From Campaigns Wikia

@CompaqDrew;

Don't get yourself too much deep in the Kool Aid Sea at low tide. Might have to send our crack Turtle-Seal Teams to rescue you. Right now busy retrieving NeoCon suicides from the Reflecting Pool, near the DC Green Zone. Might take them some time to sort all that out. Play Prufrock for a little while: Eat a peach, walk upon the beach.Whatevever you do, at least blouse your trousers before you embark on the Great Adventure.MakharramKhan 01:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

@MakharramKhan: Odd. Mine was actually an argument. Compaqdrew 12:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

@CompaqDrew:

I don't do arguments, debates, position papers, whatever. View them as an utter waste of time. Sure someone will come along though.MakharramKhan 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Questions

(post your thoughts, or post your own questions! post comments on this format idea on the Discussion page)

American presence in Iraq is called the "Iraqi war" and the "Iraqi occupation", depending on whom you ask. Which is more fair/neutral?

• In wars, armies fight to dominate land. The US won the war three years ago when Bush said, “Mission Accomplished”. Then the occupation started, and our troops were not trained or equipped for an occupation under predictably hostile circumstances. Finally getting the courage to tell the truth that the US is an occupying force drastically changes the picture in Iraq. (from here) --AndreyF 03:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• It depends on the proper definition of the term 'war'. If the conflict in Iraq is with insurgents, those insurgents could be identified as the enemy in a war; but to call it the Iraq or Iraqi War implies (perhaps incorrectly) that the enemy is Iraq itself, or Iraqis (inclusively). Inversely, to call it an 'occupation' implies that there is no intention of yielding control of the country to itself (which is perhaps not the case, either). I would think the ideal, neutral term would be: The Iraq Conflict. - oeln 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Iraq Conflict is quite specific enough. Maybe "Current American presence in Iraq"?--AndreyF 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Andrey, I think either a lot of people have the courage to criticize our Iraq operations or it doesn't require much; I am constantly hearing criticism of our war efforts, and I live smack dab in the middle of Religious-Rightsville. I would counter that it's much harder to look past the media focus lens and the hype that's generated to sell news and see what is truly a brilliant success on the part of troops, intelligence, and strategic planning both on a national and international level. In addition, I think the evidence pretty clearly shows that our troops were very well-trained for their current mission. Compaqdrew 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I say call a spade a spade: The war ended. The sovereign government cannot secure its' people without the Allied Forces, who occupy large areas of a foreign country including the Green Zone in Bhagdad. We occupy their territory with a supreme military force. It is an occupation. Why is this even up for debate?