[actifadepette]

I'd say as soon as Japanese soldiers began obeying Allied orders.

[anconueys]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'd say as soon as Japanese soldiers began obeying Allied orders. So the mere fact of an effective US sea blockade and total US control of the airspace did NOT constitute occupation?

[ayWCZ7VT]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Is there an added twist to this question that I'm not seeing? Obviously blockade and airspace control are not occupation, because nobody is doing any occupying. Occupation begins with civil authority is usurped, de jure or de facto, by a foreign or enemy army. There may be an added twist, yes

But meanwhile I can add you to the list of folks who think blockade and air space control are not occupation?

[qCGfQR9T]

note well, while the US blockade of Japan consisted entirely of a naval blockade, a blockade can be accomplished using a combination of forces. For example Germany during WW1 was blockaded using ground AND naval forces.

[Kimmitmelvirm]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
I don't think that's particularly relevant. Regardless of what you call it (blockade, etc.) it either fits or does not fit the criterion for an occupation. If the foreign force actually exerts authority in the region, it is under occupation.

A blockade, regardless of the troops used, is generally coercive diplomacy rather than occupation. Whether the troops are on boats or not isn't really important. I dont disagree, I'm merely elucidating.

[Druspills]

Okay, here's a non-Israel guess. You are going to in some way argue that, based on other 'occupations' involving air and naval elements, Japan was already occupied by the time we A-bombed them, and thus we were wrong to do it.

Actually, I hope you're arguing the Israel one, because this one is pretty far fetched.

[Frinzer]

Actually I was hoping to get MORE people, especially certain select individuals, to sign on before giving the twist away.

Ah come on, it was readily apparent as soon as you asked him to sign on

[Rurcextedutty]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
ding, ding, ding!

Actually I was hoping to get MORE people, especially certain select individuals, to sign on before giving the twist away.

And the territory in question, of course, is the Gaza Strip, where the question of whether Israel is still the occupier, and has responsibilities of an occupier, is a matter of dispute and a very live issue. Note this is not the occupied/disputed debate, but a seperate debate occupied/no longer occupied. You mean -- someone thinks Gaza is still occupied by Israel?

I think their opinions can confidently be disregarded if they do...they'd probably lie about other things, too.

[attlawqa]

Originally posted by jkp1187


Now, when did the occupation of The South begin -- that's the real question.... hehe...


The real question is: When is it going to end?

[Amfdaaandhaq]

I would agree that, since the withdrawal in 2005, Gaza is not technically occupied. Given the growth of Hamas power there, however, I do not expect it to remain that way.

So, now what? This seems like a rather pedantic argument to me. Is there more substance to this than simply pointing out that the Gaza strip is currently not occupied, and that people who say it is are using incorrect terminology?

Now, when did the occupation of The South begin -- that's the real question....

Duh, when the Europeans arrived.

[zatronanec]

Duh, when the Europeans arrived. Fools! Shed your cultural blinders!

The occupation of "The South" began at least 10,000 years ago.

[XangadsX]

Originally posted by lord of the mark




But meanwhile I can add you to the list of folks who think blockade and air space control are not occupation? You can add me LOTM, because one of my favorite books was the plight of the Russian peoples at Leningrad, now St Petersburg.

900 days was blockaded of course minus the road of ice, but effectively all but blockaded.

This is only example that comes to mind, just sharing is all.

Grandpa Troll

[Oriesssedleli419]

Gaza is no longer occupied, apparently to the detriment of its residents. Israel is still responsible for some of the suffering, due to the blockade.

Per the Western way of war as practiced by the developed world, civilian casualties are not a consideration worthy of concern in formulating responses to attacks. Not sure I agree totally with that ethically, but that's been the practice for the last 900 years.

[gogFloark]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
So the mere fact of an effective US sea blockade and total US control of the airspace did NOT constitute occupation? No, but if you have local proxies do your work for you, yes. Gaza is not occupied . . . well, parts are. Teh West Bank is, however.

[ruforumczspam]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

Likewise, Israel cannot "simply respond" to attacks, "but [is] obligated to respond with concern for civilian life and property," not because they are an occupier but because they, presumably, are decent human beings.
Of course, but the level of responsibility is far lower than for an occupier.

When I drop my bombs, I should TRY to avoid hitting civilians, versus I should arrest people instead of dropping bombs.

Or when I blockade, at sea, I should give sailors on civilian ships time to get off the ship, versus I should not blockade at all because Im responsible for economic well being.

[diegogo]

Originally posted by PLATO


Dad was part of the 2nd Marine Division. They were scheduled to be in the first wave of the invasion...pretty much a death sentence the way Japan had their defenses in place.
My dad was designated as a forward Naval Gunnery controller, in the event of an invasion. He would have been landed BEFORE your dad (from the way he described his mission) Likelihood of survival, near zero. Suckered into signing up for that specialty, he didnt expect to survive.

He always said, that, when the bomb was dropped, it was like he'd been given a second life.

[AffipgyncDync]

Originally posted by PLATO
Wow! That is uncanny. Dad was a forward observer for the Marines artillery. Had there been an invasion, they may actually have worked together.

Weird how life is.
Indeed.

My dad's regular job (at sea) was as gunnery officer on his destroyer.