What other Democracies occupy foreign territories besides

the US and Israel? (Don't name Syria because the Lebanese have asked Syria to be there to protect them from the Israelis.)

The answer to this question might just be why they hate us and have little use for 'Democracy.'

Also, what about Britain and Ireland?

I'm totally guessing here - I'm not sure what the exact situation is in these countries.

However, you're right on when you question whether occupation is democratic.

It's absolutely NOT democratic - true democracy means that the people choose their rulers.

So, you're right in that what makes the U.S. and Israel particularly hateful is their hypocrisy in regards to their claim to be "democratic" and (worse) that they are "spreading democracy".

:grr:

Part of Britain?
i.e. Britain is a collective name for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the "Great Britain" part including England, Scotland and Wales.

As for whether or not there is an "occupation", I guess it depends on whether you look at it from a "Unionist" or "Republican" perspective.

I would submit that is occupied in the very same sense that New England might have been considered occupied, had England not withdrawn from it after Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown.

Yes, I come from a long line of 'Republicans'. :P

then the USA still is. Because in both cases immigrants, starting in the 17th century, have outnumbered the previous inhabitants, and now form the majority. When the majority of the Northern Irish want to join the Republic, then it would become an occupied country.

Since Britain never has sanctioned a plebiscite, your opinion that a 'majority' don't want to join the Irish republic is just that--- an opinion.

at the last general election, and another 3.6% for the non-aligned Alliance, the assumption must be that the majority would vote to remain in the United Kingdom. Divided by sect, there are 44% Catholic, and 53% Protestant. Most opinions are that fewer Protestants want to join the Republic than Catholics who want to remain in the UK.

?

If I lived there, I would personally be happy with either result, and I suspect that the intelligence services find the extreme Loyalists easier to infiltrate than the extreme Republicans, so I hope they'd be able to contain the 'over my (and your) dead body' brigade. The transfer would be a pain in the arse logistically - how do you separate national debt, pension entitlements etc. And no doubt there would be an exodus of hardline Unionists to Britain - and as someone living there, I'd rather that didn't happen (not my favourite people), but I suppose I'll have to live with it if it happens.

Taking a "poll" of the 6 Counties is rediculous. Either an all Ireland vote or even an all UK vote would vote england off the soil. They are gerrymandering.

What question is asked, and what population is allowed to answer that question needs to be addressed.

The lebanese dont WANT syria therebut the puppets in power are controlled by Syria.

But on the other hand Syria isnt exactly a democracy

is like saying Pamela Andersen isn't exactly a man...

EDITED for clarity

I wouldn't name Syria because Syria is no more a democracy under the Assads than Renaissance Florence was under the Medicis. No one wears a crown, but the dynastic characteristics are present. If the President of Syria were just a figurehead whose duties were ceremonial and the real power were in a freely and fairly elected parliament, then I might accept the idea of Syria being a democracy.

In any good Socratic discourse, the participants should begin by defining their terms and then applying them to the situation at hand. That may lead to a new definition of one or more of the terms. It may even lead the participants to frustration, as there may be no good universal definition of a term. The serious student is directed to the works of Plato.

We seem to agree on what it means to occupy foreign territory: one nation places a military presence beyond the borders for an undefined length of time in order to control by force social, economic or political events in the occupied land. Some Israelis or their supporters abroad may disagree that Israel is occupying foreign territory, but we'll leave that discussion to the I/P forum. Some members of the Bush administration may try to deny that the US occupation of Iraq is an occupation (they prefer to call it a liberation), but that is such cheap propaganda that few people beyond the reach of US corporate media take it seriously.

The sticking point here may be the word democracy. I will offer my own ideal definition of democracy, which has been seen on DU before:

A democracy is a state where:

• Citizenship is universal. All born within the boundries of the state, born abroad of at least one parent who is a citizen of the state, and foreigners who swear allegiance to the state are citizens.
• Citizenship is equal. Each citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in and influence civic affairs.
• Citizenship is inalienable. A set of guaranteed civil liberties is in place to assure full and open public discourse of civic affairs and to assure that no citizen will be penalized for expressing a minority view, no matter how outrageous.

I will admit that no perfect democracy has ever existed, and probably never will. I will also submit that many states that historically have been called democracies are, under this definition, not democracies at all. Ancient Athens restricted the franchize to males owning property and sent dissidents into exile. America in the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century permitted slavery and up to the late nineteenth century encouraged genocide against the indiginous population; women were not permitted to vote in all states until after World War I and Afro-Americans were systematically disenfrachized in the South for a hundred years after being emancipated from slavery.

We may even argue whether or not the United States today is a democracy. Do the wealthy, especailly those who wealth is rooted in corporate business, have an undue influence over civic affairs? Does corporate control of the journalism stifle public discourse? Do provisions of the Patriot Act go too far in restricting civil liberties as to further stifle free discourse? These are fair questions.

citizens invited the Syrians to occupy them of their own free will....

It reminds me of the Sudantenland argument...

Syria is not a democracy.

They are empires, unless they are Israel, in which case they are a US military base with some office buildings and shopping centers dotted throughout the weapons depot.

If a democratic state is attacked by a foreign power, then counterattacks successfully, she may become an occupying power, however reluctantly. That doesn't necessarily make an empire of the democracy.

I will agree that the US occupation of Iraq has everything to do with empire and nothing to do with democracy.

I've expressed my views on the Israeli occupation of Palestine on the I/P forum in the past and won't repeat them here.

To tell the truth, the term "democracy" has undergone some changes since the Great Law of the Iroquois.

"Democracy" now means a government that has the approval of the US corporate oligarchy.

Some folks there would say so... just a very old one. That might add britain to yer list.

Isn't croatia occupying east krajina? or some name like that they annexed from serbia?

Does russian occupation of konigsburg count?, how about the northern islands of japan russia still holds?

Ruwanda and Uganda are both occupying parts of Congo.

Does the australian occupation of the native lands of the aborignals count? That said, how about new zealand and the maori's... it seems an occupation turns in to an outright theft given enough time... that would leave canada in the list too.

It seems all the worlds prodestant nations are the worst criminal occupiers... what is it about prodestantism and criminal theft?