Posted on 03/19/2014 7:54:28 AM PDT by Biggirl
Alaska was too far away for the Impearial central power to manage; so they sold it to the higher bidder ...
I’d settle for Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, NYC, Boston, and a random small town in Kansas.
And like one ones we used to get Florida, most of the west, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and some other places.
This isn’t some thing invented by Germans or Russians unfortunately. The strong prey on the weak is the rule of nations.
Wonder what took them so long.
There’s no comparison to Kuwait at all. Kuwait did not vote to return to Iraq.
Is that how they have marked the so-called “west bank” of the Jordan River, or as part of Israel?
My answer to that question is YES. That's why the border has to be secured and invaders sent home. Otherwise, they become the majority....a successful invasion force. That's why we call them invaders.
Say that to Kosovo and Iraq. They voted with USNATO occupying forces present.
That’s a false equivalence. US soldiers don’t take their insignia off and wear masks while prancing about like fairies at a gay day parade.
Crimea didn’t vote to do anything. It is a war zone right now and no western countries are recognizing the “vote”.
There are towns that are Muslim majority, can they secede?
I don’t think so.
They can certainly elect a town government that allows for Muslim law. But my guess would be no. We're the United STATES of America. This is one of the things us anti-invasion constitutional conservatives have been cyber-screaming all along. If the numbers and culture of the invaders overwhelm our numbers and culture, they can vote us out of power.
I know. That was my point. I was replying to Post #10, which tried to make the comparison.
Not wishes but reality.
Read about “stateless nations”. There are dozens. None are drawn on Nat. Geo maps. However, if a Kurdistan controlled territory or gained a de facto control over some place then they would at least show the “nation” with a dotted-line border.
Depending on how this shakes out they will likely draw it like that or place a small passage on the map spelling out the disputed nature of the area.
That’s a bit premature. An announcement from Moscow is different from established and stable facts on the ground. While NatGeog may be right, I would not bet such an organization’s reputation on something so uncertain.
In one of their atlases they did both, by coloring it to show the West Bank territories as part of Israel, but with crosshatching to show it was occupied territory.
Supposedly the new map of the Crimea will not depict it as occupied territory like they discriminated with the Israeli occupied West Bank. Stranger still is how Israel was originally laid out with the West Bank as an integral part of israel, and even earlier the entire Trasjordan was once promised to belong to a future Israel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.