www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/01/hartmann-iraq-is-occupation...
sent by
sidfalco since 738 days 21 hours 9 minutes, published about 738 days 5 hours 41 minutes
Wars end in victory or surrender. Occupations end with withdrawals. Thom Hartmann says that until the media and the Democrats stop calling the invasion and occupation of Iraq a "war," McCain et al can make the powerful argument that withdrawal would mean "surrendering to al Qaeda."
comments
I have always referred to this arms/oil cartel venture as "the USUK attack and occupation"
has to do with war crimes charges under international law.
eg Bliar wants to be prez of EU...
Four days before the planned date of the coup, £74,000 was deposited in Mann's account by one JH Archer. Lord Archer categorically denied any involvement in the coup, and was not accused of wrongdoing.
–noun 1. a sudden assault or attack, as upon something to be seized or suppressed: a police raid on a gambling ring.
2. Military. a sudden attack on the enemy, as by air or by a small land force.
3. a vigorous, large-scale effort to lure away a competitor's employees, members, etc.
4. Finance. a concerted attempt of speculators to force stock prices down.
–verb (used with object) 5. to make a raid on.
6. to steal from; loot: a worry that the investment fund is being raided.
7. to entice away from another: Large companies are raiding key personnel from smaller companies.
8. to indulge oneself by taking from...
» ver todo el comentario
Invasion, Occupation, War, are not so subtle distinctions in the WAR OF WORDS - the Propaganda war.
True, the distinction will be lost on someone whose door has been kicked in and had their family murdered but these words are not intended for the victims of these actions.
They are intended for a different audience. Those who support and finance these actions. The distinction
provides comfort to the ignorant, and an out for the willfully ignorant.
I still call it "the occupation and destruction of Iraq" rather than a "war," because I believe the "War Powers" Act to be unconstitutional. However, the Supremes say no.
Of course, the Supremes gave the current corrupt, criminal president his job, so what do they know?