Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
d-usa wrote: Posts the text of the Supreme Court ruling that says "states can't leave without the consent of Congress" only to be followed by a page of "states can never leave, it's already decided".
Moments like these are the reason I treausure this place.
Too be fair, while that was the decision made by the Supreme Court (that Congress can consent to allow a state to leave), I'd actually question if that would be legal. Congress' powers don't really cover this (nothing in the Constitution does). Can Congress exercise a power that is not even touched in Constitution? Especially since White v Texas wasn't explicitly about Secession (it was about whether actions the actions taken by a secessionist government were binding), if this were ever to come up as a serious issue another Supreme Court case to specifically determine this would be prudent. Whether or not Congress can allow a state to leave the Union feels too much like a political question to me, and political questions are definitely outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary.
But the legality of Texas seceding was important in that case since SCOTUS wouldn't have jurisdiction otherwise. If Texas wasn't a state during that time, then they wouldn't be able to hear a case that involves a suit against one of the states. So before they could adress the actual matter of the suit they had to first determine if there was even standing: was Texas still a state in the union despite unilaterally seceding. The ruling on that was that since Texas tried to secede without Federal permission it remained a state of the Union.
It doesn't clearly rule that congress has the power to approve a state to secede, but it also doesn't close the door with a "you can never secede" ruling either. It narrowly ruled that unilateral secession isn't allowed, and left the broader question of "can you ever secede" open.
Edit: I'm confusing myself with what I am typing and I think we are saying some of the same thing, so I'm going to tl;dr my point:
While SCOTUS closed the door on unilateral secession, they didn't close the door on all forms of secession.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/03 20:05:37
It seems to me that if Hawaii did not voluntarily enter the union they are in no way legally or morally bound to remain a member. However I think it is a moot point. It is unlikely that it would even be possible to arrange a fair plebiscite on the matter now, and even if done the vote would most likely be to remain a member.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that if Hawaii did not voluntarily enter the union they are in no way legally or morally bound to remain a member. However I think it is a moot point. It is unlikely that it would even be possible to arrange a fair plebiscite on the matter now, and even if done the vote would most likely be to remain a member.
The State of Hawaii willingly entered the Union, at the behest of the voters. Hawaii's annexation as a territory isn't really all that different then most other US states west of the Louisiana Purchase. They were all originally incorporated at gun/cannon point as territories. Eventually the citizens of the territories decided they wanted to be states, voted for it, and Congress passed bills that enacted it. Hawaii is no different. The citizens of the territory wished to become a state, and did.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but the actual legal nature of secession would instigate a constitutional crisis. It's simply not addressed in any manner worth citing as applicable precedent.
What the court might decide, if and when this occurs, is if there is a legislative path to secession, or if a constitutional amendment would be required.
This isn't idle chatter: Hawaii seceding would have a huge impact on the million or so US citizens that reside that, that suddenly would either need to move, or stop being US citizens. Every single person in Hawaii would have standing to sue, as their rights and privileges change dramatically.
Prior to 1960 I'd definitely agree. But for the last 70 years Hawaii has had full statehood. We don't have concentration camps, segregation, or any bs Jim crow laws that prevent Native Hawaiians from participating in democratic political processes and I'm reluctant to to support a move for independence that amounts to "I have everything everyone else has but I think it would be better if I was independent cause reasons."
That's interesting. Would you say then that the Scottish should have been denied their independence referendum, and that the Catalonians should be denied one?
If I were the UK and Spanish governments, that is certainly the stance I'd take. Yes. But I am not, and US states are not historical provinces in Europe.
In America we don't do secessionist referendums. We're not a bunch of Russians.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/11/03 23:31:58
Iron_Captain wrote: Sure, Balts, like everyone else, suffered repression under the early days of the Soviet Union, but they were always full citizens with equal rights from the beginning. The US rule has practically destroyed Hawaian language and culture, and only 10% of the population is still actually Hawaian. You can argue all you want, but Russian occupation of the Baltics has been far less destructive for them than US occupation of Hawaii has been for the Hawaian people.
You should smoke less hashish in the Netherlands.
Local government in the baltic states? In the Soviet Union, the Kremlin ruled supreme. Estonians could not even sing their traditional songs in the squares of the capital. They did not rule themself with "ethnic local governments".
