Someone please explain: Why the world recognizes "occupation"

[loudnclear]

I know this might be flame-fodder but somethings just don't make sense.

Saddam invades Kuwait in 1990 because (1) Iraq has long believed that Kuwait was lopped off from mainland Iraq by "occupying" UK forces illegally and (2) Iraq accused Kuwait of "slant drilling" into their oil fields and siphoning off Iraqi oil. The world is incensed, we attack them and bomb the hell out of them killing tens of thousands of Iraqi people (women, children, old, young and military). Question: Why wasn't the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq considered an "occupation" with all the "legal" ramifications and concessions that are afforded to the US as an "occupying force" now in Iraq and like Israel, now "occupying" Palestinian territories? Why does the world, including the UN, sanction the behavior of the US and Israel (and the UK in times past) and afford them some type of almost "legal occupying status" for doing the same thing that Saddam did to Kuwait which we considered barbaric, illegal, an act of aggression, and a threat to the world?

How is it that we and Israel and the UK get to invade, kill, loot, piliage, and destroy entire nations and it's considered a badge of honor for democracies and when non-western nations do the same thing for even more legitimate reasons than just hating people, and we and most of the "developed nations" accept it and ascribe legitmacy to those actions by using "legal rights and responsibilities of occupying forces" for such atroscities? Please help me with this...

Is it just plain racism? Does it mean that European nations and Israel and the US have some kind of God-given right to do this while non-white nations are just plain terrorists when they do it?

I'm serious...think about it! Why is this?

[arcane1]

1. ah, the double standard, one of our best exports

we are the big bad boys, they do what we tell 'em, that's basically thre philosophy we're dealing with here...

[sistersofmercy]

2. The Iraq/Kuwiat issue aside, this is not technically an occupation.

Junior claimed an end to major combat operations not an end to the war and an occupation. By doing this the Geneva conventions the would apply to POW's during an occupation can't be applied. It's just another dirty twisted way this administration abuses and scoffs at international law. So all the newscasters calling it an occupation are incorrect.
And yes Saddam had a legitimate beef with kuwait.

[loudnclear]

3. Thanks for the comment.

Anybody else have an explanation?

[loudnclear]

4. I can't believe that no one has an answer for this question...

What is the difference between:

Invasion
Attack
Occupation
Agression
Colonialism
Imperialism
Terrorism?

[Terwilliger]

5. because the Democratic party invented it

then they said "We have instituted it...and it is good..."

[not systems]

11. expand this thought please

I am interested in what you are talking about.

Your post didn't give me much to go on.

[Terwilliger]

12. Well, where did the Democrats start occupying?

Oh yeah...post World WarII...we've been occupying ever since. What country did we invade that we've left?

Hell, Democrats have started all these foreign policy projects and tactics...Truman started us early, emboldened the intelligence services, expanded the powers of war and foreign presence and influence...then Eisenhower, who as a Republican could have been FAR worse, but he continued this same interventionist foreign policy...then there was Kennedy, and he had his own ideas (I guess) about foreign policy and got taken out...Nixon, Ford, Carter, Etc. have continued what might as well be the same overall policies that have gone through the last 50 - 55 years.

So...

With Israel justified (apparently) in doing anything it wants, occupation becomes far easier for the masses to accept. It's not happening to them, so they figure it's not a problem. We occupy in Korea and stay...occupy Cuba...occupy Kosovo...etc.

The Democrats started these policies, enacted these policies, enforced these policies...how could I not interpret the introduction of "occupation" as an amenable concept by the Americans who called themselves Democrats?

(yes yes yes...Democrats didnt invent occupation, but they made it ok)

[not systems]

17. thanks

I agree that the history of american empire has been
a bipartisan venture.

Today the only cracks in the neo-imperialist consensus
are in the green left, the old right and some Democratic
party members.

The best hope for breaking the neo-con grip on power
is to elect new president in 2004 then work on congress
to turn back the path of war.

I don't know if you are considering this some kind of
original sin that can never be overcome but Americans
love empire. Even more when able to have one while
maintaining moral purity throught denial and easy
justification. This spring the "left" justifications
for war were the most stomach turning - like spreading
democracy and such.

I guess I agree with what you are saying here. Still
I think the best bet is bringing up the anti-militarism
forces in the Democratic party.

[Terwilliger]

19. not me

I don't know if you are considering this some kind of
original sin that can never be overcome but Americans
love empire. Even more when able to have one while
maintaining moral purity throught denial and easy
justification. This spring the "left" justifications
for war were the most stomach turning - like spreading
democracy and such.

I don't love empire...I think it's sick that the US is not anti-imperial

By the way, there were no "left" justifications for war. Claiming a leftist ideal while perpetuating fascism sounds like Stalin to me.

[not systems]

20. no "left" justifications

Well lots of people fell for the bait and switch
with "freedom", "democracy" and "stop genocide" as the
bait.

These points were not raised by the "left" but
were used to sell war to liberals by the neo-cons.

I once again agree that the neo-con propoganda machine
is at least one part Stalin but also one part Goebles
and one part plain old american know nothing hate and war.

[Terwilliger]

23. right on

[sistersofmercy]

6. Well actually Syria is still occupying Lebanon.

But yes it is racism and hypocrisy to the nth degree! There was a discussion on here about 2 or 3 weeks ago similar to this. I'm not sure how to find the thread. It in part had to do with Charles Taylor and why he got to go into exile but Saddam didn't.

[aneerkoinos]

14. Actually

the Syrian troops were invited there, and they are still accepted by the democratic governement of Lebanon, allthough there is now more and more talk about changing policy and asking the Syrian troops to go home. It is not easy to say how much influence Syria has over Lebanese governement, quite a lot, I would imagine, but far from total control. So far the pro-Syrian parties have been democratic majority.

[sistersofmercy]

18. Yes I do know syria was initially invited but it is my understanding

the lebanese want them to leave and have for quite some time.

[sistersofmercy]

7. It's the same reason the kurds are called freedom fighters while the

Palestinians are called terrorist.

[StandWatie]

21. only Iraqi Kurds

and maybe Iranians Kurds, Turkish Kurds we pay Turkey to massacre and that's "anti-terrorism".

[maggrwaggr]

8. Um, I think it's called "The Golden Rule"

He with the gold makes the rules.

In this case, he with the gold buys the biggest guns and therefore makes the rules

[Dookus]

9. Also important...

the US and the UK have veto power in the Security Council, essentially preventing the UN from doing much of anything about us.

[leftofthedial]

10. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT

The Reagan Principle

[David_REE]

13. This is why...

One is an oppressive nation invading a relatively free one, and wiping out freedom for its inhabitants.

The other is a relatively free nation invading an oppressive one, expanding the freedom of its inhabitants.

It's the same difference between criminals and police.

[leesa]

22. Which is which???

I would guess the US is described in the first? Since we have wiped out freedom for its inhabitants?

[aneerkoinos]

15. Answer is very simple

Who would want to fight the biggest army? Also US is the only western nation that actually enjoyes war, others are more or less pacifists.

When weapons decide law means nothing. Good example is Sweden. Under Swedish law it is illegal to sell weapons to warring nations, so Sweden should stop selling to US and UK. But hell no, relationship to the big powers is more important than law.

[teryang]

16. The "occupying power" is a status

To say that a party is an occupying power in no way attributes legitimacy to the occupation. The status imposes duties and obligations not rights.