RE: Hmmmmmm (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message

Termyn8or -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 12:43:27 AM)

"It was the treaty which recognized the claim made in the Declaration of Independence, and it is the treaty which legally established the U.S. as an independent country. "
 
NO, countries or nations are NOT established by treaty. How else must I phrase that ? It may be a common misconception but that is my point, it is NOT a treaty which establishes a country or nation. Period. Ask someone who teaches outside of America for the truth I guess, because there can only be one reason foro this widespread misconception, our miseducatrion centers also known as indoctirnation centers.

A country or nation establishes itself, that is it, period. Then of course that must be proven by force, but that is not at issue here. France my ass, who the fuck were they to say we are a country ? (or not.......)

T^T



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 1:25:15 AM)

quote:

NO, countries or nations are NOT established by treaty.
Well that revelation is in conflict with a few details of history.

As a recent example, the treaties that ended WW1 (Versailles/St. Germain/Trianon/Neuilly) established ten new countries in Europe alone: Poland, Danzig, Finland, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.






Termyn8or -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 2:03:58 AM)

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. "

Please, don't play into RealO's hand like that. I bet he can smell it. Are you saying that England granted us independence ? Do you understand just what you are saying here ?

Let's assume you're right. Where is the similar document establishing England ? Or for that matter China ? If another country must recognize an entity as a country, then who recognized the first country ?

Contemporary thought is good, but not so much for history. It's like self worth, which is not derived from other people. Such as it is with nations. And that, once explored fully will prove no matter how politically incorrect, to be the truth.

ETA :

Now that you have provided the perfect example ; "Czechoslovakia" I guess a short discussion of that may be in order. First of all that was never a nation, nor a country in the normal sense. There used to be the Czech Republic and there was Slovakia. Those people hated each other and there was all kinds of intercine strife. What you are probably not going to swallow is that in drawing those lines on the map the conquering allies actually divided and conquered by forcing those people together. It was to keep either from gaining enough solidarity to challenge the new status quo.

Notice that now there is no longer a Czechoslovakia. If you look at that region you see that people there are not only willing to fight, they are content to wait for the right time sometimes. They were considered a threat.

You see, things like this are called long term strategy. It takes a few decades to get the hang of it.

T^T



JstAnotherSub -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 2:44:26 AM)

I am going to have Eggs Benedict for breakfast.  Since he did nothing wrong, I can finally try them without guilt.



Arpig -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 8:01:51 AM)

quote:

Now that you have provided the perfect example ; "Czechoslovakia" I guess a short discussion of that may be in order. First of all that was never a nation, nor a country in the normal sense. There used to be the Czech Republic and there was Slovakia. Those people hated each other and there was all kinds of intercine strife. What you are probably not going to swallow is that in drawing those lines on the map the conquering allies actually divided and conquered by forcing those people together. It was to keep either from gaining enough solidarity to challenge the new status quo.

Notice that now there is no longer a Czechoslovakia. If you look at that region you see that people there are not only willing to fight, they are content to wait for the right time sometimes. They were considered a threat.
Termy stay away from history, OK, you don't have a clue. Here are the mistakes in this quoted bit:
First of all that was never a nation, nor a country in the normal sense.  Yes it was in exactly the same way as the U.S. is, or Mexico, or Canada, or the UK.

There used to be the Czech Republic and there was Slovakia. No there didn't used to be anything of the sort, there is now, but there didn't used to be.

Those people hated each other and there was all kinds of intercine strife. No they didn't and no there wasn't.

What you are probably not going to swallow is that in drawing those lines on the map the conquering allies actually divided and conquered by forcing those people together. This is wrong on several levels.

It was to keep either from gaining enough solidarity to challenge the new status quo. No it wasn't, exactly the opposite in fact.

If you look at that region you see that people there are not only willing to fight, they are content to wait for the right time sometimes. Nobody fought, the dissolution wasn't accompanied by any unrest or violence at all.

They were considered a threat. No they weren't.


You're an idiot.




tazzygirl -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 9:03:44 AM)

quote:

Where is the similar document establishing England ? Or for that matter China ? If another country must recognize an entity as a country, then who recognized the first country ?


T, if they want to believe it required the recognition of another country before they became one, I certainly am not going to argue. Its a stupid argument on their part.

By the very definition of treason, Benedict was a bad boy.

he did sign an oath...

