4 ms·
So you're implying the 1945 invasion of Okinawa was nebulous?
by ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
So you're implying the 1945 invasion of Okinawa was nebulous?
- cryoshon 11y agoNah, WW2 era occupations were anything but nebulously defined. Just reminding people that the US never honors its promises when it comes to withdrawal. EDIT: I'll admit that the first Okinawa comment wasn't entirely thought out.
- linkregister 11y agoI agree that WW2 era occupations were fairly nebulously-defined. However, the "US never honors its promises when it comes to withdrawal" is a gross mischaracterisation. The U.S. military base system on Okinawa is a part of a bilateral agreement with the Japanese government. Although unpopular with Okinawans, multiple successive Tokyo governments have approved expansions to the original bases, including one this year. [1] To my knowledge the only forcibly-held U.S. base is the one in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21674839-okinawa-takes-governments-japan-and-america-island-warrior http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21674839-okinawa-takes-go...
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoI can't go with "never". I can't even go with "usually", unless you've got a study that lists promises of US withdrawl and which promises were kept. But I can agree that there was, quite recently, a promise of withdrawl from Afghanistan, and even more recently, a "no we won't".