DON'T EVER SAY..... "IRAQ WAR".......AGAIN

[wadestock]

Substitute....

REGIME CHANGE

Although that's not entirely accurate, it's infinitely more accurate that "Iraq War".

Why it wasn't a war.

1. Desert Storm was a war...technically speaking...as a result of Saddam's aggression into Kuwait. But of course the careful researcher knows that even this situation was contrived, since the US was bargaining with Saddam to avoid war. Bush I saw his opportunity to shine and he took it...end of story.

2. No aggression was displayed on the part of the "enemy".

3. 10 years of inspections had taken place to REMOVE the chance of a war...and in fact...Saddam's ability to DEPLOY anything of significance was taken away...ie bulldozed Skuds into the ground etc, etc. MORE WEAPONS WERE DESTROYED DURING THE INSPECTIONS THAN THE ENTIRE DESERT STORM WAR.

4. The enemy had nothing to fight with, therefore what was enacted was for all intents and purposes a steamroller of equipment into town to effect regime change. Iraq had about 5000 tanks going into Desert Storm. In this go around, about 800 were left. Ever shot fired from them bounced off our tanks and we knew it going in. No airforce, no weaponry to put a dent in our equipment save RPGs and a country full of many many pissed off people who eventually broke into ammo dumps to make live miserable for us there for years to come.

5. W specifically called for "authorization to use force"....not WAR...and that's what Congress voted on.

6. Following the authorization, W quickly implemented the "OK Corral" order...ie....you have 48 hours to get out of town, otherwise, we'll effect REGIME CHANGE. Therefore, at this point it was completely out in the open and advertised that this was REGIME CHANGE.

7. Everything else which followed, ie...more contractors there than troops....billions in contracts....the construction of 12 Army bases.....hmmmm....looks more like an aggressive occupation than anything else....don't you think?


Don't use the term "IRAQ WAR".

Politely correct anyone who uses the term....
Err...you mean "Regime Change"...don't you????

Let the term spread...and let it more accurately reflect what REALLY happened.

I call this "reverse Limbaughism"....Limbaugh would twist words to effect major rethinking in the country...let's do the opposite for a worthwhile cause.

WE ARE NOT A NATION AT WAR.

WE HAVE AN IRRESPONSIBLE GOVERMENT THAT HAS EFFECTED AGGRESSIVE REGIME CHANGE FOLLOWED BY OCCUPATION.....MUCH HAVE WHICH HAS FUELED THE ONGOING TERRORISTIC BACKLASHES.

THIS REGIME CHANGE AND OCCUPATION WAS AN UNPRECEDENTED ACTION THAT HAS NEVER OCCURRED IN AMERICAN HISTORY...

AND HOPEFULLY NEVER WILL AGAIN.]

PROVIDED WE ACCURATELY REALIZE....

IT NEVER WAS A "WAR" IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. Actually,

it's an invasion followed by an occupation.

Strictly speaking, the United States hasn't been at war since WWII.

[hippiechick]

3. True.

And Gulf War I wasn't necessarily a 'war' either because Poppy essentially told Iraq "Go ahead and take whatever the hell you want, just stop short of the boundaries of my family's oil holdings."

Iraq wasn't 'aggressing' on Kuwait, they were allowed to do as they wanted by a lassez faire <sic?> US President, until it hit too close to home.

[wadestock]

7. You're preaching to the choir

The intent of the post was not to debate that this was never a war.

It's in reference to the mass psychosis that can be effected by using the term and principle of war.

People in this country have flocked unsuspectedly to the war trough...putting 10s of millions of "support our troop" signs on their cars etc....all in the name of WAR.

No matter what show you watch debating the current logic going into Iraq always frames the debate around WAR.

BUSHCO. has very effectively capitalized on the term WAR. It is a Limbaughism of behemoth proportions.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. You got that right

When will people catch on that the whole Middle East thing, the fate of the fucking Bush cabal, and the Carlyle Group are interwoven to a point where you can't tell one from the other?

