Use "Occupation" Instead of "War"...

[neoblues]

As Thom Hartmann is saying on Air America, we Democrats have to reframe the issue of the "War"; we all know it's not a "War", it's an "Occupation". We are an "Occupying Power", and it's not going well. "Insurgents" resist "Occupations", they aren't targets of a "War".

Even if one does "Cut and Run" from an "Occupation", it's not a sign of cowardice; using the right word changes the whole argument. So, in the future, try to find ways to avoid buying into the Republican framing and replace "War" with "Occupation" where possible!

[doh_phooey]

1. You said it!

[proud patriot]

2. Yep I concur

Makes perfect sense to me .

[Yoda Yada]

3. I agree.

The Republicans are getting desparate in controlling the "slogan spin". They want you to use THEIR words....so they can be in control of the interviews. Their focus today was on saying Democrats are divided and using the word "timetabe" as much as possible.

Howard Dean said today, "Tough talk is NOT enough....you have to have a plan. Republicans do not have a plan."
He went on to say, You have to be tough ...AND smart. The Republicans are not smart. (I am not doing justice to Dean's separate interviews with Blitzer and O'Donnell.....if you can watch the repeat, you will understand what the Democrats talking points are.)

Try to watch the Hardball (repeat) tonight.

[Check12]

4. Yes, I agree. Just one question

When the USA is involved in an occupation of a foreign government, what would be the official pentagon status of US soldiers captured by enemy insurgents? POW?
Should our captured servicemen have rights afforded them by the Geneva Conventions?

[neoblues]

7. Good Question...

IF (capitalized for emphasis) we ourselves recognized the Geneva Conventions (and we used to), AND our purpose there really was legal/honest/benign (such as U.N. peacekeepers are wherever they're stationed), THEN our troops would deserve the protections afforded by international agreement.

As for what we would call them? Prisoners of Occupation (not War), Prisoners of Insurgency... I don't know.

Now then, it would be nice if they were considered Prisoner's of War. It would be nice if the IRAQIs saw us as trying to help, to rebuild and to provide them--all of them--with a real "representative" and freely elected government. Our mission does include those things, whatever our motives. Still, in reality, we engaged in what was effectively a unilateral decision to invade a sovereign nation on specious and falsified evidence--which evidence would not have satisfied the minimum justifications according to international law and convention, to allow for offensive military action against another nation. It was an illegal war. It was an illegal war whether or not the fact that it was illegal has been given either a great deal of attention or none at all here. The question is absolutely taboo and will not be covered by our Corporate manipulated media. Believe it or not, it's still illegal, and before I go on, let me make it perfectly clear: it was an illegal act on the part of our President and the United States.

I went on and on there because it seems to me that even those who believe it was illegal, aren't entirely certain--and probably have doubts because the argument got no traction and next to zero coverage. Surely it would be covered, at least a little? No, but the rest of the world knows.

We won't be prosecuted, not even our President because there is no power on Earth that would dare attempt to uphold the law against so powerful a country--when it doesn't directly impact them anyway. Besides, since the United States has turned it's back on the International Criminal Court, Bush is safe from prosecution from them--so long as he doesn't visit a country that did sign the Court's treaty. That means Bush could be arrested if he visits Britain... but that would be unimaginable, albeit legal.

Okay, it's an illegal war. Now, what does that mean about our occupation? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but if I was to break into your house and take you hostage, and then decided to just stay for a few years--and perhaps permanently, because I don't trust you and really like your swimming pool... is my extended stay any more legal? If you managed to hurt me, would you be a criminal? I wouldn't think so.

[cyberpj]

5. Why can't Dems do this type of spin effectively? EVER?

You can be sure Rove's "cut and run" will be ringing in the air for the next years.

[neoblues]

8. We're just too honest...

too honest, straight forward, sincere... and right. We don't think we need to play games with the wording; surely rational people will respond to the truth? Alas, the "average" person out there really is easily manipulated by how things are said.

We have alot to learn. Alas, our leaders are also guilty of pride (to a far smaller degree than Republicans, but still)--they don't really believe they need to worry about such things. We need to get George Lakoff and others who 'get it' to hold training sessions for our candidates in all 50 states!

[Buck Laser]

6. Perhaps. But I think of the War Against Iraq.

No one suggested that I use that term. But in my mind, "Occupied Iraq" sounds like we won something. Did we?

[neoblues]

9. We "defeated" Saddam's forces...

Of course, they scarcely bothered to show up--and then it was mostly the guys with some explosives and an old toyota pickup truck. So, yeah, we "won". Some "Victory".

That's like the criminal guilty of home invasion declaring he's "won" or achieved "victory" because he managed to break a window, climb inside and take the family hostage because he was armed. So he managed to "occupy" someone's house... illegally... but having decided to move-in and stay--continue the occupation--now he bizarrely calls his ongoing activities "breaking and entering". See, the problem? "Breaking and Entering" describes the first little part--where he broke in. His continued presence is called something else... either "occupation" or "kidnapping"!