Arnold's seniority was subsequently restored, but he was already too angry to forgive Congress, and never would. He was now also crippled, a blow to his pride after being such an actively athletic man. He spent the winter of 1777-1778 with the army at Valley Forge. On May 30th, 1778, Benedict Arnold signed the Oath of Allegiance to his country. It was signed at Artillery Park in Valley Forge and witnessed by Henry Knox. After the evacuation of the British in Philadelphia, Washington appointed him commandant of the city.


http://www.ushistory.org/ValleyForge/served/arnold.html


trea·son   [tree-zuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

NOUN:
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.


The Oath....

The revised version, voted 3 February 1778, read "I, _____ do acknowledge the United States of America to be free, independent and sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience, to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him: and I do swear (or affirm) that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States, against the said king George the third and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold, with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God."

Treason.

Constitutive theory

The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognized it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.



And with that, have a nice day y'all. [;)]



Termyn8or -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 1:01:44 PM)

"You're an idiot."

"Once a unified Czechoslovakia was restored after World War II (after the country had been divided during the war), the conflict between the Czechs and the Slovaks surfaced again"

So is wiki then. Maybe they are..........

T^T



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 1:08:00 PM)

Oath sworn in 1778.

Articles of Confederations ratified in 1778? No
Treaty of Paris signed in 1778? No
U.S. in existence in 1778? No

Treason? No, not possible.

An oath of allegiance to a country that does not exist cannot be considered anything more than window dressing, it is propaganda for morale & PR purposes.

Do try again, have a nice day.



Termyn8or -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 1:10:12 PM)

"T, if they want to believe it required the recognition of another country before they became one, I certainly am not going to argue. Its a stupid argument on their part. "

Well I admitted treason might not have been the right word but let them have their fun.

Call it breach of contract or maybe perjory ? No, perjory doesn't fit......

And the Czechoslovakia thing, ya gotta know them fuckers (I got some of that blood). There are no people (from those times) who would call themselves Czechoslovakians, they were either Czech or Slovak.

The book may say it was peaceful but I'll find a book somewhere that says Harlem is a fucking ski resort.

The point is, what is a country ? Lines drawn on a map ?

T^T



Arpig -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 1:31:27 PM)

quote:


"Once a unified Czechoslovakia was restored after World War II (after the country had been divided during the war), the conflict between the Czechs and the Slovaks surfaced again"
Conflict is not internecine strife.

quote:

The point is, what is a country ? Lines drawn on a map ?
Yes, primarily so. There are a few other requirements, but the "lines drawn on a map" are pretty much the first thing you need. Without those the other things don't really matter...ask a Kurd.

I would expect you to have understood this, but the theory with which I ended my previous post seems to be correct.



Marc2b -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 1:38:46 PM)

quote:

I already mentioned that in my first post, there really was no point reposting it.

Until the treaty, the 13 colonies were just that 13 colonies rebelling against the crown. It was the treaty which recognized the claim made in the Declaration of Independence, and it is the treaty which legally established the U.S. as an independent country.

It's a matter of the details and legal niceties, and like I said, unless you can prove the treaty was in effect at the time in question it by definition cannot be treason.

Have a good night.


History is written by the victors. We won the war. Arnold is a traitor. End of discussion. Thank you and have a nice day.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 2:19:21 PM)

quote:


History is written by the victors. We won the war. Arnold is a traitor. End of discussion. Thank you and have a nice day.
OK. Then James Madison, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and Andrew Jackson are all war criminals. We won that one so we get to redefine reality however suits us. And since you expect the rest of the world to buy into your national fantasies, you will of course, out of a sense of fairness and decency, also accept ours, and will refer to all of those ex-presidents by adding the phrase "the war criminal" after their names.

Thank you, and have a nice day.



blnymph -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 3:11:34 PM)

to complicate matters from afar:
what with those Scots loyal to the Stuart pretender that were deported to the American colonies after Culloden and later formed a Royal Highland volunteers regiment to fight the American rebellion for George ... (source: John Prebble, Culloden)?



tazzygirl -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 4:07:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

Oath sworn in 1778.

Articles of Confederations ratified in 1778? No
Treaty of Paris signed in 1778? No
U.S. in existence in 1778? No

Treason? No, not possible.