Nor would it have been possible in the soviet system, which may have had the rethorics of a federal state, but certainly functioned as an unitary state.
If the Hawaiians now are 10% of the population, it is not because 90% has been killed, but because they were overwhelmed by immigration. The dutch are only 79% of the population in Netherlands in 2015, but are still much more numerous than when they were 97% in 1900 and only counted 4 millions, as compared to the 13,4 millions they are now.
In comparison the baltic countries, actually had their demographics changed by such massive rates as 25% and 30% of the populations deported to siberian Gulags, in the cases of Estonia and Latvia.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/06 00:56:52
Iron_Captain wrote: Sure, Balts, like everyone else, suffered repression under the early days of the Soviet Union, but they were always full citizens with equal rights from the beginning. The US rule has practically destroyed Hawaian language and culture, and only 10% of the population is still actually Hawaian. You can argue all you want, but Russian occupation of the Baltics has been far less destructive for them than US occupation of Hawaii has been for the Hawaian people.
You should smoke less hashish in the Netherlands.
Local government in the baltic states? In the Soviet Union, the Kremlin ruled supreme. Estonians could not even sing their traditional songs in the squares of the capital. They did not rule themself with "ethnic local governments".
Nor would it have been possible in the soviet system, which may have had the rethorics of a federal state, but certainly functioned as an unitary state.
If the Hawaiians now are 10% of the population, it is not because 90% has been killed, but because they were overwhelmed by immigration. The dutch are only 79% of the population in Netherlands in 2015, but are still much more numerous than when they were 97% in 1900 and only counted 4 millions, as compared to the 13,4 millions they are now.
In comparison the baltic countries, actually had their demographics changed by such massive rates as 25% and 30% of the populations deported to siberian Gulags, in the cases of Estonia and Latvia.
Article 2 of the Soviet Constitution:
the sovereign rights of Union Republics shall be safeguarded by the USSR According to article 72 the same constitution, each republic also had the right to leave the Union (something Hawai or states in most other federations have not). However, until the popular pressure in 1991, no republic ever considered this, mostly because these republics were under the leadership of local communists, who knew that their career would be over if they were to become independent. The Estonian Communist Party, which ruled the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was made up for about half of ethnic Estonians. In Latvia the situation was about the same, in Lithuania, the Party was mostly Lithuanian. The general secretary and thus leader, was always an ethnic Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian. Now of course anything could be overturned by the Soviet government in Moscow, but overall, the local parties had a fair degree of autonomy. Baltic languages were not at all outlawed, and were freely taught in Baltic schools, nor were Estonian songs outlawed, quite the contrary, as the continuation and growth of the Estonian Song Festival shows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Song_Festival (the exception may have been overtly nationalist, anti-soviet or anti-communist songs, ofc).
Now I don't want to justify the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, it still was an invasion and annexation, but the Balts under Soviet rule had a hell of a lot more freedom than the Hawaians did under American rule for a long time. Even now, I wonder how many schools in Hawaii teach in the Hawaian language? American annexation of Hawaii has practically destroyed traditional Hawaian culture and language, and turned Hawaians into a minority in their own country. Soviet annexation of the Baltics, while brutal under Stalin, was still nowhere near that destructive to the Baltic peoples, languages and cultures.
Also, I would like to see some source for the number of 25% to 30% of the population being deported, as this is not supported by the census, nor by any other information I read. Just taking Estonia here as an example, between the 1939 and 1941 census, there is a drop of 9.7%, and then in 195, there is an increase of 17.6%. Immigration from other parts of the USSR accounts for 13.2% population increase, which still gives an increase of 4% in the ethnic Estonian population between 1941 and 1959, which would be hardly possible if 30% just had been deported, no? In the Baltics, like in all other parts of the Soviet Union, a huge lot of people got deported and were murdered during Stalin's purges, but no way that is up to 30% of the entire population. Belarus had 25% of its population killed in WW2, and it still has not recovered from that today. There is no way the Baltics could just lose 30% without any notable effects today.
