On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:38:44 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces,
or
coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation
forces".

As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi...
I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who
keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of
those
"accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em.



The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are.
Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II
the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying
Forces."

Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they officially
become "occupation forces". I thought you said that Bush shot his mouth off
too early in declaring the end to major operations?

Also, what do you think about bombing the protestors that are voicing
support for Hussein? I'm sure most of 'em are up to no good anyhow.

War? What war?

There's no war between the United States and Iraq. There's just Bush's
war on Iraq. The uniformed Iraqi armed forces surrendered months ago.
There's been no head of state in Iraq for what, seven or eight months?

We're occupying Iraq. Occupation is the action of taking possession of a
place or of land; seizure, as by military conquest.

You should have taken some history classes.

We are no more occupiers of Iraq than we were occupiers of Paris after kicking
the Germans out.

Wake up, Harry.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD