No, Japan does. But before that you wouldn't leave, because......seized. Now Japan are doing what so many other governments do and placating the US before listening to the wishes of their own subjects, because they know it's a bad idea. As for the Filipinos, I can't claim to know enough to comment, sorry dude.
Are you serious? Do you really think the U.S. would do anything to harm Japan if they asked us to vacate Okinawa? Get real.
I have. That's the problem. Your approach to history appears to be to ignore the inconvenient bits in the hope that everyone else will join you in pretending that they never happened. The "lease" was signed at the barrel of a gun following a war of conquest, making it invalid under international law. It specifies that American use of the base is intended to protect Cuban independence whereas it is now used for the opposite. The US systematically violates several other clauses of the treaty, including using the territory for an extra-legal torture camp contrary to its permitted sole use as a naval base. And the Cuban government doesn't recognise US jurisdiction so does not accept payment.
Who cares. A lease is a lease. And the Cuban government can do what it wants with the money. Whether they accept it or not. We pay it as required thus the base is ours. And the base has never been a threat to Cuban independence. Even when the Cubans were allowing Soviet nuclear missiles there to threaten the U.S.
Anyone who is arguing that the US doesn't seize territory ought to care, since this demonstrates that they do. But as I said, I suppose you intend to ignore any facts that are contrary to your preferred fictions.
Oh, you mean the Cuban government that came to power thru a bloody revolution and has systematically oppressed its own people for sixty years? A Cuban government that people still construct inner-tube rafts to escape from? That Cuban government?
I teach what the California Dept. of Education tells me to teach using the textbooks chosen by the Texas Dept. of Education. That's my job. Same reasons I teach about the Seneca Falls convention and the Stonewall riots.
No. Let me help you: “Communism is a type of government as well as an economic system (a way of creating and sharing wealth). In a Communist system, individual people do not own land, factories, or machinery. Instead, the government or the whole community owns these things. Everyone is supposed to share the wealth that they create.“ https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/communism/352989 A communist government can become fascist, just as a capitalist government can become fascist, but communism doesn’t automatically equal fascism unless you lack the ability to understand basic terminology.
Arkansas routinely adopts the same framework standards and teaching methodologies that California uses but of course we use the textbooks adopted by Texas.
It would seem that you don't really understand what those passages are about. What do you say about Christ rebuking Judas when Judas complained that the expensive perfume being used to wash His feet should have been sold and the money given to the poor?
No, let me help you. Ayan Rand’s parents were bankers and the communist government came in and destroyed and stole their property and almost killed them because that’s how communism is implemented, by force, by fascism, now by hippies with flowers in their hair.
That it wasn’t the money that mattered, but it’s intended purpose? In other words, not to judge the gift by its perceived monetary value but by its true worth? So what you’re saying is this that you’re so incapable of understanding basic terminology that even an explanation simplified for children eludes you? Also, Ayn Rand is a horrible choice, since she believed in exploiting as many people as possible, up to and including using the social services she decried because she died in poverty? Learn, sir. Don’t go through life believing tropes equal knowledge.
You are aware that the British Empire relinquished control of many of it's colonies without a fight after they decided they wanted independence?
@Amaris never wants to discuss what the switch over to his anarcho-communist world from our current society would look like Wonder why.....
The British Empire was physically and financially exhausted after World War Two. Not to mention IIRC the British made several "backdoor promises" to the residents of their major colonies that they would grant them independence if they fought for the British versus the Germans and Japanese.
probably that the expensive perfume should never have been made in the first place and that jesus was being a bit of a bootlicker himself.
Government check? “Never wants to discuss” implies that you have repeatedly asked how I would make an anarcho-communist society come about. If so, that would be a lie. It also implies that I have something to hide, even though I have been a vocal opponent of state communism, specifically Leninist/Stalinist statism. If you are implying I am afraid or ashamed of discussing the idea, that would be your error. Of course, it would have to be in good faith, and a man who can’t even accept the basic definition of communism as correct, despite it being the official definition, is not someone worth wasting the discussion upon. It would be better to just go on FOX news and extol the virtues of socialism. I would receive the same level of open mindedness. To repeat for the slower crowd: I do not support Soviet style or authoritarian style communism. I am an anarcho-communist. Words mean things. So, to put it simply: I wish to see an anarcho-communist system without long-term hierarchical government, no state sanctioned exploitation or oppression. Human beings work together to facilitate the most beneficial outcome for everyone, regardless of their abilities or needs, so that greater human endeavors beyond merely making money can be pursued. To do this will require a foundation of equity for all. Everyone is equal, democracy is straightforward, and every voice heard. Anarcho-communism is intersectional. That means no discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, orientation, and so on. If you are a transgender woman of color, you will be treated exactly the same as a white man in terms of your representation. Aside from that, specific needs and concerns would also be addressed. This will require sharper critical thinking skills, higher levels of education, automation for dangerous or repetitive jobs, shorter work hours, a base standard of living guaranteed to everyone so that the stress of survival and toil is greatly reduced. People work to secure the well-being of themselves and their community. There would be no need to compete with your neighbor, no exploitation for the benefit of a few at the top. It wouldn’t be perfect, as there is no perfect system, but if people truly want something better than fighting for every scrap just to eke out a living because a billionaire wants a third yacht, then it requires hard work, and a shift in thinking. People will have to actually hold themselves to the ideas of humanity, empathy, compassion, and social order. That also means taking back the means of production, to return the power to the people, to the workers who have built fortunes, who have lived and died in the shadows of people who stepped on their backs to build their fortunes with stolen wealth. The state uses violence to hold on to its power, and while I would much rather have the people take direct control with the abdication of the state, I cannot disregard the reality that the state would murder many people to maintain that power. It is always those who hold a concentration of power who are the greatest risk to innocent people. Right now, I figure it’s a long shot. For a long time people have been told being greedy is default human nature, that desiring to acquire everything you can before you die is only natural. They don’t understand that it’s a learned behavior. We’re more likely to help one another than hurt each other, but we have been told otherwise by people whose vested interest is in keeping us at each other’s throats rather than realizing we don’t need to play by their rules if only we could wake up and see all of the strings connected to each one of us, and pull down our supposed and self-proclaimed masters from their perches. Getting there will be difficult, because people would have to step outside of their comfort zones, to realize they are servants in an oligarchy that keeps them exhausted, dispirited, and numb. A revolution of thought, will, and action likely won’t happen in my lifetime, but it’s something I can work towards, and try to make life as equitable and free for as many as possible in the interim.
Impossible. And just off hand what makes you think if "power" is in the hands of "workers" or "the people" that would be handled any more benevolently or efficiently than it is in the hands of typical corporate leaders?
It would be representative of everyone and their needs, subject to the will of the workers themselves rather than a handful of people who seek only the greatest profit at the cost of human lives. Holy shit, that’s a truly stupid question, even for you. You’ve used your one.
What makes you think that power would not become quickly concentrated in just a handful of workers? Why would workers be fairer or more altruistic than the typical corporate leaders?
