Re: Three Space What-ifs, a common theme


"Dr J R Stockton" <jrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:y75C50asUjNHFw6D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In sci.space.history message <tHnZi.85$2n1.145480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sat,
10 Nov 2007 14:32:43, Scott Hedrick <dinehnmNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> posted:

"Fevric J Glandules" <fevric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:oerUi.8371$T8.7684@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Whereas the US limits itself to Central and South America, and anywhere
that's got oil.

Where in those areas does the US consider to be US territory, other than
perhaps Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands?

Why that perhaps? They are not AIUI autonomous. And Guantanamo is /de
facto/, but not /de jure/, American.

I happen to agree- that's why, as far as keeping prisoners down there, it is
US territory, and for the government to claim otherwise in order to torture
is crap. It's American territory because we're renting it.


As has been claimed and been shown in error repeatedly, the United States
is
not now and never has been in the empire-building business, at least not
outside North America. If that were true, then the United States would not
have given up territory unnecessarily, such as the Phillipines, Cuba,
Haiti
and the Panama Canal Zone.

The United States has chosen a policy of trying to control and exploit,
without accepting the responsibility of ruling, elsewhere.

1) You say that like it's a *bad* thing
2) that certainly doesn't make the US any worse than any other country
3) That still doesn't explain why the US would willing give up territory it
didn't have to- see the list above. I'll bet Castro doesn't ensure the Cuban
school curriculum reflects the *fact* that Cuba was US territory and was
freely given independence, since it would be hard to reconcile that with the
official line that the US is "imperialist".


.

Relevant Pages