8 ms·

None of that belongs to the US… we shouldn’t have touched it in the first place.

by gurleen_s 5y ago

Craighead 5y ago
Instead it belongs to a warlord.
spfzero 5y ago
Well it didn't belong to Spain either, which I imagine would still have it if the US had not "touched" it.
refurb 5y ago
Nothing belongs to anyone. It’s about what you can occupy and defend. Ask Ukraine about Crimea.
- whack 5y ago
  So in your book, if USA were to invade and occupy Mexico, that would be morally justifiable. Got it
  - thedudeabides5 5y ago
    Well it’s not ok, unless you say the magic words. Repeat after me. “Taiwan has always been an integral part of China” “The Crimea has always been an integral part of Russia” What you call Mexico, well that has always been an integral part of Texas. Also, while we’re talking about feelings, we prefer the term “South Texas.” Its a way of honoring our people’s long historical and cultural tie to the land. Calling South Texas anything else will be seen by the appropriate authorities as a grave insult and an offense deserving of economic consequences.
  - refurb 5y ago
    No, my point is the morality of it doesn’t matter in the end. Is it immoral that Russia invaded and took Crimea from Ukraine? Maybe, I don’t know enough about it. Does it matter whether or not it’s moral? Nope. If Ukraine can’t take it back it’s not theirs any more. You can have the most impeccable moral case for why that land is yours but if you can’t take it and defend it, it’s just a sad story. It’s kind of like crossing the street when the sign says “walk” and getting run over and killed. Were you right and the driver wrong? Definitely. But you’re dead so right or wrong doesn’t really help you.
    - whack 5y ago
      > No, my point is the morality of it doesn’t matter in the end I don't understand this mindset. If enough people take actions to punish immoral behavior, then it will have a real and meaningful impact. For example, apartheid in South Africa was eventually seen as immoral by a critical mass of people who then took action via sanctions and boycotts. Which eventually resulted in the fall of the apartheid regime. Is it your belief that we should never take action against moral injustices? Or that we should indulge in anything that benefits us, regardless of morality? If that's not what you're saying, please explain your response in this context >>> We should have kept so much stuff in the Pacific >> None of that belongs to the US > Nothing belongs to anyone. It’s about what you can occupy and defend.

None of that belongs to the US… we shouldn’t have touched it in the first place.

Craighead 5y ago

Instead it belongs to a warlord.

spfzero 5y ago

Well it didn't belong to Spain either, which I imagine would still have it if the US had not "touched" it.

refurb 5y ago

Nothing belongs to anyone. It’s about what you can occupy and defend. Ask Ukraine about Crimea.

whack 5y ago
So in your book, if USA were to invade and occupy Mexico, that would be morally justifiable. Got it
- thedudeabides5 5y ago
  Well it’s not ok, unless you say the magic words. Repeat after me. “Taiwan has always been an integral part of China” “The Crimea has always been an integral part of Russia” What you call Mexico, well that has always been an integral part of Texas. Also, while we’re talking about feelings, we prefer the term “South Texas.” Its a way of honoring our people’s long historical and cultural tie to the land. Calling South Texas anything else will be seen by the appropriate authorities as a grave insult and an offense deserving of economic consequences.
- refurb 5y ago
  No, my point is the morality of it doesn’t matter in the end. Is it immoral that Russia invaded and took Crimea from Ukraine? Maybe, I don’t know enough about it. Does it matter whether or not it’s moral? Nope. If Ukraine can’t take it back it’s not theirs any more. You can have the most impeccable moral case for why that land is yours but if you can’t take it and defend it, it’s just a sad story. It’s kind of like crossing the street when the sign says “walk” and getting run over and killed. Were you right and the driver wrong? Definitely. But you’re dead so right or wrong doesn’t really help you.
  - whack 5y ago
    > No, my point is the morality of it doesn’t matter in the end I don't understand this mindset. If enough people take actions to punish immoral behavior, then it will have a real and meaningful impact. For example, apartheid in South Africa was eventually seen as immoral by a critical mass of people who then took action via sanctions and boycotts. Which eventually resulted in the fall of the apartheid regime. Is it your belief that we should never take action against moral injustices? Or that we should indulge in anything that benefits us, regardless of morality? If that's not what you're saying, please explain your response in this context >>> We should have kept so much stuff in the Pacific >> None of that belongs to the US > Nothing belongs to anyone. It’s about what you can occupy and defend.