|
Originally Posted by phatmastermatt
Well, I don't think he exactly means occupation.
|
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?
|
Quote:
We imposed the Shah in as the Iranian ruler
|
How does one impose a ruler who had been on the Iranian throne for twelve years before we supposedly installed him?
There's nowhere I can't reach.
85242
35212
Lord Styphon