No, the Soviets were utterly oppressive and an extension of Russian Imperialist psychology. Stalin was a monster and he purposefully murdered millions of his own citizens via starvation. The Soviets suppressed MANY of the local Slavic cultures, as well as the culture of Catholocism. THey tried DAMN hard to crush the national identities of most of their occupied states, thankfully they were mostly unsuccessful.
Don't let your Russian pride blind you to the evils of the past.
That would be like me trying to downplay the institution of American Slavery.
I have to say though, Iron_Captain is citing statistics and is being met with "nuh-uh" and "Russian propaganda!". As I'm sure Iron_Captain will vouch, I have no love for Russia, but come on.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Have you all lost your minds? Iron_captain is quoting the constituion of a mass mobilizing totalitarian state.
If that is his best claim that balts were tretatet nice, in a state was occupying it and deporting their ethnicity to Siberia, then he needs to educate himself a bit. A visit to the occupation museum in Riga might be a good start.
I dont really blame him. If he truly is russian, in stead of dutch, they simply do not know any better. Reading russian history books is like a litterary monthy python sketch. Most russians could hardly spell half of the massacres that their grandparents and parental generations did. Same goes for most peoples hailing from dictatorships, like China and Iran. They are hilariously concerned with democratic countries, and confuse their self-examination of wrongs that were done, with the existence of this, as opposed to the shamefull silence in their own countries, which they take to mean nothing happened.
Since he is confused about even the right to sing national songs during the oppressive brutal Soviet years, I will add in a few links for him to educate himself regarding that particular repression done by the russian chauvinistic soviet state as well towards the balts: http://freemuse.org/archives/1050http://www.estemb.org/press/us_media/aid-1038 And I quote: “In the late 1980’s music was once again used as a unifying force when hundreds of thousands gathered to sing forbidden Estonian songs, demanding their right for self-determination from a brutal Soviet occupier. To truly understand Estonia, one must understand Estonian music,” writes the film’s producer-couple, James and Maureen Tusty, on Singingrevolution.com. He might also watch the decent documentary: "The Singing revolution"
@almigghty Walrus; you might just as well quote the Swedish Constitution, where it says that the Monarch appoints the government, for all the good it does you proving a claim. Iron Captain is preaching nonsense
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/06 15:04:57
Hey just because you're a mass mobilizing totalitarian state doesn't mean you don't know how to party.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
triplegrim wrote: Have you all lost your minds? Iron_captain is quoting the constituion of a mass mobilizing totalitarian state.
If that is his best claim that balts were tretatet nice, in a state was occupying it and deporting their ethnicity to Siberia, then he needs to educate himself a bit. A visit to the occupation museum in Riga might be a good start.
I dont really blame him. If he truly is russian, in stead of dutch, they simply do not know any better. Reading russian history books is like a litterary monthy python sketch. Most russians could hardly spell half of the massacres that their grandparents and parental generations did. Same goes for most peoples hailing from dictatorships, like China and Iran. They are hilariously concerned with democratic countries, and confuse their self-examination of wrongs that were done, with the existence of this, as opposed to the shamefull silence in their own countries, which they take to mean nothing happened.
Since he is confused about even the right to sing national songs during the oppressive brutal Soviet years, I will add in a few links for him to educate himself regarding that particular repression done by the russian chauvinistic soviet state as well towards the balts: http://freemuse.org/archives/1050http://www.estemb.org/press/us_media/aid-1038 And I quote: “In the late 1980’s music was once again used as a unifying force when hundreds of thousands gathered to sing forbidden Estonian songs, demanding their right for self-determination from a brutal Soviet occupier. To truly understand Estonia, one must understand Estonian music,” writes the film’s producer-couple, James and Maureen Tusty, on Singingrevolution.com. He might also watch the decent documentary: "The Singing revolution"
@almigghty Walrus; you might just as well quote the Swedish Constitution, where it says that the Monarch appoints the government, for all the good it does you proving a claim. Iron Captain is preaching nonsense
Well, this is getting off topic now, but did you see me claim that Balts were treated nice? Nyet! I didn't. Stalin was a brutal tyrant who killed millions in all regions of the Soviet Union. The Balts got the same brutal treatment as all other nationalities under Stalin, in order to bring them in line with the Communist Party ideology. My arguments were that the amount of people deported from the Baltics is nowhere close to 30% of the entire population, and that the American annexation of Hawaii has been more devastating to the Hawaian people than the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was for the Baltic peoples. You failed to respond to those arguments, bring any evidence in support of your own arguments (neither of the links you posted supports your claims) and instead went like: "Lol Russian propaganda!", and "the Soviet Union was evil!", and worse of all "Russians (and Chinese and Iranians) are incapable of critical thinking", which is pretty discriminating. Now who is preaching nonsense here?