Saudi Arabia is financing the Iraqi "insurgents" (they're actually patriots doing whatever they have to do to get the occupiers out of their country, but the MSM won't ever admit that) with the help of jacked-up oil prices. So, we pay $3 a gallon for gas, SA passes back the profits to the "insurgents," and we end up paying to get our troops killed.

Of course, there's a little something in the Bush/Carlyle (they're the same thing) pay packet from the Saudis at the end of every week.

Bastards. All of them.

[wtmusic]

2. "Regime change"? Not a chance

That wasn't the reason either...should be "Invasion of Iraq"

[wadestock]

5. You're not following this.

Get the anti-Limbaughism?????

You won't get attention by saying to your fellow unsuspecting family member, co worker, etc if you come on really strong against the war...this has been my experience....and will only tend to make you look anti American by going that far in the other direction. This is exactly the reason WCo played up the war in the first place...so that it would be difficult to go against the notion...and thus appear...anti-American or not supporting the troops...etc.

I have had very interestingly positive results by using the term "regime change".

1. It fits in with what most people do know already....they have in the back of their minds that "it was good to get rid of Saddam"...no matter how bad the rest of it is.
2. It has the flavor of being thoughtful, but not confrontational.
3. It has a better way of getting people to think....therefore the anti-limbaughism.
4. It really has the capability of catching on as a replacement term.

[wtmusic]

6. yes, I'm following you

I just disagree completely with your strategy.

Calling it "regime change" is exactly what the GOP wants. It's their reason for invading after WMDs didn't pan out.

Here's my strategy -- bang people over the head repeatedly with the truth, not giving a crap what they think of you. Over time they tend to come around.

[wadestock]

10. Would you be adverse to trying it?

Like I said, I've had very positive results.

People have a defense mechanism about being anti-American....and the psychosis of 911 still lingers.

There's a fighting side that can't seem to break from a vast majority of Americans...the theory...it's better to fight them over there than over here...type logic.

And overall....BUSHCO is positioning itself very carefully to defend what it did in the name of WAR.

Tearing people from this very dear concept of America at war is not as trivial as you may think.

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. Agreed. Needs to be "Occupation of Iraq"

Plain and simple.

Also, I'm not sure (without substantial research) whether the Administration has ever called it "The Iraq War". It's occurred to me that they always term it "The War on Terrorism" and "Liberation of Iraq", then let everyone else (including Congress) call it "Iraq War".

Even calling it "the war" for short, it's still not "Iraq War" when they say it.

We should call it the Occupation of Iraq.

[pretzel4gore]

4. it's a hollodeck war...

a pretending, playacting, phony fake; except with lotsa little babies buried alive in their cribs...of course, the hollodeck makes the lil babies disappear...winwin for the goofgoof

[H2O Man]

9. It is a war

by definition. "Regime change," oil supplies, and other things define the reasons for going to war, and the goals the administration had. But this is certainly a war by any reality-based definition. And that is a reality we should want to make clear to the American public.

[wadestock]

11. Bush was largely re-elected

because Bushco exploited the public's endorsement of WAR.

Yes you're right...but this is a political game...with the highest stakes immaginable.

I believe people jump off the emotional attachment to Bushco and WAR when they realize it was a stategic REGIME CHANGE.

[H2O Man]

12. The abuse of language,

which was wonderfully predicted in "1984," should be contested at every turn. It would be obscene for democrats to invest in the theory that "this is a political game." That abuses the word "game" in much the manner that it does to say the USA is not torturing people, or that we are not at war, abuses those words. This is not a game. It is war.

[lonestarnot]

13. It's a bloody damn war, crispie critters and tufts of tortured hair!

Glorious bunch of spilled guts.

[wadestock]

28. Aren't the GUTS spilled that much worse if it ISN'T a WAR????

I think so.....

And the American public would think so too.

WAR....

Well...

