HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
It's not my definition, it's the definition.
Occupation implies a military presence against the will of not just the people of a state, region or country but specifically against the will of the government there.
Often occupations are intended to be temporary. The American military occupies places all the time, that doesn't make those places part of the United States of America.![]()
All occupations involve military presence, sure. Not all occupations are intended to be temporary, nowhere near. Did the Roman Empire "temporarily occupy" the entirety of the Mediterranean without intention? No, they occupied it for the long-term goal of extracting resources and capital as well as expanding power. Further, not all occupations are against the will of the people, nor do all occupations even entail imperialist goals. We occupied with troops Hawaii for quite some time before granting them statehood, but overall they supported becoming a state. We occupy Germany today, but with no intention of ruling Germany.
You have logic backwards. Using your provided definition, a sovereign state which rules over other states is an empire. Unless you're making the argument that the Ottoman Empire occupied Palestine without ruling Palestine (please explain the historical borders then), your argument about what constitutes occupation is irrelevant.
The 48 contiguous states, particularly in the central and Western USA, have some hundreds of Indian reservations split between them. These reservations are given a nominal degree of autonomy but are ultimately still under the jurisdiction of the United States government. Do the existence of these not therefore disqualify the USA as a country?