Why is it that the Dem hopefuls call the occupation a war ?

[blues90]

It is an occupation by definition and yet they refer to it as a war .

Another thing that really bothers me is that we did not choose the hopefuls they were chosen for us and the big money is all in Hillary and Obama .

Does this bother anyone else of is it just me over reacting ?

The big media has the control here not the people and many of these hopefuls may sound good and are able to talk the talk and are good at acting and certain types of speeches .

It reminds me of the big sell and not what people really would choose if it were not for the media influence .

To me this is dangerous , why must people always have the profile of a hero and a hero is just what they are trying to sell here .

Perhaps this makes no difference , perhaps the next president is just a puppet like many before and it's the congress and senate that matters .

I just don't like the idea of any political hopeful being touted as some kind of hero who will save the world . This is a form of mass hype and mass brain washing . A case where the wealthy win and the common folk lose over and over again .

I would feel alot better if big money was not the deciding factor , I don't like the idea that taking money from big oil , the military industrial complex and big pharma are still some how acceptable when this is how we arrived in this hell in the first place .

Perhaps I'm all wet and full of old values or full of shit but deep down I'm troubled about this issue and I can't ignore it .

[Deja Q]

1. Right now, because I think a coherent foreign policy is sensible.

Assuming she hasn't been flip-flopping (and can hold her own against countries whose societies would deem women inferior), she would be good as a player in foreign relations. She does come across strong.

I know I've heckled in the past, but I should do more than kneejerk-react to what's shown on the media. I honestly don't know, but it can be fun to heckle and for any candidate, any heckler ought to know better and for that I do apologize.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Because it sounds better than talking about the lost war.

And, the price still to be paid for another catastrophe engineered in the White House and the Pentagon.

[ClassWarrior]

3. If you understand frames - as your post suggests - you know...

...that linguistic habits are hard to break. We need to keep reminding them to use the proper framing, over and over and over, till we change their habits.

NGU.

[annabanana]

4. You are 100% correct , blues90.

A "war" can be won. An occupation (which is what we HAVE over there) can only be prosecuted. The is no such thing as "winning an occupation" because it is illegitimate from the outset.

Neither will people stand for being the "policeman" standing between two warring factions.

The use the term "war" because it suits their purposes. A Democratic nominee should NEVER use the word in relation to Iraq.

[blues90]

5. You would thing by now these candidates would know

Exactly what this Iraq occupation is and call it just that . all I have heard so far is it being refered to as a war or the war .

I don't know if this is a word suck in their heads or they do this for some other reason . If it is habit then someone needs to hand them little cards or bold letters in their speeches .

I mean really how much effort would it take IF they were really concerned ?

I am at the point where I feel they do it to keep the language friendly or in synch somehow .

As much as the Dems want to seem tuff on terror and willing to defend our nation why not then change the language to we will defend the nation if it is attacked but not support the bush admins policy which is nothing more than an illusion of keeping us safe and spreading democracy .

I fight with common sense everyday and find none when it comes to these candidates .

[ileus]

6. The war was over in a month, we've occupied Iraq since.

[blues90]

8. I would call it an attack then an occupation

With their shock and awe title

[Kahuna]

7. I wouldn't even call it an occupation. I would call it an invasion.

But that's just me.

[secondchance]

9. Things are different from how most think!

Most folks think life here in the US is fairly stable but few know about the horrible things that have been going on since 2001. Did you know there is a shadow army funded by a full 6% of our tax base and it's designed to implement Martial Law on the American public. Mr. Bush signed "directive 51" which officially made him the dictator of America and will be in force when the next terrorist event happens which is all planned. I've written a booklet about it and studied it for years before writing it. You can look at the website at www.survivemartiallaw.com It's designed for families to take care of themselves during the coming crisis. Please take a look at the website. It could mean yours and your families life.

Harold

[stirlingsliver]

10. It's Both

It's both an invasion and an occupation.

The US first invaded -- an act of aggression.

Now it is occupying -- a continuing act of aggression.