Kaimani Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Occupying / occupation, do you understand the difference? no, sir, i don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 depends on who's looking. the locals say occupation, the soldiers say 'base'. depends who you want to stand with. we see that all the time in Iraq or Afghanistan. allies say 'operation' locals say 'invasion' or 'occupation'. No, it's about a contract with the government. Occupation is about occupying after an invasion, like Afghanistan! Grow up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 No, it's about a contract with the government. Occupation is about occupying after an invasion, like Afghanistan! Grow up! ok. now i know. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 the Americans stayed as part of the surrender agreement. hardly a ringing endorsement of 'please come in'. the south Korea ones are somewhat different. you're right though, they do provide jobs etc and, in the case of south Korea, needed protection( or a base to watch china from if you are into conspiracy theories). the problem has always been the cultural and environmental impact. the villages around the base in Botswana have unusually high rates of mixed race fatherless kids etc among other thing. but you have to take the good with the bad. the reason i chimed in was only to say there've been bases 'occupying' foreign lands before 9/11. Even if there is and have been for a long time, there was no conflict in 2001. The suggestion that current conflict in Afghanistan has been caused by US forces maintaining a military presence on friendly nations soil (since if they were hostile to US bases they would be asked to leave) is imo just being in complete denial about 9/11 which is why coalition forces went in there. If 9/11 didn't happen, we wouldn't have invaded Afganistan. Iraq I'm less sure about, I think Bush wanted rid of Saddam, War on Terror provided the excuse to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Even if there is and have been for a long time, there was no conflict in 2001. The suggestion that current conflict in Afghanistan has been caused by US forces maintaining a military presence on friendly nations soil (since if they were hostile to US bases they would be asked to leave) is imo just being in complete denial about 9/11 which is why coalition forces went in there. i agree, and it wasn't me who said it was otherwise. i do doubt why they had to go to Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia where the main people from 9/11 came from or even why it had to be total all out war and not surgical black ops operation but that's by the by. the war wasn't coz of the bases. but their being there is far from 'friendly'. Iraq I'm less sure about, I think Bush wanted rid of Saddam, War on Terror provided the excuse to do it agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Did anybody else hear the article on the Today programme 3/4 hour ago? http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9361000/9361191.stm 0730 The former Home Secretary Jack Straw has been widely criticised for saying last week that some men of Pakistani origin target vulnerable young white women for sex, because they see them as "easy meat". Zubeida Malik reports from Bradford on whether there was any truth in the matter. I would recommend listening to this when it becomes available on BBC iPlayer later. Now available to listen to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9361000/9361232.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 i have no opinion either way on bases on foreign soil. never expressed one. but i do know from personal experience (there's one in Botswana). the government love it coz they get de facto protection. the locals hate it.The bulk of the UK overseas bases were welcomed by the locals due to the money put into the local economy, I know from personel experience having served overseas, we are still welcomed when we visit by the family whose hiring we rented. Since the reduction in the numbers on these bases the many of the locals have struggled financialy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Iraq I'm less sure about, I think Bush wanted rid of Saddam, War on Terror provided the excuse to do it Saddam killed far more of his own than can be attributed to the coalition. The insurgents who don't mind who they murder have killed more than the coalition. Every day Saddam filled more mass graves than the coalition could ever fill. The major wrongdoing was not going in and finnishing him after the first Gulf Conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Saddam killed far more of his own than can be attributed to the coalition. The insurgents who don't mind who they murder have killed more than the coalition. Every day Saddam filled more mass graves than the coalition could ever fill. The major wrongdoing was not going in and finnishing him after the first Gulf Conflict. agreed on all accounts. but seeing as he did all this for a very long time and we knew of it the timing of the second operation was questionable. PS-you do realize that the post you quoted as mine was, in fact, scuba's post that i had quoted.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 agreed on all accounts. but seeing as he did all this for a very long time and we knew of it the timing of the second operation was questionable. PS-you do realize that the post you quoted as mine was, in fact, scuba's post that i had quoted.? It's because of they way you quoted it! But you were agreeing to it anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.