3 ms·

You're kidding right? I mean let's ignore the plunder of a fully inhabited continent since it was done long before the US existed. And of course let's ignore H

You're kidding right? I mean let's ignore the plunder of a fully inhabited continent since it was done long before the US existed. And of course let's ignore Hawaii. Who owns the Panama canal? It's not even on US soil. Who owns a huge chunk of Cuba? Guam, Puerto Rico, Philippines? And let's not forget my favorite piece of American history/plunder, the black hills of Dakota. Study your history.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Who owns the Panama canal? The Government of Panama. > It’s not even on US soil. Well, no, its on Panamanian soil. > Study your history. Take your own advice. Particular dates of interest you might want to focus on are 7 September 1977 and 31 December 1999, when it comes to the Panama Canal.
- INTPenis 3y ago
  Yes, they did hand it back in 1977. How big of them.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    The US funded the construction of the Panama Canal, along with providing the heavy equipment to do it.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      As well as funding the revolt that created Panama out of part of Colombia in the first place, for the purpose of building the canal. The history is definitely one of imperialism, but the claim that it was currently American was 25 years out of date.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        Remember the US was formed out of a revolt, too. Revolutions are not always bad.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    They actually handed it back December 31, 1999. The treaty providing for that to happen was signed in 1977. Should, again, have followed your own “study your history” recommendation.
WalterBright 3y ago
Do you really think the US became a superpower because of the black hills of Dakota? > the plunder of a fully inhabited continent since it was done long before the US existed Did the US plunder a continent full of factories and businesses and highways and steel mills and airplanes and farms and computers and ships and ... ? Living on land that has natural resources does not automatically make one rich. Millennia of history and pre-history makes that clear.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> Who owns a huge chunk of Cuba? Certainly not the US. Unless you think 45 square miles is a “huge chunk”. > fully inhabited continent Not trying to downplay the atrocities but the population density in North America was very low when colonization started in the 1600s. Much of the land was basically abandoned when European settlers first arrived. > Hawaii Yes but I’m not sure annexing a few small islands in the Pacific had a huge impact on economic growth. Same applies to Guam and Puerto Rico. US certainly committed numerous inexcusable atrocities in the Philippines but I’m not sure it benefited that much from it relatively to the considerable costs of the whole occupation. > Panama canal? It's not even on US soil. Are you even sure it would have been built without the involvement if the US?

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Who owns the Panama canal? The Government of Panama. > It’s not even on US soil. Well, no, its on Panamanian soil. > Study your history. Take your own advice. Particular dates of interest you might want to focus on are 7 September 1977 and 31 December 1999, when it comes to the Panama Canal.

INTPenis 3y ago
Yes, they did hand it back in 1977. How big of them.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  The US funded the construction of the Panama Canal, along with providing the heavy equipment to do it.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    As well as funding the revolt that created Panama out of part of Colombia in the first place, for the purpose of building the canal. The history is definitely one of imperialism, but the claim that it was currently American was 25 years out of date.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      Remember the US was formed out of a revolt, too. Revolutions are not always bad.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  They actually handed it back December 31, 1999. The treaty providing for that to happen was signed in 1977. Should, again, have followed your own “study your history” recommendation.

WalterBright 3y ago

Do you really think the US became a superpower because of the black hills of Dakota? > the plunder of a fully inhabited continent since it was done long before the US existed Did the US plunder a continent full of factories and businesses and highways and steel mills and airplanes and farms and computers and ships and ... ? Living on land that has natural resources does not automatically make one rich. Millennia of history and pre-history makes that clear.

ffgjgf1 3y ago

> Who owns a huge chunk of Cuba? Certainly not the US. Unless you think 45 square miles is a “huge chunk”. > fully inhabited continent Not trying to downplay the atrocities but the population density in North America was very low when colonization started in the 1600s. Much of the land was basically abandoned when European settlers first arrived. > Hawaii Yes but I’m not sure annexing a few small islands in the Pacific had a huge impact on economic growth. Same applies to Guam and Puerto Rico. US certainly committed numerous inexcusable atrocities in the Philippines but I’m not sure it benefited that much from it relatively to the considerable costs of the whole occupation. > Panama canal? It's not even on US soil. Are you even sure it would have been built without the involvement if the US?