Just for the record, most Russians are very well aware of their own history, including the bad parts. Opinion in Russia is very much divided regarding the historical legacy. Not all Russians are blind nationalists or Soviet apologists, and many are quite critical of both historical and current governments. And regarding Estonian songs: Songs that were too nationalist, anti-Soviet or anti-communist were most likely banned, just as many Russian songs were banned. But do you hear anyone claiming the Russian language was supressed because some Russian songs were forbidden? A language is not supressed just because some politically sensitive songs were banned. Estonian songs and music in general were just as legal as Russian songs and music.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/06 16:53:33
triplegrim wrote: He asks for sources, since he is not really enlightened on the topic he wants to debate.
Ehm, that's not how a debate works. Backing your own sources up is kind of the central tenet to debating something, he'd be asking for sources because all you had in your previous post was a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. For what it's worth, you still haven't refuted his point that 30% of the population would be rather crippling.
The worst part is, I'm on your side, but you're being so sloppy that it's doing more harm than good.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Iron_Captain wrote: Sure, Balts, like everyone else, suffered repression under the early days of the Soviet Union, but they were always full citizens with equal rights from the beginning. The US rule has practically destroyed Hawaian language and culture, and only 10% of the population is still actually Hawaian. You can argue all you want, but Russian occupation of the Baltics has been far less destructive for them than US occupation of Hawaii has been for the Hawaian people.
You should smoke less hashish in the Netherlands.
Local government in the baltic states? In the Soviet Union, the Kremlin ruled supreme. Estonians could not even sing their traditional songs in the squares of the capital. They did not rule themself with "ethnic local governments".
Nor would it have been possible in the soviet system, which may have had the rethorics of a federal state, but certainly functioned as an unitary state.
If the Hawaiians now are 10% of the population, it is not because 90% has been killed, but because they were overwhelmed by immigration. The dutch are only 79% of the population in Netherlands in 2015, but are still much more numerous than when they were 97% in 1900 and only counted 4 millions, as compared to the 13,4 millions they are now.
In comparison the baltic countries, actually had their demographics changed by such massive rates as 25% and 30% of the populations deported to siberian Gulags, in the cases of Estonia and Latvia. [/spoiler]
Erm, no, the Kingdom of Hawaii once numbered almost a million souls. Compare that to the 140,000 that are around today. This wasn't really the fault of the US (disease did the Kingdom of Hawaii in, just like so many other Native nations; the US just happened to be in a position to take advantage of Hawaii's weakness), but the Native Hawaiians have become a minority through a combination of plague and immigration (immigration still is a factor, as you said, but Hawaiians would likely number in the tens of millions today, had they not been devastated during the 19th Century).
On the Kremlin: Obviously they ruled with a tight fist via KGB and similar institutions, but the extent to which the USSR controlled each individual Republic will never be known. It may have been that these were all puppet states with nothing but virtual sovereignty, or they could have been fully in control of themselves with all of the rights Iron Captain thinks they had. We really will never know, unless a former head of the KGB decides to pop in and tell us what's what.
triplegrim wrote:Have you all lost your minds? Iron_captain is quoting the constituion of a mass mobilizing totalitarian state.
Spoiler:
If that is his best claim that balts were tretatet nice, in a state was occupying it and deporting their ethnicity to Siberia, then he needs to educate himself a bit. A visit to the occupation museum in Riga might be a good start.
I dont really blame him. If he truly is russian, in stead of dutch, they simply do not know any better. Reading russian history books is like a litterary monthy python sketch. Most russians could hardly spell half of the massacres that their grandparents and parental generations did. Same goes for most peoples hailing from dictatorships, like China and Iran. They are hilariously concerned with democratic countries, and confuse their self-examination of wrongs that were done, with the existence of this, as opposed to the shamefull silence in their own countries, which they take to mean nothing happened.
Since he is confused about even the right to sing national songs during the oppressive brutal Soviet years, I will add in a few links for him to educate himself regarding that particular repression done by the russian chauvinistic soviet state as well towards the balts: http://freemuse.org/archives/1050http://www.estemb.org/press/us_media/aid-1038 And I quote: “In the late 1980’s music was once again used as a unifying force when hundreds of thousands gathered to sing forbidden Estonian songs, demanding their right for self-determination from a brutal Soviet occupier. To truly understand Estonia, one must understand Estonian music,” writes the film’s producer-couple, James and Maureen Tusty, on Singingrevolution.com. He might also watch the decent documentary: "The Singing revolution"
@almigghty Walrus; you might just as well quote the Swedish Constitution, where it says that the Monarch appoints the government, for all the good it does you proving a claim. Iron Captain is preaching nonsense
Dude, just... No. Sloppy and dismissive af. First of all, how do you know that the filtered knowledge you've been given in whatever Socialist State that you're from is accurate? Second of all, obviously former Soviet Nationalists (the devoted kind) are going to be misinformed, but somebody who is acknowledging what you say (saying that you're partially right, even) and fully accepting atrocities committed by the Soviet Union isn't going to be one of the ignoramuses. Remember, most of those former Soviet Republics now have access to the same internet that you do, and therefore have the capability to educate themselves, not to mention the fact that the governments now allow so much more freedom and better education than the filtered crap that a lot of people were getting when the Stalinist way of doing things was still in full swing.
Spoiler:
Well, this is getting off topic now, but did you see me claim that Balts were treated nice? Nyet! I didn't.
Stalin was a brutal tyrant who killed millions in all regions of the Soviet Union. The Balts got the same brutal treatment as all other nationalities under Stalin, in order to bring them in line with the Communist Party ideology.
My arguments were that the amount of people deported from the Baltics is nowhere close to 30% of the entire population, and that the American annexation of Hawaii has been more devastating to the Hawaian people than the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was for the Baltic peoples.
You failed to respond to those arguments, bring any evidence in support of your own arguments (neither of the links you posted supports your claims) and instead went like:
"Lol Russian propaganda!", and "the Soviet Union was evil!", and worse of all "Russians (and Chinese and Iranians) are incapable of critical thinking", which is pretty discriminating.
Now who is preaching nonsense here?
Just for the record, most Russians are very well aware of their own history, including the bad parts. Opinion in Russia is very much divided regarding the historical legacy. Not all Russians are blind nationalists or Soviet apologists, and many are quite critical of both historical and current governments.
And regarding Estonian songs: Songs that were too nationalist, anti-Soviet or anti-communist were most likely banned, just as many Russian songs were banned. But do you hear anyone claiming the Russian language was supressed because some Russian songs were forbidden? A language is not supressed just because some politically sensitive songs were banned. Estonian songs and music in general were just as legal as Russian songs and music.
Remember, we all have the burden of proof with claims. Simply living where you do doesn't auto-magically make everything you say correct. Anyways, on your claim:
I'd argue that the opposite is true. The Hawaiians have had their culture suppressed, yes(though they did this to themselves; being facilitated in doing so by Missionaries over many decades). However, the Hawaiian language is today forever preserved in its written form (as Western Missionaries assisted the Hawaiians in designing an alphabet). Today, Hawaiians have a solid economy, high standards of living, and the backing of the [arguably] most powerful military in the world. While Hawaii was brutally oppressed during the 1800s, the US occupied it and, in the following decades, slowly brought it on par with the rest of the US; standards of living, economy, the whole nine yards. Of course, it was culturally and economically raped beforehand, but that's more due to the corruption of the Hawaiian Monarchy and the businessmen involved in its exploitation than any fault of the US government (though they likely had a hand in it, but there's no evidence of it, so...). So, post-1800s, Hawaii has benefited massively from being a territory (and eventual State) of the USA. I really don't see much benefit in how the Baltic States were annexed, though, so I'd say Hawaii "wins" this comparison. Of course, they could have benefited massively, but afaik, they mostly got butchered and oppressed (though I could be wrong; I've never actually studied this portion of Russian history outside of cursory glances here and there).
To quote a fictional character... "Let's make this fun!"
Tactical_Spam wrote: There was a story in the SM omnibus where a single kroot killed 2-3 marines then ate their gene seed and became a Kroot-startes.
They can have Alaska back when they pry it from my cold dead...wait how cold is it? Jeez forget it. Thats cold. Thats Valhallan ice warriors kind of cold. Yowsa.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I'd argue that the opposite is true. The Hawaiians have had their culture suppressed, yes(though they did this to themselves; being facilitated in doing so by Missionaries over many decades). However, the Hawaiian language is today forever preserved in its written form (as Western Missionaries assisted the Hawaiians in designing an alphabet). Today, Hawaiians have a solid economy, high standards of living, and the backing of the [arguably] most powerful military in the world. While Hawaii was brutally oppressed during the 1800s, the US occupied it and, in the following decades, slowly brought it on par with the rest of the US; standards of living, economy, the whole nine yards. Of course, it was culturally and economically raped beforehand, but that's more due to the corruption of the Hawaiian Monarchy and the businessmen involved in its exploitation than any fault of the US government (though they likely had a hand in it, but there's no evidence of it, so...). So, post-1800s, Hawaii has benefited massively from being a territory (and eventual State) of the USA. I really don't see much benefit in how the Baltic States were annexed, though, so I'd say Hawaii "wins" this comparison. Of course, they could have benefited massively, but afaik, they mostly got butchered and oppressed (though I could be wrong; I've never actually studied this portion of Russian history outside of cursory glances here and there).
The Baltic states did get benefits from Soviet occupation. Like all provinces of the Russian Empire, the Baltic States were agricultural backwaters a 100 years behind the rest of Europe, and the Soviets launched a massive modernisation and industrialisation. But in the end, they gained nothing they would not have probably gained eventually if they had stayed independent. There were also many drawbacks, to Soviet occupation, most importantly being cut of from the rest of the world and being forced to take over the Soviet methods of economy. So while in the short term, the Soviets brought great improvement, in the long term, they did a lot of damage when the Soviet economical system started to go wrong. The best comparison is Finland, which was also a Russian province, but made a deal with Lenin to become independent. Finland was eventually able to catch up to Western Europe, and while there are no guarantees that Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania could have done the same (the circumstances are quite different), they might have been able to do so.
On the other hand, the Hawaians have eventually had a massive economical benefit from the US annexation, but the question there is if that weighs up against the loss of their culture and control over their own land.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: They can have Alaska back when they pry it from my cold dead...wait how cold is it? Jeez forget it. Thats cold. Thats Valhallan ice warriors kind of cold. Yowsa.
No, we want it back. We can turn it into a winter resort for Siberians. Come visit pleasant Alyaska, with tropical temperatures up to -20 and only half the amount of wolves and bears!
On second thought...
Keep it. Russia has enough frozen wastelands already.
I prefer Crimea. Mediteranean climates are best climats. It is known.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/09 15:45:53
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Freakazoitt wrote: What about Alaska? Perhaps you will sell back for 7 million dollars? It's too cold anyway.
The irony here is that is kinda why Russia sold it in the first place. They just thought it was more frozen hellscape like Siberia.
Now I wonder if we went back in time to the agreement if we could convince the Russians to sell us Siberia too for a little extra?
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt every statd have a secessionist movement?
Not... Really? I mean, I suppose if you look, there's probably some random crazies just about anywhere who think that they should succeed and be their own country. But a bunch of random crazies does not in my mind constitute a secessionist movement anymore than a bunch of sovereign citizen gun nuts who like to play army in the woods constitute a militia.
n citizen gun nuts who like to play army in the woods constitute a militia.
but what if they wear three pointed hats, carry Kentucky Rifles, and call themselves the Minutemen?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
LordofHats wrote: I suppose it would be like someone whose been running political campaigns for 30 years calling themselves a 'political outsider'
Hey don't diss Sanders. He'll throw his cholesterol medicine at you.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The Undying Spawn of Shub-Niggurath 
Perhaps you will sell back for 7 million dollars? It's too cold anyway.
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
Inquisition
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
