U.S. in Iraq: Liberators or Occupiers?

[Divinus Arma]

Is the U.S. a liberating force or an occupying force?

First look at the facts:

1. America wants the hell out of Iraq.

2. America pays for Iraqi oil like everyone else and at the same prices. Thus, we did not "go to war for oil".

3. America wants Iraq to independantly govern itself and become a member of the international community.

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh God.. this will be fun!

Liberator. Theres little doubt America had its own interests at heart as well as the Iraqi people's when we took out Saddam - but now he's gone, and we're devoted to helping the Iraqis.

[Franconicus]

Undecided! :worried:

Is the U.S. a liberating force or an occupying force?

First look at the facts:

1. America wants the hell out of Iraq..Do not understand what you say? You say they fight the chaos? Well they abolished Saddams regime but at the same time they imported terror. Hope they can fix it soon.


2. America pays for Iraqi oil like everyone else and at the same prices. Thus, we did not "go to war for oil".
US companies rebuilt the oil infrastructure. They lend the money and get rights on oil. US administrator decided that employees of companies of the allies do not have to pay taxes.


3. America wants Iraq to independantly govern itself and become a member of the international community.Right! But the US forces will stay there and control the oil region.

[Al Khalifah]

While I was very strongly against the war and the motives behind it, in addition to the mass deception committed by the governments involved in moving us towards the conflicts.... I have to say liberator.

The people of Iraq are now free. The fact that many of them choose to abuse their freedom by committing acts of violence against their liberators is a sad sign and forces the allied forces to behave more like occupiers.

The allies will have to leave the country soon, but if they pull out too soon they will have achieved nothing because an equally oppressive regime will emerge in Saddam's place. Their continuing presence again gives them the appearance of occupiers but it is for the people's own good.

[Ironside]

The official reason and what (I assume) is the average thoughts among the troops says liberators. It doesn't matter if the goverment have shady deals behind the sceens in that aspect.

If US ends up as liberators depends on what happens next:
If US succeed with getting a strong democracy into Iraq, it's liberators, if they leave too early, it's failed liberators, if they create a puppet, it's occupiers and if it gets brutalised there, it's occupiers.

So unsurpricingly, I voted liberators

[Steppe Merc]

2. America pays for Iraqi oil like everyone else and at the same prices. Thus, we did not "go to war for oil".
That is one thing I'd have to agree with. Oil prices have gone up, not down. Unless of course they are hiding all the oil to manipulate the market prices... ~;)

And I might have to say both. If you had said conquerer or something, then I'd disagree with it, but America certaintly occupied Iraq for a while.

[King of Atlantis]

Though i disagree about the motives and the way the war was won, we are deinately the liberators. Occupiers would imply that we want to make it a terriotory which is certainly not true.

[Dâriûsh]

A little bit of both.

[sharrukin]

Well I say liberators because of the motivations of the troops and the Americans people though I have a lot of doubts about the administration. The Iraqi people are however beginning to increasingly see the Americans as Occupiers and IMO it's time for the Americans to get out of Dodge.