An oath of allegiance to a country that does not exist cannot be considered anything more than window dressing, it is propaganda for morale & PR purposes.

Do try again, have a nice day.



You seem to get hung up on words.. or ignore them completely.

The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that legally established the United States of America as a nation and served as its first constitution.[1] It was drafted by the Continental Congress in 1776-77, went into use in 1777 and was formally ratified by all 13 states in 1781

Formally means officially. They were already in use. Gee, how did that happen.

quote:

Treaty of Paris signed in 1778? No


Treaty of Paris was the "formal" recognition of other countries. Be careful of that word, formal. But, since you keep insisting that the US required the official recognition of other countries to become its own nation....

Care to explain this?

Constitutive theory

The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognized it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.

19th century is when a country started having to have other countries recognize them before they became a nation.... 19th century... after the 1800's... after the Treaty of Paris...

So, in fact, you assertion is incorrect that statehood could only be granted once other countries approved.

quote:

An oath of allegiance to a country that does not exist cannot be considered anything more than window dressing, it is propaganda for morale & PR purposes.


An oath that was given to the United States, with its own Articles of Condereation in place and being used.. with its own Declaration fo Independence, with it own form of government and military.

Sorry, you just are wrong.



Arpig -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 4:09:59 PM)

OK, having actually read the thread instead of just replying to Termy's dumbassery, Heather is right.......but Heather is also completely wrong.

Heather is right in the following ways.
1. Arnold did indeed commit his first act of treason in 1775. This isn't debatable, every one of the revolutionaries were committing high treason...taking up arms against the King.
2. One cannot commit treason against something that does not exist at the time the putatively treasonous act was performed.

She is wrong in the following ways.
1. The Treaty of Paris didn't establish the U.S. In that Treaty Great Britain recognized the U.S.A.. Recognition does not create a country...it recognizes that it exists, thus the word used.
2. The U.S. came into existence on Feb. 5 1778 when South Carolina ratified the Articles of Confederation. Granted, at that moment the U.S. consisted of only South Carolina till the next day when New York ratified, at which time the U.S. consisted of two states...and so on, each state becoming a member of the U.S. when it ratified the Articles.
3. Connecticut ratified, and thus joined the U.S. on Feb. 12, 1778
4. Arnold was from Connecticut.

Therefore, Arnold was a citizen of the United States of America from Feb. 12, 1778...well before his famous volte face, and thus he DID commit treason.

Those pesky facts again, eh Heather?

A little more thought and a clearer understanding of the subject before you draw conclusions is advised in the future, assuming you would prefer to avoid looking foolish. (Termy...you should take note of this as well.)



blnymph -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 6:25:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

to complicate matters from afar:
what with those Scots loyal to the Stuart pretender that were deported to the American colonies after Culloden and later formed a Royal Highland volunteers regiment to fight the American rebellion for George ... (source: John Prebble, Culloden)?



sorry the final line got lost somehow:

whose heroes or traitors would they be?



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/22/2011 7:02:13 PM)

quote:

Those pesky facts again, eh Heather?
Oh shut up!

Ok, OK, that makes sense I guess. Damn you!



[image]local://upfiles/1214164/6E93441A68A149438E553CCFDDA05154.jpg[/image]



Marc2b -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/23/2011 6:43:59 AM)

quote:

OK. Then James Madison, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and Andrew Jackson are all war criminals. We won that one so we get to redefine reality however suits us. And since you expect the rest of the world to buy into your national fantasies, you will of course, out of a sense of fairness and decency, also accept ours, and will refer to all of those ex-presidents by adding the phrase "the war criminal" after their names.

Thank you, and have a nice day.


Well, I'll accept Jackson as a war crinimal but not for the reasons you think but, rather, for his treatment of Native Americans (with the possible exception of Thoedore Rooselvelt, he was probably the most racist President in American history).

If by "we won that one" you are refering to the War of 1812... sorry, but any objective review of that war leads an unbiased observer to conclude that it was a draw. It was a back and forth, slap dash affiar in which each sides attempted invasions of the other failed.




NocturnalStalker -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/23/2011 7:26:26 AM)

Look at what I have: it's a ball.

Why don't you all bounce it?  =)



Marc2b -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/23/2011 7:46:28 AM)

quote:

Look at what I have: it's a ball.

Why don't you all bounce it? =)


Bite me.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875