US Military Troops/Warships in Peru - Peruvian Congress Approval

a reply to: Trueman

And yet in many earthquakes in Peru the US sent troops and civilian teams to assist. I already showed several of them.

It's good to know that Peru schedules all their earthquakes and disasters. So when is the next one then?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you "approve" of foreign troops occupying the United States?

What else would you call it?

a reply to: intrptr

They have for decades. There are permanent Luftwaffe bases in several states. In fact the Germans are about to permanently base a unit of fighters at one of them. The Dutch have a permanent presence for pilot training. The Indonesian military just set up a permanent base in the US.

This is all besides the foreign troops that rotate through for training.

And no, I don't have a problem with it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You're comparing apples and oranges. These foreigners train at US facilities, not their own sprawling military bases like the US has overseas.

Done been bogged down here by deflection. The thread title reads, " US Troops and warships IN Peru--", speaks for itself.

a reply to: intrptr

Apparently you missed the PERMANENT part in there. I'm not talking about just troops training here, I'm talking about troops being rotated and stationed in the US for years, just as US troops are rotated to foreign countries for a tour of duty.

Oh, and US bases overseas are usually built and owned by the host country where possible.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Trueman

It's good to know that Peru schedules all their earthquakes and disasters. So when is the next one then?

Yeah, Peru has a secret ancient technology to schedule disasters. They call it "El Haarpo Inca".

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Zaphod58

You're comparing apples and oranges. These foreigners train at US facilities, not their own sprawling military bases like the US has overseas.

Done been bogged down here by deflection. The thread title reads, " US Troops and warships IN Peru--", speaks for itself.

Most US forces overseas share host nations bases. Very few straight up US bases. And the fact is those nations invite us there. Do we need Peru? No. We have Chile right there and they are a close US ally with a modern military that sends warship to Hawaii every year. However when a US ship pulls into port it mean big money. That is why US Ships are welcome in just about every port on the planet. Peru is going to what is best for Peru.

a reply to: intrptr

Nice changing of the goalpost when you are proven wrong.

Nice changing of the goalpost when you are proven wrong.

I haven't changed my point of view. Nice try, though.

originally posted by: intrptr

Nice changing of the goalpost when you are proven wrong.

I haven't changed my point of view. Nice try, though.

Oh, seems like it to me.

First we have ...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you "approve" of foreign troops occupying the United States?

What else would you call it?

Then we have the response ...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

They have for decades. There are permanent Luftwaffe bases in several states. In fact the Germans are about to permanently base a unit of fighters at one of them. The Dutch have a permanent presence for pilot training. The Indonesian military just set up a permanent base in the US.

This is all besides the foreign troops that rotate through for training.

And no, I don't have a problem with it.

Then the goalpost change after Zaphod shows the US DOES have foreign troops and he is fine with it.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Zaphod58

You're comparing apples and oranges. These foreigners train at US facilities, not their own sprawling military bases like the US has overseas.

Done been bogged down here by deflection. The thread title reads, " US Troops and warships IN Peru--", speaks for itself.

The only logical fallacies come from you my friend. We have troops in other countries, other countries have troops here. Let the American occupation begin!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

We have troops in other countries, other countries have troops here. Let the American occupation begin!

Thats not the same as occupation or occupying armies.

Zaphod deflected my question about approving occupying armies, anyones occupying armies. And you played it just like he.

I disapprove of occupying armies, period. I don't change that point of view. Again, nice try.

Definition of occupation

a reply to: intrptr

They're not occupying armies if they're invited there and there's a treaty between nations. The foreign troops stationed in the US aren't occupying us and our troops aren't occupying their countries.

How did I deflect? You asked about troops in the Us from foreign countries. I answered your question. There are foreign troops stationed in the US on a permanent basis, and some countries are expanding their presence here.

So the US controls the UK, Japan, Germany, and all those other nations?

a reply to: Zaphod58

They're not occupying armies if they're invited there and there's a treaty between nations.

By nations you mean "governments" not the people, right?

Most of those "treaties" involve puppet governments, loyal to the US dollar and their own corrupt power base.

Again you reframed the question.

Empires always say they have "permission".

a reply to: intrptr

Wow, so Germany, the UK, Japan, Italy et al are US puppets now.

Per your own definition an occupation is when an army or military controls the territory that it is in. Show some proof that our troops in foreign countries are in control there.

There's no way that anyone can answer, because you will just claim something else. I answered your question about foreign troops in the US and you ignored it and just came up with new ones.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I answered your question about foreign troops in the US and you ignored it and just came up with new ones.

Thats not what I meant and you know it.

Again, deflection.

This is what you asked.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you "approve" of foreign troops occupying the United States?

What else would you call it?

This is my response.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

They have for decades. There are permanent Luftwaffe bases in several states. In fact the Germans are about to permanentlybase a unit of fighters at one of them. The Dutch have a permanent presence for pilot training. The Indonesian military just set up a permanent base in the US.

This is all besides the foreign troops that rotate through for training.

And no, I don't have a problem with it.

How is that deflecting and not answering you? I answered exactly what you asked. There are foreign troops stationed at US bases just as US troops are stationed at theirs. At least one of the Luftwaffe bases is considered German territory for the area that the base occupies.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Zaphod58

They're not occupying armies if they're invited there and there's a treaty between nations.

By nations you mean "governments" not the people, right?

Most of those "treaties" involve puppet governments, loyal to the US dollar and their own corrupt power base.

Again you reframed the question.

Empires always say they have "permission".

I do not remember voting to let the Germans occupy us. Our government did it, they must be occupying us.

Or you are just changing goalposts.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

We have troops in other countries, other countries have troops here. Let the American occupation begin!

Thats not the same as occupation or occupying armies.

Zaphod deflected my question about approving occupying armies, anyones occupying armies. And you played it just like he.

I disapprove of occupying armies, period. I don't change that point of view. Again, nice try.

Definition of occupation

Exactly which part of that definition are you using to justify your ridiculous claims?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

We have troops in other countries, other countries have troops here. Let the American occupation begin!

Thats not the same as occupation or occupying armies.

Zaphod deflected my question about approving occupying armies, anyones occupying armies. And you played it just like he.

I disapprove of occupying armies, period. I don't change that point of view. Again, nice try.

Definition of occupation

So then you support the US troops in Peru because they are not an occupying army and instead invited. Ok seems we are all on the same page. And you might also want to know that NORAD is half staffed by Canadians and the second in command of our defenses comes from a foreign military.

You guys are sooo misleading.

Can't address simple questions about occupying another country militarily (with or without permission) because that leads to questions abut the American double standard that cries foul about terror threats all day long but willfully violates national sovereignty of other nations all the time.