The children that were murdered in cold blood by these animals do not deserve to be recognized as innocent victims?

Of course they were innocent victims but please contrast that with reporting that overlapped my service in Republic of Viet Nam c.1968. Can anyone recall the justifiable outrage over the murder of Viet Namese civilians? Media didn’t seem to have a problem reporting that, did they?

It’s more than betrayal. It’s part of their campaign to sabotage the war. I call it treason.

Fair enough point. But as one who spent the majority of his time “outside the wire” I truly hated people using the term “fobbit”. When the 122mms were landing on my friends down at FOB Salerno, were they less the soldiers than someone who got to be in the securtity element of a PRT in a peaceful province?

Bah.

We didn’t have so many T-shirts as were listed, but I made sure any of my soldiers knew what was OK to vent with on base, and how they were to act when dealing with our friends and allies. Then again, I saw it as the same thing as some frat T-shirt insinuating beer consumption ability and sexual prowess – fun amongst the boys, but you wouldn’t want to have Mom see you in it…

I write this because I bet Yon was there, should be interesting to hear how the residents faired in the initial battle, how many may of been murdered, and how they move forward.

Degaulle was a member of the French government before the War. He later became the leader of the “Free French government” in exile during the war due to the fact that he was sent to the British as an emissary and was out of the country when France fell. How was this creating a government? The Vichy government was occupied by the Germans after operation TORCH. This led to the Vichy army and the free french forces to merge in Nothern Africa. At the time of the Normandy invasion there were 400,000 Free French Troops and all fought in the liberation of French. They were not a conquered people by the time the Germans were pushed from France. During Operation Dragoon and the invasion of Southern Vichy France these “free french troops” fought algonside the Aliies. How is this fighting the French people? It is fighting the enemies of the Allies. Big difference. So two of the defitions are not met. The other two of your points (building bases and engaging the French government) can be expalined again as Allies working toegether. Not as occupation.

After the war Degualle chaired the provisional government. He resigend when the 4th Republic government was formed.

France was under the rule of the Provincial Government of the French Republic from 1944 and 1946. The French Committee of National Liberation declared itself, the French provincial government on June 2, 1944.

After returning to Paris, de Gaulle made the announcement that the citizens of the country would determine their future governmental system. After Germany was defeated, Gaulle scheduled a combined referendum. Elections were scheduled for October.

It was the first time in French history that women were granted suffrage. 96 per cent of the votes cast was against the return to the prewar regime. Everyone wanted a change in regime. Charles de Gaulle finally resigned on January 20, 1946.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/france/history/liberation-and-fourth-republic.html

So the USA reinstalled the pre-war government after the war not its “own government”.

The De gaulle 5th Republic government did not form until 1958. He pushed Nato out of France and built the French into a nuclear power. That sounds like a free soveign government to me.

EJS you need to stop trying to peg square arguments into round holes. We went into Iraq for liberation, the plan did not work and we became occupiers. It is not a fine line there are certian things that change the definiton from liberation to occupation. Some of these include: We did not have the backing of the free Iraqis. The Iraqis unlike the French were unable to form a unity government and thus we were required to form one under our rules. The local population in the Sunni area did not like this so we were required to fight them, the government we did form could not provide security and allowed the forgien terroists to flock into the country and thus we becoame responsible for security also.

In short it was the failure of the Bush administration to understand that the original plan of liberation had turned into that of occupation that has caused this mess that we are in.

Many say that this failure could be seen before the invasion even started and the battle plan should have been changed accordingly from liberation to one of occupying.

This difference in thinking is huge. It underlies troop strength needed, types of troops needed, supplies needed, money needed to fund the war, the rhetoric needed to get the population behind the war effort. Everything flows from which branch you start.

So when we stayed in France, created the de gaulle government instead of recognizing the Vichy, built air bases, fought french troops and german-backed partisans/collaborators, told the de gaulle government what we wanted out of them, this isn’t occupation of france

?

–sigh–

We were in France because that’s where Ze Germans were

We left soon after They left

France became part of NATO, with the administrative offices in Paris and SHAPE just outside Paris, and until 1967 there were US Army posts and AF bases in France.

If that is ‘occupation’ as the word is understood by non-cretins, then I am the Queen of France

occupation is when you stay, form a government, build bases, fight the local population, tell that government that you have formed what benchmarks you want them to meet etc.

blockquote>

I listed several factors that define occupation and this does not meet the definition. Read what I say not what you want to see.

So when we stayed in France, created the de gaulle government instead of recognizing the Vichy, built air bases, fought french troops and german-backed partisans/collaborators, told the de gaulle government what we wanted out of them, this isn’t occupation of france?

unseen your definitions wouldn’t fly in a international studies class, barely that of a high school class. Recite history and give me specifics and maybe we’ll find agreement.

Romeo13 on July 11, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Romeo13,

I think the USA is the greatest nation in the world. I would rather have our way of life. That way of life would not be possible if not for those “imperfections” in our history. Our ancestors did what was needed to do at the time to advance that way of life.

