Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "RIGHT" based upon what? Your arbitrary opinion?
He thinks he does have the RIGHT...he always has.
And he is the one that was part of a Republic with them.
So...there ya go.
I don't think anyone should have had the "RIGHT" to break up the Republic to begin with. HOWBOWDAH?!!
You seem to be of the point of view that MIGHT makes RIGHT, is that correct?
The "RIGHT" based upon what? Your arbitrary opinion?
He thinks he does have the RIGHT...he always has.
And he is the one that was part of a Republic with them.
So...there ya go.
I don't think anyone should have had the "RIGHT" to break up the Republic to begin with. HOWBOWDAH?!!
With this post you're almost sounding like Putin's spokesperson...
The U.S. is in Guantanamo Bay because of the Platt Amendment of 1901. It stated that Cuba must sell or lease lands to the United States necessary for coaling stations or the development of naval stations. All U.S. Navy ships were dependent on coal until 1916 and it had to be supplied from coaling stations around the world. Guantanamo Bay was also in a strategic position to protect the Panama Canal, which was started in 1904.
I doubt there is much strategic reason for the U.S. to continue to hold onto Guantanamo Bay. I doubt it is very important to the U.S. Navy.
The lease for Guantanamo Bay is $4085 a month, but only one check has ever been cashed.
There was an agreement that most of the former Soviet republics would become independent countries. Russia agreed to this. Putin had no legitimate basis to invade Ukraine.
Except there was no military invasion to take over Hawaii, it was done by American business interests.
Obviously not.
So the Russian invasion is legitimate because the U.S. and other countries came to the aid of a smaller, weaker country?
Hmmm, US Marines participated in the Hawaiian government overthrow
That is what I think would have been the "Right" thing.
You've argued that there's no such thing and all points of view are equally valid. Which reminds me, I'll be over for your car later. I like it and I think it should be mine.
Nobody's point of view is any more or less "legitimate" than any other.
I guess you could say no aggression whatsoever is "moral", "right", and "legitimate"...not even retaliatory.
So if I knock you in the head with a 4-iron and take your money, who is anyone to say that is wrong? And it would be wrong for anyone to retaliate against me with force?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