WAR....implies you have to go in the hole...you have to accept such horrible consequences....like torturing prisoners...etc....that's all the inevitable consequence of war in the minds of many unsuspecting observers.

SEPARATE THE WAR....

FROM THE TRUTH....

AND THE CLARITY BEGINS TO FESTER.

[wadestock]

17. There's nothing about it that is characteristically WAR

It's a failed REGIME CHANGE.

Or if you would prefer....a FAILED OCCUPATION.

Or if you would prefer....a FAILED EXPERIMENTATION IN THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF A 3 SUB-STATE (Sunni, Shia, Kurd) Middle East country that has no prayer of existing democratically.

But if you must have it your way....make it a war....and perhaps we'll be there for another 20 years.

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. I call it "illegal invasion"

war has NEVER been declared.

[Carni]

16. I usually just call it the Invasion of Iraq

That is what it was an invasion for takeover.

[wadestock]

20. thank you

you're getting close.

I believe in the term "regime change"...because it holds Bush completely accountable for EXACTLY what he advertised....immediately after the Congressional vote to "authorize the use of force".

The "you have 48 hours to leave town"....is so conveniently forgotten.

By the entire public chiming "regime change"....it calls him exactly what he did...

The irresponsible use of American power to avenge the threat against his father....and the massive hardon he had grown for Saddam over X number of years.

It WAS REGIME CHANGE....but with the expressed hope that a bullet would be put through his head.

Infinitely ironic he was captured...and he'll haunt the Bushes for years to come....

[Carni]

22. I see your point

I'll have to think about this angle

[stray cat]

18. I get your point but its Bush's War to me.

[wadestock]

21. the concept of "regime change"

goes directly to what Bush actually wanted....and it is...in my opinion...the best way to reorient the "war loyal" minds of Americans.

[SOS]

25. Bush's War

Let's always include the name Bush in the conversation.
IWR gave Bush, and only Bush, the authority to start this war.
Bush's invasion, Bush's War, Bush's regime change, Bush's attack.
The Iraq catastrophe is synonymous with only one name - George W. Bush.

[mmonk]

19. Aggressive war

as defined at Nuremburg. That is what needs to be stressed.

[wadestock]

29. Can you explain

because I think you're way off on your definition....

What happened is much more close to aggression....
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/pkterms.htm

"Aggression is the armed attack of one state on another, an egregious international crime. The definition of aggression as adopted by the UN in 1974 lists actions taken by one state against another that are viewed as acts of aggression. The list includes, among a number of other things, a first-strike armed attack by one state on the territory of another, or an attack on its armed forces. The term "indirect aggression" refers to the dispatching by a state, or on behalf of a state, of armed bands, groups, irregular forces or violent persons onto the territory of another state and who then apply armed force on a large scale."

Why don't we just waste our time mincing words.
BUSHCO is the culprit in terms of using words for the most insidious use against the American public.

Let us appropriately take away the WAR term from these scum bags.
Do you get it?

[mmonk]

32. I have heard this aggression defined as

"aggressive war". It's not a republican term. If it's not a war of any type, then sending an armed force to attack another country isn't war.

[Kahuna]

23. I've never called it a :"war." In a war, both sides fight. This was

an "invasion." And an illegal one at that.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

24. wouldn't "Invasion" be a better word?

[wadestock]

27. "Invasion" implies that it was the US that did the invasion....

Do you see the difference???
Invasion is tied to obscure possible ties to the war on terror etc.

REGIME CHANGE.....is BUSH....W's little tandrum....100%....that's the point.

[Kahuna]

26. Self delete. Dupe.

nt

[B Calm]

30. (Too Stupid to be) President Chuckle Nuts Iraq Quagmire War

[wadestock]

31. Another important lesson in this....

REGIME CHANGE...doesn't work....for obvious reasons.
Let the world hopefully rejoice that it won't be attempted again.

The idea to effect the downfall of Saddam from within was the only plausible approach.

in WAR....you defeat the enemy, draw up terms for an agreement, and then get out...another reason this wasn't a WAR.