point i made with a rehash of the same old anti-war rhetoric (a civil war in iraq? really? even the mainstream media dropped that angle years ago).
final report:
- attempt to inflame/incite the message board with a loaded, one-liner: C+ (the response was tepid)
- drive-by posting effort: B (you didn't post and run, you stuck around to "debate" ...you get credit for that)
- ability to rehash liberal anti-war talking points: C (you made brian williams and katie couric proud, but still don't get to guest host for olbermman)
- attempt to convey opinions as fact: B (a very solid attempt)
- knowledge of history: D (television doesn't hold a candle to books ... claiming that a war is only a "war" when it has been declared killed your argument IMHO)
- overall score: C (provocative intial post, you got a debate, but got seriously derailed trying to rebuke line-by-line every sentence with nothing but opinions).
So is anybody going to answer the guys question or is the only thing anyone can do is insult other people for valuing our freedoms enough to thoroughly inspect the ideology behind our occupations of other countries? I mean, why do you want a "free country" if you plan on repressing anybody that desires to question authority?
It doesn't make any sense to me. I absolutely hate people that tell me that just because people are putting on military uniforms and going overseas that suddenly we have to turn our brains off and stop questioning the chain of command. It's idiotic and it's a disservice to the men and women that are fighting for us. It's our job as citizens of the U.S. to make damn sure that our people aren't dying for no good reason.
rmc_neil is so far the only coherent person in this thread. Whether I agree with him or not, at least he's able to keep his cool and ask the key questions that need to be asked, instead of mindlessly calling people "hippies" (whatever that has to do with anything) because they don't have any other arguments.
So is anybody going to answer the guys question
He didn't really ask a question. He made a post in the form of a question just to make his statement. It was a statement not a question.
share
rmc_neil has a valid point. Plus, I absolutely detested this "filmmaker." Filmmakers are for one, supposed to be behind the camera, not in front. Not every damn scene anyway. I can tell he wants to be an actor like he attests to, but his ugly mug and pot-belly, along with his arrogant, pissy attitude (literally) will get this Jake person nowhere in Hollywood, no time soon. Even by other respected wannabe filmmakers.
shareIt called a war because the common American parlance for an effort where many troops are involved is war - Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Just because Congress has not made a formal declaration of war - although they certainly supported all of the above - does not keep people from calling it a war.
all in all regardless of the rightness or the wrongness of the war/occupation, I still feel for the men and women serving over there. I personally don't find it justified, but until the last man is pulled out, they deserve support.
share[deleted]
Because it IS a war. Where did you obtain your definition of war? The closest thing to yours I could find was the FOURTH listed definition for war at Dictionary.com, "active hostility or contention; conflict; contest."
Even then, our invasion/occupation of Iraq counts as war. We call it a war because it IS war.