Why do people refer to Iraq as a " War" when it's an "Occupation". We beat the Iraqi Army 4 years ago!
Is this not spin-meistering at it's finest?
rosbif - then I guess it was a pretty dumb idea to disband the Iraqi army right after the conflict. After WWII, we kept the German army intact and used them for the reconstruction. Too bad Bush and his people never read history books. This is why people call them idiots.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Excellent question! Semantics, spin, politics at it's finest. The war is not an occupation, Guantanamo is not a concentration camp, Iraq is not convulsing in a civil war, and interrogation techniques forbidden by the Geneva convention are not torture. The list goes on.
- dembinskiLv 44 years ago
this is humorous in a hack sort of way, yet in answer to your question, no. A solid center east could have been a greater powerful oil procurement coverage because of the fact it could save danger to the provision lines down, save hypothesis down, and not value the U. S. this type of dramatic volume of money, time, and political clout. US efforts in Iraq have actual served to destabilize the midsection East frequently, a minimum of in the meanwhile, inflicting the rises in oil expenses that we've been seeing for a number of years. it is by the fact the political undertaking is uncertain, the provision lines could be endangered at any time, and hypothesis, as a effect, went interior the direction of the roof. The "conflict for oil" prospect does not make lots economic experience, finally; the quantity of funds positioned into the conflict attempt and the component outcomes it created do no longer sq. with a source conflict concept. there is one greater clarification that US leaders have been utilising the conflict in a conspiratorial way, to generate income for his or her ex-corporation companions interior the oil industry. That clarification demands one to pass to extremely severe allegations on spurious evidence. whilst it squares properly with a traditionally Radical perspective, there is purely no longer adequate evidence to help that end very solidly. this is totally probably that there have been motives, or a reason, different than oil income that triggered the U. S. to pass to conflict with Iraq.
- rosbifLv 61 decade ago
Actually the Iraqi army was not beaten.If you were paying attention you would have noticed that when the invasion took place,most of the Iraqi army just melted away.This is because they knew they could not beat the invading forces by conventional warfare.
They are now waging a moderately successful guerilla war against the occupying forces.Who do you think plants the bombs?
- gone fishinLv 71 decade ago
I can go either way on this one. If you want to get technical, however, we did beat the army 4 years ago.
I guess semantics are not all that important to me, since I fail to see the point of your question.
Intelligent people cannot easily buy spin. The facts are currently, that keeping Hezbollah and Iran out of Iraq are more important than what we call it.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- sydb1967Lv 61 decade ago
rosbif is wrong. the army was disbanded by wolfiwits(sp). Remember mission accomplished?
- Darth VaderLv 61 decade ago
Because Bush has never said the war is over.
- oatieLv 61 decade ago
Point taken. And a surge is an escalation, pre-emptive strike is invasion, i.e. semantics is important.
- 1 decade ago
using that logic it was never a war, congress never declared one. and the war on terror, i guess its not a war either, again because congress didn't declare one.
its all semantics.
our soldiers are dieing in another country, sounds like a war to me, no matter what you want to call it.
- 1 decade ago
thats actually an extremely good point. i guess that "liberal media" hasnt been doing its job.