You link talked about territories changing their status to statehood. It did not discuss joining the U.S. You are in error.
Maybe but you didn’t prove it.
(All states in the US joined the union voluntarily. That was not the case for Crimea to Ukraine.)
The United States was originally formed by thirteen colonies that did so voluntarily and fought a revolution against a powerful monarchy to form a brand new nation. Each of those colonies were carved out of the North American wilderness by European pioneers into the new world.
That wilderness founding from monarch-owned colony to US statehood is nothing similar to the history and process of Crimea being joined to Ukraine in the way that it was in 1954. Prior to 1954 Crimea had its own history and cultural ties to a Russian identity going back to the time of Catherine the Great. Crimea was no an uncivilized wilderness prior to 1954 when those people were joined to Ukraine by one man’s decree.
Now about those territories involved in the westward expansion beyond the original post-revolution states. They all joined the union voluntarily also. The Louisiana purchase was a purchase of more wilderness. That wilderness required white settlers mostly coming from the original states to civilize it. Vast territories did not transition to states. The general process to become a state from within a territory first required a boundary established and a population of settlers that reached 60,000. Then the settlers petitioned Congress for statehood. Mostly delagates were chosen to attend a constitutional convention to write and approve a state constitution. When those requirements were met Congress voted to approve statehood. Generally the approval of statehood by Congresd was a celebrated event.
Now if you wish to argue with Mace that states in the US did not join the union voluntarily, while stating that Crimea voluntarily joined the Ukraine, then you are equally in error as Mace is.
Ah, you played the pedantic and nitpicky point, what a shock…
Oh, wait! That’s your usual modus operandi, so not really much of shock at all.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
(All states in the US joined the union voluntarily. That was not the case for Crimea to Ukraine.)
[/QUOTE]
So what? As I said upthread when you said this exact same ridiculous bullshit, it doesn’t actually matter how the Crimea was joined to the Ukraine. It WAS FUCKING JOINED. Whether by the fiat authority of the old Soviet Union and their king, or voluntarily really doesn’t matter (except to you). There were legal options they had to unjoin that were put in place not only when it was joined but when the Ukraine split off from the wreckage of the Soviet empire and began to splinter. Those weren’t used either at that time nor recently.
The point about the parallel between the US and THE FUCKING RIGHT OF THE UKRAINE TO MAINTAIN IT’S OWN SOVEREIGN TERRITORY, wasn’t, of course, that the states joined voluntarily, because, what the fuck difference does it make, except to you failing about trying to handwave away the argument by, again, dragging us into ridiculous pedantic divergences from the discussion. No, it had to do with a sovereign states right to defend it’s sovereign territory, which you disputed up thread. Obviously, since you don’t want to defend THAT position, you decided that your best play, as always with you, was to bring up a nitpicky point that had zero to do with the original discussion because, well, that’s what you do. And you continue to do, for page after endless fucking page, until folks just give up on engaging you, which, to you means VICTORY!
tomndebb already addressed this, so no point in me doing so. I’m sure you will come back with some additional pedantic and nitpicky horseshit at this point, because, like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, it’s what you do, like fucking clockwork. Why anyone continues to engage you is really the only mystery left at this point.
You’re wrong XT, this isn’t a useless pedantic argument - it’s very illustrative. Hawaii joined the States through subterfuge and fomented rebellion. Puerto Rico through conquest. Alaska was straight up bought. Much of the rest “chose” to join once native inhabitants were eradicated. But to NFBW, none of that is as bad as Russia gifting territory to it’s ally Ukraine. That is grounds for rebellion!
It’s telling.
On 05-09-2014 at 09:39 AM John Mace wrote:
This is essentially a thread about Crimea separating from the Ukraine after Ukraine’s constitutionally elected President was unconstitutionally forced to flee for his life and from his office. So I’d like to know, looking back with the knowledge we have now (The April PEW Poll) whether John Mace will now admit that the near perfect non-violent transfer of Crimea from Ukraine to Russia is one of the cases where *‘more often than not’ * the result has come down on the side of ‘not’?
The whole Crimea annexation can easily be argued to be the cause of all the violence in Eastern Ukraine. So despite the lack of fighting in Crimea I would say it doesn’t fall on the"not" side.
Your facts don’t stand up very well:
This statement is true: (All states in the US joined the union voluntarily. That was not the case for Crimea to Ukraine.)
That was a fair and open referendum was it not? IF that is not voluntarily becoming a US State then who can figure out how you decide what is fact and what is fiction.
Here’s Alaska’s history when they too voluntarily joined the Union.
http://www.alaskahistoricalsociety.org/index.cfm/discover-alaska/FAQs/11
I do not recall making a statement that indigenous native peoples of the North American (New World) wilderness joined U.S Territories voluntarily. By the time parts of territories became states they had been ‘civilized’ mostly by whites who settled there coming from the U.S. States already joined to the Union.
