Comments on: The War With No End or Point http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/08/04/the-war-with-no-end-or-point/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-war-with-no-end-or-point @TAC Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:23:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: eric smith http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/08/04/the-war-with-no-end-or-point/comment-page-1/#comment-8522 eric smith Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:26:43 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2076#comment-8522 What does the acronym SMEC stand for? What does the acronym SMEC stand for?

]]> By: Subcomandante Dave http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/08/04/the-war-with-no-end-or-point/comment-page-1/#comment-8506 Subcomandante Dave Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:33:24 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2076#comment-8506 There is no war in Iraq, there is no war in Afghanistan. The Iraq war was an event that took place from March 2003 to May 2003, everything since has been an occupation. The Afghanistan war was an event that took place from October 2002 to December 2002, everything since has been an occupation. Actually war is not specific enough; in both cases it was an invasion, then an occupation Calling the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations "war" allows "neo-cons" to perpetuate the nonsense that it can still be "won". Another drawback is that it allows "neo-cons" to say that since America is at war, the case exists to restrict civil liberties and deflect criticism of foreign policy as unpatriotic. The opponents of the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations have let the "neo-cons" off the hook by allowing them to define the occupations as "war"; the sooner we start calling it what it is - occupation of sovereign states - the sooner the troops can come back to America. There is no war in Iraq, there is no war in Afghanistan. The Iraq war was an event that took place from March 2003 to May 2003, everything since has been an occupation. The Afghanistan war was an event that took place from October 2002 to December 2002, everything since has been an occupation. Actually war is not specific enough; in both cases it was an invasion, then an occupation

Calling the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations “war” allows “neo-cons” to perpetuate the nonsense that it can still be “won”. Another drawback is that it allows “neo-cons” to say that since America is at war, the case exists to restrict civil liberties and deflect criticism of foreign policy as unpatriotic.

The opponents of the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations have let the “neo-cons” off the hook by allowing them to define the occupations as “war”; the sooner we start calling it what it is – occupation of sovereign states – the sooner the troops can come back to America.

]]>