Ugh no.

Well, I don't think he exactly means occupation. The fact of the matter is that Saudi Arabia is their holy land, and stationing any sort of military personnel there for a longer period of time than is necessary, while simultaneously sanctioning Iraq, supporting the Israeli state, and actively sticking our noses in their affairs because of oil, etc. can have a negative effect on their view of America. They have lost many lives because of our intervention in many areas of their lives. I know that in general we as Americans don't wish for any of it, but unfortunately though we have many good values, we cannot impose them on a society that doesn't quite understand them yet. Now granted, the loss of American lives is tragic, but it wasn't completely a matter of blind religion. If you've ever read Osama Bin Laden's original statement about the reasons for the attack, and there are seemingly few people that have, you'll notice that, aside from the normal religious rhetoric, there is a truly political (and I would perhaps argue, dominant) motive to the action. We imposed the Shah in as the Iranian ruler, and we've continued to support oppressive regimes.

They just want us to leave. They don't want us fixing their own problems. Though in many ways the way they fix their problems is barbaric, they are the only ones that understand their culture and how they can get things done. It's going to take a long time for their culture to change, and unfortunately I think a large part of the problem is the fact that their religion hasn't completely stabilized or experienced a reformation yet. They're what medieval Europe was in those troubled times, except they have a larger assortment of weapons now.

The fact that we are in Iraq without much of a reason anymore besides the fact that things might be bad if we left just adds more fuel to the fire of American hatred. It only makes it easier for men like Osama to recruit new people. Certainly take out Osama and anyone involved in 9/11, but occupation or control of anything will only make matters worse.

If he didn't, it stands to reason that he would have chosen a different term. Saying the United States was "occupying" Saudi Arabia implies that the U.S. military presence was part of maintaining control over the country, such as in Germany or Iraq. Since this wasn't the case, "occupying" is a loaded term, and suggests that any military presence equates to control (which would mean that the U.K., Italy, Japan and South Korea, among others, are all under occupation). While this would correspond with the positions of certain extremist strains of libertarianism, it isn't exactly connected with reality.

Which begs the question: does he mean what he said, or is he just trying to stir up more strife?

How does one impose a ruler who had been on the Iranian throne for twelve years before we supposedly installed him?

To muslims and arabs in particular, the US presence in Saudi Arabia was an occupation. Osama Bin Ladin himself criticized the Sauds for relying on American power to protect the Arabian peninsula from a secular dictator like Saddam. You had two buildups, the first coming prior to the first Gulf War, and the second a practically slowly progressing buildup following it. Despite the small numbers of troops throughout the 90's, the stated reason for the US presence was to keep a lid on Iraq and contain Saddam. In that respect, it's similar to our own "occupation" of Germany as a means of deterring Soviet aggression and containing communism.

You can bicker with this if you want, but I don't say this shit just to get your panties in a wad.

Well, no, we didn't install him the British did. However, we did impose the Shah on the Iranian people who had democratically elected the Mossadegh government by destabilizing the region and giving the Shah cause enough to send in his tanks and depose Mossadegh, portraying himself as the maintainer of order. We then continued to support the Shah leading up to the revolution, when we provided him asylum.

Ironically enough, almost all of our problems in the Middle East can be traced back to the imperialist meddling of Britain and France, who have essentially passed the buck off to us when it comes to propping up brutal yet western-friendly arab and muslim governments.

As in my previous post in this thread, I would argue that they portray it as an "occupation" because that furthers their own political/nationalist agenda. So, I would not argue with you about how they are choosing to portray reality. I am saying that to state their opinion as valid/factual simply because they hold it is not a valid argument. This ignores their political agenda which is ultimately more important in the first place than any specific form their "opinion" (which at the nation-state level is a function of political agenda) takes at any given time. Ignoring the fact that they are labeling the U.S. "occupation" as such mainly to gain political power over the situation does a disservice to the analysis in my opinion.

You could extend this analysis to many things I suppose, including the United State's rationale for invading Iraq.

At least Britain (Tony Blair) is trying to help us clean up their mess, which is more than I can say for France. Of course, they have their own problems at this time to be fair...

I'm not arguing that their view is the correct one, I'm saying that they're irrational. You also didn't comment on my comparison to the US presence in Germany.

Which is hurting his own country.

Brady: Our troops in Germany haven't fired a shot (or been fired on) since 1945. Trying to compare occupation of Iraq to "occupation" of Germany is ludicrous. Even the American Sheeple are smart enough to see through that little neocon talking point.

I wasn't comparing the occupation of Iraq to Germany, read the thread.