So once again you make an argument against an argument I have not made.
If that can be easily argued than you will easily accept the argument that the violence in Kiev preceded and caused the non-violent whole Crimea annexation which caused all the violence in Eastern Ukraine.
So there you have it.
No need to justify war and I thought the interim government in Kiev voted to withdraw troops from the East and work toward granting autonomy to the East. The fighting should stop if the interim government withdraws its troops as they voted to do. Does the government in Kiev have control of its Army or does it not?
So your link settles a lot.
"The **initial riots began **on 18 February 2014 when some **20,000 **Euromaidan protesters in Kiev **advanced on Ukraine’s parliament **
So tell me you defend or declare it lawful, legal, democracy in action and constitutional when 20,000 protesters ‘advance’ on Ukraine’s Parliament and police who do have a job to do and who are outnumbered to the point that 13 were killed starting on this day when potestors ‘advanced’ on Parliament. They did put it nicely didn’t they? I would insert ‘attacked’…
No matter the political cause I do not see 20,000 protesters attacking the US Capitol building and expect that police hired by the United States Government to just let them in to do whatever they want. That is not democracy where I come from.
So, NotfooledbyW, could you tell us what point you’re trying to make by comparing Crimea to the states of the USA? I’m failing to see the relevance
Of course, you would. By inserting a verb that does not represent reality, you get to pretend that you have some point. The demonstrations were just that–demonstrations. The “attacks” began when troops (apparently at the urging of the Russians) fired on unarmed protesters.
Well, if you choose to ignore seventy years of American invasion of the Hawaiian islands by whalers, missionaries, and others, killing off the majority of the population by measles and smallpox, a land grab overthrow of the actual government by those Americans, and a further 60 years of importation of mainland Americans (including the military) to overwhelm the native population before a referendum was held to make them a state, you can pretty well ignore any facts you wish–as you typically do.
TomnDeb has made a huge error.
(1) The first quote by Mace is his full response to what T&D refers to in the last quote as, “significant block of text from your typical wall of words with eight separate paragraphs” (see third full quote below) which is true. I wrote several points in that one post.
However you can see that It was John Mace who singles out his apparent ‘first pick’ as to what part of my ‘significant block of text’ he considers to be BS or mostly BS. He then went a bit personal over dealing with facts by telling me the only chaos is in my mind.
(2) I responded to that particular point that Mace single out per (1) and here we see that Mace denies that he has made an error and his explanation was about non-support of votes on separation is because they cause chaos. I don’t see the connection, perhaps Mace can explain how it proves any of my statements should be regarded as mostly BS.
And then its the same old ‘cheerleading’ ploy used when up against facts the holder of facts is accused if supporting some essence of evil in the world. That is rightfully dust regarded as lame.
(3) T&D erroneously tells me that I “picked a single phrase” which is not true. (See the first quote) it was Mace who picked it and argued against my one point that people did in fact choose to join the US union voluntarily. T&D is wrong.
I will, but T&D is keeping me busy and I’m heading to Baltimore to watch the Cleveland Indians play. I believe you understand this (All states in the US joined the union voluntarily. That was not the case for Crimea to Ukraine.) is not bs. You just want to know what the point of it is.
I will get into it so stay tuned.
What do you think of that link posted by T&D that the big Feb 18 riots began when 20,000 Maidan protesters advanced in the parliament with the intent to change the constitution. The protesters certainly escalated the violence on that day. It was not the anti-Maidan folks in Crinea was it?
That’s advanced ‘on’ the parliament. A typo correction. don’t want IBN to get too excited about catching what amounts to a typo.
I don’t give a shit about this. When you have time, explain to us the relevance of your US comparison
So you do not accept the link you posted that contains this:
“The initial riots began on 18 February 2014 when some 20,000 Euromaidan protesters in Kiev advanced on Ukraine’s parliament”
20,000 advancing against a some hundreds of police to take over parliament and force the abandonment of the current constitution goes beyond being a demonstration.
Perhaps its how you demonstrate where you live but its not here in the States.
Its duly noted that you disregard facts contained in your own sources when not convenient to your views. The violence began to escalate on Februrary 18 when 20,000 protesters advanced. The Maidan protesters own and are responsible for all that happened after that.
13 police were killed around that time. No one should be dismissing or excusing the ‘advance’.
The vote the Hawaiians were give was: become a state or stay a territory. There was no option for independence or to join Russia. That is the point everyone but you seems to understand.
Look, it clearly IS bullshit. John Mace is wrong about “99.9 percent of Americans didn’t want to join”, I believe the majority of Texans did want to join, but you are at least as wrong.
So whatever clever argument you have riding on this, you better choose another comparison.
True. Every once in a while I think that you might actually be able to review your own work and see the flaws when they are pointed out.
You have demonstrated, once again, that you cannot.
I apologize for encouraging your errors.