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.
I recalled that Americans forced European nations to abandon their colonies and provinces after WWII. The famous decolonization. There went dozens of prosperous territories that went bust after abandonment.
They also opposed Japan in attempts to have spheres of influence in Asia as any European country or as Americans themselves, one of the main facts of the war
But nobody asked Americans to leave occupied territory such as Texas, Arizona, Nuevo Mexico, California, Florida, Guam and Hawaii.
Shouldn't they comply with the principles they imposed on others?
As promised, the Philippines went their own way.
Everybody else wants to stay. Smart choice, considering the array of alternatives.
Everybody else wants to stay. Smart choice, considering the array of alternatives.
Not talking about it, but about confiscation of properties, culture and a country.
If they want self-determination or not, the descendants of autoctonous population should be able to vote.
how about Guantanamo? that's a Cuban territory but the US is still holding it. is there such thing as indefinite lease?
that's unfair to the Cubans. if the US don't want to give up, they should pay for its use
No it's Spanish territory that the US won in the SA war. It has been held continuously since then.
Also it's unfair to the USA that Cuba has not paid back American investors that lost their investment during the revolution. Perhaps Cuba should compensate the US for helping to house their prisoners that came during the Mariel Boatlift.
-See how that works... It's all a matter of perspective.
Last edited by Vacanegro; 03-23-2016 at 10:41 AM..
No it's Spanish territory that the US won in the SA war. It has been held continuously since then.
Also it's unfair to the USA that Cuba has not paid back American investors that lost their investment during the revolution. Perhaps Cuba should compensate the US for helping to house their prisoners that came during the Mariel Boatlift.
-See how that works... It's all a matter of perspective.
what is your source? the treaty of paris which ended the S-A war only ceded the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam. I never read about Guantanamo Bay.
investments are never a sure thing. they can be lost in a war or revolution or even a change of laws. that's why insurance always excludes these unforeseen events.
if your griping about investment losses of Americans, why not gripe about the losses when Mao took over in China? or when Lenin took over Russia? im sure there are a lot of investments by Americans over there especially China since it has always been a big market since time immemorial. why not put embargo before even trading with them?
the truth is Cuba is a small country that pokes his finger on Uncle Sam's face and you don't like it. Even Vietnam was forgiven, why not Cuba?
how about Guantanamo? that's a Cuban territory but the US is still holding it. is there such thing as indefinite lease?
Not a colony - it's a military base, and there are no locals there. So Guantanamo Bay does not represent a situation where people are being denied self-determination. It's a legal issue, but really one that has nothing to do with colonization.
Yes, there are indefinite leases. Military cemeteries are one example.
Quote:
that's unfair to the Cubans. if the US don't want to give up, they should pay for its use
First, I tend to agree that it is an unfair situation. Second, we do pay for its use ($2000 in gold, paid annually - a ridiculous amount, certainly, but payment).
Quote:
the truth is Cuba is a small country that pokes his finger on Uncle Sam's face and you don't like it. Even Vietnam was forgiven, why not Cuba?
It really goes back to the Cold War. Guantanamo was strategically useful then. No? It's irrelevant. It's less than 500 miles from Florida, and only 500 miles from Puerto Rico. As an advance base its very limited utility hardly justifies its existence - it is maintained entirely as a means of leverage against Cuba. Obviously, domestic American politics plays a large role. Republicans contort themselves in a Twister-winning demonstration in order to win the Cuban-American vote. Democrats don't, but they're also generally unwilling to rock the boat much, either. That said, as this week has demonstrated things are definitely changing in that regard.
I have little doubt that once Cuba becomes a multiparty democracy, the issue will come to a head and a return of the territory will be agreed-upon and phased-in over a period of time, somewhat like happened with the Canal Zone in Panama - though probably on a significantly faster time-scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacanegro
No it's Spanish territory that the US won in the SA war. It has been held continuously since then.
After the Spanish-American War, Cuba became an American protectorate. There's nothing about the Guantanamo Bay base that involves providing security for Cuba or its people. Also, the protectorate ended in 1902, and the lease did not begin until 1903.
It really goes back to the Cold War. Guantanamo was strategically useful then. No?
you are correct. it was important only when ships still use coal and Guantanamo was used as a re-"coaling" station (if there such a term?)
that indefinite lease was contracted when the relationship was akin to master-servant. remember they were protectorate. even the Philippines was able to shorten the leases of Subic and Clark when they were "strong" enough to stand up to Uncle Sam
There were three American bases in Cuba; Carboneras, Isla de Pinos and Guantanamo.
Cuba was a protectorate until 1912.
In 1931, the island became an independent republic without the infamous Platt Amendment.
US pays rent.
The base would have returned a long time ago if it weren't by cold war, as the permanent lease dates from 1903.
No real change in the island, just a side show arranged by the Pope and Obama, two lame ducks in search of spotlights.
It's a matter of DNA - nothing to do with democracy..bla...nothing will change until both brothers kick the bucket.
The US did not annex Cuba permanently for two reasons:
1. Too large.
2. Too many blacks.
Last edited by Krokodill; 03-23-2016 at 12:59 PM..
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.
