Jump to content

Talk:Camp Bucca

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Units Deployed to Camp Bucca

[edit]

I have a question regarding the Air Force Security Forces units listed .... as I recall, the units deployed there are the Expeditionary Units like 586 Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron and 886 Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron. Those units are filled from personnel in existing security forces units like the 17th Security Forces Squadron or 21st Security Forces Squadron, but those units have not really deployed there.

NAVY PROVISIONAL DETAINEE BATTALION FOUR was deployed to Camp Bucca from December 2007 to September 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:290:8814:38F7:D8A2:6485:9787:8474 (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


-You are correct. It works like this, say I were to deploy and I belong to the 17th Security Forces Squadron or SFS. When I report to my deployed location I will then become part of the Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron or ESFS. The expeditionary squadron is only at the deployed location. –Sashall08 (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Has there been any official response or findings to P.O. Alomars death in Jan 2007? All I have seen are comments on local Brooklyn sites stating that the cause was common knowledge among the members of his unit in Iraq. Has there been any type of closure to the family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.117.255.200 (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OPSEC/COMSEC--Is this the correct public forum for this discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.93.220.169 (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New information

[edit]

I just moved a paragraph on the Camp to here from the Umm Qasr article, where it was misplaced. I make no claims about its quality or veracity. I only made very minor edits to help the flow. Menaus (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSED

[edit]

Bucca has been closed for months now. Don't you think it would be a good idea to maybe mention this somewhere and rewrite the article so that it doesn't sound like it's still operational??? When I say "closed", I mean BULLDOZED. It is not operational at this time and this is public knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.198.122 (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former TV-Mast on the site

[edit]

As it was 492 metres tall, it was very remarkable. What was its exact use? When was it built and when and how demolished? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.5.30 (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Camp Bucca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
There are seventeen entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
  • WP:ELCITE: ...access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Camp_Bucca&oldid=1246558356"