Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. Newbie
    Student or Learner

    • Join Date: Mar 2007
    • Posts: 2
    #1

    Arrow use of words

    The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor is sometimes referred to as invading Pearl Harbor. Invading in my opinion would be associated with Invasion and would from what I think is the accepted definition be an armed force entering to conquer or plunder. As no armed force was used can one still call this an invasion in todays terms. Another example is the Invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Iraq by President Clinton. Was his bombing of Iraq an invasion?

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: May 2005
    • Posts: 2,045
    #2

    Re: use of words

    I would say that when military forces from one country cross the border of another country and kill its citizens or destroy its property, that is an invasion. Therefore, yes, Clinton also invaded Iraq.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England

    • Join Date: Feb 2005
    • Posts: 2,585
    #3

    Re: use of words

    Hello Fincop, welcome to Using English!

    Etymologically, "invade" implies "entry into (a place)"; in ordinary usage, it tends to imply "forcible entry, with intent to remain".

    So I would not myself count the attack on Pearl Harbor as an "invasion", as the intent of the Japanese air force was not to penetrate the mainland and remain, but to do damage and return home. The same would apply to the bombing of Iraq, between the Gulf War and the present war in Iraq.

    All the best,

    MrP

  2. Newbie
    Student or Learner

    • Join Date: Mar 2007
    • Posts: 2
    #4

    Re: use of words

    I have a discussion going with a person who does not agree with the definition you gave me on another message. The one on the word invasion. He claims that it is ok to say, Japan invaded Pearl Harbor by its planes flying into " US air space as an invasion.
    Also dropping bombs is an invasion. Almost any act is an invasion. Do you have a presentation or short description of a rebuttal to this, which I consider bizaar reasoning. Other comments made:
    1. The bombing of Pearl Harbor involved an incursion of planes invading US air space to drop the bombs.
    2. "REMAIN" as you gave me in your definition he stated: That's an occupation not an invasion.
    3. He stated regarding the use of invasion as defined: It's even memtioned that its a centuries old term. Well before planes were invented.
    4. An incursion into another country without their permission is an "invasion"
    Can you please help me to show this, really far out, person where his statements may be not accepted usuage even in todays modern times. My thoughts are, in the case of invasion and invade, that if we allow people to use it as he is, will throw a big monkey wrench into all of past and modern history. I kind of see this as a way to rewrite history. In this case I believe he is trying to say because Bill Clinton invaded Iraq by bombing, then it should be ok for Bush or anyone else to do the same without Congress approval. I don't think that is right. If this is beyond your expertise, I understand and just let me know. Thanks in advance and for your first message.
    Fincop

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England

    • Join Date: Feb 2005
    • Posts: 2,585
    #5

    Re: use of words

    Hello Fincop

    In answer to your interlocutor's comments:

    1. Certainly e.g. "to invade someone's air space" and "to invade someone's personal space" are current idioms.

    2. "Remaining" would indeed be "occupation"; but "intent to remain" is not the same as "remaining".

    3. He is quite right. The use of "invasion" precedes the invention of planes. I'm not sure how this relates to the argument, however.

    4. "Incursion", to my mind, simply implies hostile entry into another's territory; while "invasion" implies intent to occupy or conquer.

    However, as Mykwyner's reply indicates, there is plenty of scope for different interpretations of the word.

    So in your case, you might do better to concentrate on other aspects of your interlocutor's argument.

    For instance, as I see it, his reasoning is as follows:

    1. The attack on Pearl Harbor was an invasion.
    2. Clinton's bombing of Iraq was an invasion.
    3. Bush's bombing and subsequent occupation of Iraq was an invasion.

    Therefore, according to your friend, #3 is no different from #2, because both are "invasions", and so the same rules should apply.

    But your friend has already stated that "occupation" is different from "invasion", when he says "That's an occupation, not an invasion".

    So he has already conceded that #3 is different from #2.

    MrP

Similar Threads

  1. Active and Passive Vocabulary
    By Harry Smith in forum Text Analysis and Statistics
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 15-Jun-2007, 04:28
  2. Compound words with and without hyphen
    By zaed_salah in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-Sep-2006, 18:56
  3. Alphabetizing Words
    By ohiomanager in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25-Feb-2006, 12:26
  4. 1000 most important words
    By Joe in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-Sep-2004, 07:23
  5. Confusing Words or Confused Words
    By Piak in forum General Language Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-Jun-2003, 23:10

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •