• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What would happen?

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Does the US own part of Cuba?

If you were asked to leave, would you? If you were under threeat of being "over run", would you protect your position and assests?

What's the treaty say?

at one point we OWNED all of Cuba.. the base was part of the Independence agreement / treaty.

After the last Spanish troops left the island in December 1898, the government of Cuba was handed over to the United States on 1 January 1899.

In December 1899, the U.S. War Secretary assured the Cuban populace that the occupation was temporary, that municipal and general elections would be held, that a Constituent Assembly would be set up, and that sovereignty would be handed to Cubans.

The Constitution was drawn up from November 1900 to February 1901 and then passed by the Assembly. It established a republican form of government, proclaimed internationally-recognized individual rights and liberties, freedom of religion, separation between church and state, and described the composition, structure and functions of state powers.

On 2 March 1901, the U.S. Congress passed the Army Appropriations Act, stipulating the conditions for the withdrawal of United States troops remaining in Cuba following the Spanish-American War. As a rider, this act included the Platt Amendment, which defined the terms of Cuban-U.S. relations until 1934. It replaced the earlier Teller Amendment. The amendment provided for a number of rules heavily infringing on Cuba's sovereignty:

Cuba would not transfer Cuban land to any power other than the United States.
Cuba would contract no foreign debt without guarantees that the interest could be served from ordinary revenues.
The right to intervention in Cuban affairs and military occupation when the U.S. authorities considered that the life, properties and rights of U.S. citizens were in danger,
Cuba was prohibited from negotiating treaties with any country other than the United States "which will impair or to impair the independence of Cuba".
Cuba was prohibited to "permit any foreign power or powers to obtain…lodgement in or control over any portion" of Cuba.
The Isle of Pines (now called Isla de la Juventud) was deemed outside the boundaries of Cuba until the title to it was adjusted in a future treaty.
The sale or lease to the United States of "lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon". The amendment ceded to the United States the naval base in Cuba (Guantánamo Bay) and granted the right to use a number of other naval bases as coal stations.

In 1902, the United States handed over control to a Cuban government. As a condition of the transfer, the Cuban state had included in its constitution provisions implementing the requirements of the Platt Amendment, which among other things gave the United States the right to intervene militarily in Cuba

President Tomás Estrada Palma was elected in 1902, and Cuba was declared independent, though Guantanamo Bay was leased to the United States as part of the Platt Amendment.

The US and Cuba signed a treaty in 1934, granting the US a perpetual lease; private enterprise is not allowed under the treaty. Both the US and Cuba must agree on any termination of the lease.

After the Cuban Revolution, President Dwight Eisenhower insisted the status of the base remained unchanged, despite Fidel Castro's objections. Since then, the Cuban government has cashed only one of the rent checks from the U.S. government,

as to the rest.. we have let Cuba determine it's own destiny... despite it not being in our interest..





[/quote]
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
What is the agreement on Crimea

the Russians "leased" a naval base.. a base that was not threatened nor over ran by any news accounts..

a base that they were supposed to vacate by 2017 if an agreement could not be met.. part of the reason Russia/putin was bullying the country.. and shutting off the NG in the winter.

According to the 1997 treaty, a Russian naval base and a number of naval facilities would continue to be located in Sevastopol and in the Crimea on the terms of a 20-year renewable lease

In the 1997 bilateral Peace and Friendship Treaty,[21] which confirmed that both the Crimea and Sevastopol belong to Ukraine. A separate agreement established the terms of a long-term lease of land, facilities, and resources in Sevastopol and the Crimea by Russia.

Sevastopol remains the location of the Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters with the Ukrainian Naval Forces Headquarters also based in the city.

On April 27, 2010, Russia and Ukraine ratified the Russian Ukrainian Naval Base for Gas treaty, extending the Russian Navy's lease of Crimean facilities for 25 years after 2017 (through 2042) with an option to prolong the lease in 5-year extensions. The ratification process in the Ukrainian parliament encountered stiff opposition and erupted into a brawl in the parliament chamber. Eventually, the treaty was ratified by a 52% majority vote—236 of 450. The Russian Duma ratified the treaty by a 98% majority without incident

gee that might explain why Russia shut off the gas.. and now sells it to them at a discount..

I imagine if he cuts it off like you recommended it would violate the base agreement..

either way.. leasing a base is no justification for taking over a large part of a sovereign country..
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Steve, I get it...you hate Russians...they will never be right.

Americans...never wrong.

you need to understand one thing about my.. I do not hate anyone..

had China invaded Russia.. I would be just as outraged..

as for the rest.. kiss my ---
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
Steve, I get it...you hate Russians...they will never be right.

Americans...never wrong.

you need to understand one thing about my.. I do not hate anyone..

had China invaded Russia.. I would be just as outraged..

as for the rest.. kiss my ---

an open mind, that is what I like.
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
Steve, I get it...you hate Russians...they will never be right.

Americans...never wrong.

you need to understand one thing about my.. I do not hate anyone..

had China invaded Russia.. I would be just as outraged..

as for the rest.. kiss my ---

an open mind, that is what I like.

Seems to be that yours is pretty closed to the fact Russia wanted the Ukraine to join a union, they CONTROLED, and the Ukrainians wanted their INDEPENDENCE. And the fact that the Ukraine feels that Russia has declared war on them to force them into the Union they don't want to join doesn't seem to mean much to your Open mind. :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Seems to me that your mind is closed to the idea that the West wanted the Ukraine to join their union and were using economic terrorism to get it done.

both are wrong. there is not one being more moral than the other.
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Seems to me that your mind is closed to the idea that the West wanted the Ukraine to join their union and were using economic terrorism to get it done.

both are wrong. there is not one being more moral than the other.

had you read the article you posted you would see who was resorting to economic terrorism.

I guess you missed the read closely part... :shock: :roll:

Russia began pressuring Ukraine to resist the pact by reducing Russian imports from Ukraine during the first three months of 2013. Russia followed with a targeted trade war to hurt Ukrainian oligarchs who favored European engagement.

In one of those meetings, the Russians presented the Ukrainian delegation with a dossier spelling out potential damage to Ukraine's economy if the government moved ahead with the EU agreement, Mr. Yanukovych's advisers told U.S. officials. The dossier, U.S. officials said, set out specific financial losses and percentage declines in such sectors as aerospace and defense.

. Moscow offered Ukraine cheap natural gas for three months. After that, prices would rise and Ukraine would be required to buy more, increasing the country's dependence on Russia.

care to share the proof you have we were economic terrorism..

cause from the proof you offered so far.. it is clear who was using economic terrorism.. Russia...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
If Russia is offering economic benefits, economic terrorism, what does Europe offer

What are the advantages of going with Europe

Less socialism, less conservatism

reduced prices on natural gas and oil

political stability

less world banking
 

Tam

Well-known member
Really what does it matter what we think the Pros and Cons are, the Ukrainian people were the ones that took to the streets and die in those streets to stop their President from entering into an agreement with Russia. If they wanted to be a part of a Union CONTROLED BY RUSSIA why didn't they just sit back and allow their President to back out on the EU deal and sign one with Putin? If they wanted to be in a Union CONTROLLED BY RUSSIA why is Putin having to move in the troops and take control of their border crossing and invade their air space? If their wanted to join back up with Russia willingly why the bloodshed?

You see Hyp the Ukrainians actions speak louder than your words. By their own actions it does not look like they wanted to be taken back under the wing of Russia and they would rather suffer a little to be INDEPENDENT. than suffer a lot under a dictator that treats his people like dirt.
 

Latest posts

Top