So, while we may have won the primary battle, it doesn’t appear to me like we are “conquering” or imposing on the Iraqi’s.

You guys seem to be splitting hairs.

DWB on July 11, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Now you understand why we are in the mess we are in. The American leadership never wanted to occupy Iraq in any real sense. They wanted to go in liberate the country form some type of alliance with the new Iraqi government and be able to have some FOB in the area to contain Iran and the terrorists.

The events on the ground forced the USA to become an occupier of the country. Instead of taken on that responsibility and providing security and order we still tried to go with a modification of the original plan. It didn’t work. The surge is nothing more than imposing our military will on the Iraqi countryside. Sadly our government still refuses to shoulder the political side of occupation

No that isn’t occupation according to me. I listed several factors that define occupation and this does not meet the definition. Read what I say not what you want to see.

The bases in France during the cold war were more along the lines of South Korea due to the Soviet threat. As you noticed I included the South Korean example in my post. I did this because there IS a middle road between occupation and liberation. Iraq does not fall into that example.

A squish who called me a REMF and thinks that America does not win wars

I was a REMF for a while, after I wasn’t–and in MY war, soldiers and Marines never lost a battle.

advice: never argue with someone who likes the word ‘futile’

I never said they were American puppets now. I said we imposed our culture on them at the time of conquest.

The North imposed its culture on the South. carpetbaggers, no slavery, etc.

All of the above mentioned (Except Cuba who overthrew that type of government)have some form of constitutional republic democracies, are mostly pro-American, are also mostly capitalistic, value basic human rights, and believe somewhat in the rule of law.

All of these are due to us imposing our culture on them at the time of conquest.

Liberation is when you leave after the battle is won

I’m pretty sure we still have Americans buried in the ground of Normandy, and the ground consecrated by the dead is American. According to you, that’s occupation. Also there were U.S. forces in France until de gualle ordered NATO troops to leave. And France, believe it or not, was a member of the Axis at one point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_in_France

So, while we may have won the primary battle, it doesn’t appear to me like we are “conquering” or imposing on the Iraqi’s.

You guys seem to be splitting hairs.

unseen on July 11, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Hmmm… then apparently we didn’t do a good enough job..

Cuba?
Phillipines?
Germany?
Japan?
Mexico?
Panama?

All seem to have their own governments, and couldn’t possibly be considered American Puppets…

Revolutionary war was bitter on both sides…

Civil War was horrid… and anti constitutional…

“Conquest” of the West? Yes, American Indian Genocide, but Texas and California both joined the US, we didn’t conquer em… rest was bought…

US is far from perfect, but no where near as bad as many want you to believe.

Not really. Liberation is when you leave after the battle is won, occupation is when you stay, form a government, build bases, fight the local population, tell that government that you have formed what benchmarks you want them to meet etc.

We liberated France and Belgium; we occupied West Germany and Japan. South Korea we saved and now defend.

Russia occupied Eastern Europe etc. See easy line to draw.

conquered
adj : decisively defeated in combat [syn: beaten, overcome, overthrown,
overwhelmed, routed, vanquished]

Fine line between liberation and occupation. Technically we all occupy- I occupy my sit, you occupy your house, Allah occupies the cardboard box MM keeps him chained in. The key is the use of overwhelming firepower to destroy the enemy’s morale and break the civilian populace. I have yet to see that happen in the middle east yet.

Hate to inform you of this but the USA invaded Iraq (we were not invited in), we DEFEATED the IRAQI army, and we overthrew their government. This is what conquered means.

Want more prove? The textbook definition of conquered:

conquered
adj : decisively defeated in combat [syn: beaten, overcome, overthrown,
overwhelmed, routed, vanquished]

Now explain to me how the Iraqi people are not a conquered people. Maybe you need to learn some vocabulary.

While your studying the vocabulary lesson you might want to learn some American History also. Like the History of the Colonies’ conquest of the Natives, The Revolutionary War on the Tories, the American conquest of the America West, the Reconstruction after the Civil war, The occupation of Germany and Japan by American soldiers, the pacification of the Philippines by the Americans. The Cuban occupation. In all of these conflicts we imposed our culture on the conquered foes. Imposing ones culture is not “spiting” on the conquered people. It is simply the way to get the population to assimilate so insurgency is not an issue in later years. Humor is one part of our culture. We are able to laugh at ourselves, this is one thing the Iraq/muslim world needs to learn.

“The focus on al Qaeda makes sense here, where local officials have gone on record acknowledging that most of the perhaps one thousand al Qaeda fighters in Baqubah were young men and boys who called the city home. This may clash with the perception in US and other media that only a small percentage of the enemy in Iraq is al Qaeda, which in turn leads to false conclusions that the massive offensive campaign underway across Iraq is a lot of shock and awe aimed at a straw enemy. But as more Sunni tribal leaders renounce former ties with al Qaeda, it’s becoming clearer just how heavily AQ relied on local talent, and how disruptive they have been here in fomenting the civil war.”