North American Relations

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

sorry, earniel, my comparison turned into an arguement between me and JD,
as people know this isnt my way,
i extend a hand in friendship, or at least reconciliation, to JD

I'll accept your hand in reconciliation.

and back on topic...
so, JD, care to talk me through the NAFTA, then?

Not at this moment - I'm taking a break (as of right now, unless something comes up)

[Nurvingiel]

Aaa my thread! I'm glad you guys fixed it though.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Yes mexico is in it. Here is a Mexican site with various NAFTA links - NAFTA Resources

That link doesn't work for some reason.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The benefits is that by working together and making trade between our 3 countries - it allows us to better compete with the EU and Japan and others. it's as simple as that basically. And as time goes on - instead of NAFTA going away - the borders between our three countries will go away too.

I think it's beneficial for economic borders to disappear. You didn't mean actual borders did you? I think all three member nations have a feeling of sovereignety that would still be around in the future.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

They may have asked - I don't know what for though - they don't produce anything - so how would they benfit from NAFTA? NAFTA's purpose is to make trade easier across the borders of Mexico, America and Canada.

Of course Cuba produces goods! They make at least one thing - fine Cuban cigars. I hardly know anything about Cuba, but maybe they would produce more with a more stable government.

Here is an informational website about Cuba if anyone wants.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

because we are not going to support the castro government in any way shape or form.

Okay, that's a good point. I think some time in the future (probably distant) it would be great if all the Caribbean countries could be in it. Maybe Central America too. Maybe there needs to be several steps before Cuba's entry.

Since this thread isn't just about NAFTA... what if you opened up a dialogue with Cuba now. This wouldn't require you to support them in any way - it would just get people talking. Then, when Cuba has a new leader, there would already be an established dialogue. That could eventually lead to NAFTA entry talks.

How do countries usually get rid of unwanted governments? Through war? Intervention of outside nations? Revolution? Sometimes this leads to replacing one lousy goverment with another one. I ramble because I wonder how Cuba is going to do it, and I hope they don't have a civil war.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You rode on the US coattails - remember. Anyway - you can have good relations with Cuba - however Cuba is on our doorstep and we will not have anythign to do with cuba until the Castro dictatorship government is destroyed. YOu also don't have a large Cuban population - or people risking life and limb to get to your country from Cuba. We're a little more affected by Castro's government than you are - so I think we have a better idea of how WE should handle the situation with Castro.

I know it is easier for us because we're not neighbours. Maybe we could somehow help improve USA-Cuba relations... as moderators? This would probably be post-Castro.

As for the Cold War, nope, I don't remember! We had to study this in secondary school, but I don't remember a thing. All I know is it ended in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union. Um... right?

Originally Posted by inked

Is it true that if you cross the equator, toilets flow in the opposite direction?
Does this have any relevancy to North American relations? Just what kind of relations are we discussing? First degree? Second degree?

Just thought I'd lighten up a little!

I think it depends what direction the little jets face. Here in Sweden, there is no swirl. Everything just goes fwooosh. Jonathan and Grey Wolf know what I'm talking about.

[jerseydevil]

Well Nurv -
It would be nice if Castro dies - just like it was very nice that Arafat finally kicked the bucket. We don't have a problem with Cuba - we have a problem with their government. We really don't think that Canada has to play mediator between us and Cuba. We're doing just fine in the relationship.

Cubans still look at the US as a friend - as evidenced by the thousands each year who risk their life to come to the US by raft. Some have even converted their cars so they float - but as far as I know - only one group of people made it over that way. In decemeber the entire Cuban dance troup defected to the US while putting on a huge show in NY.

As long as Castro is in power and as long as their government is the oppressive dictatorship that it is - we will have nothing to do with them. This is partly because of the will of the many many Cubans who live here and this is partly because of the history of the US with Cuba.

To give you a little history -

Cuba - colony of Spain
Spanish-American War
America defeats Spain and wins land - including Puerto Rico and Cuba
Cuba votes for independence from the US - which we grant (one of the arguments Puerto Ricans use when they vote whether to become a state or stay as a territory or become independant - they say - look at what happened to Cuab after it became independan)
Cuban Revolution
Kennedy's miserable failure with Bay of Pigs
Cuban Missile Crisis (which brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster)

[Insidious Rex]

Of course one could make the argument that cuba, like china, would come under the democratic fold faster if we let them into a NAFTA like situation where capitalism is much more likely to grow. Abject isolation certainly hasnt worked for the past 50 years with them. But politically theres no chance of common sense prevailing because it would mean losing the cuban american block. so we will sit and wait for castro to die while the people of cuba continue to suffer. the last remnents of the cold war on earth.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Of course one could make the argument that cuba, like china, would come under the democratic fold faster if we let them into a NAFTA like situation where capitalism is much more likely to grow. Abject isolation certainly hasnt worked for the past 50 years with them. But politically theres no chance of common sense prevailing because it would mean losing the cuban american block. so we will sit and wait for castro to die while the people of cuba continue to suffer. the last remnents of the cold war on earth.

not quite last remnants:
Laos People's Democratic (ha!) Republic?
People's Republic of China?
People's Republic of Vietnam?
People's Republic of Korea? (ie: N Korea)

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Of course one could make the argument that cuba, like china, would come under the democratic fold faster if we let them into a NAFTA like situation where capitalism is much more likely to grow. Abject isolation certainly hasnt worked for the past 50 years with them. But politically theres no chance of common sense prevailing because it would mean losing the cuban american block. so we will sit and wait for castro to die while the people of cuba continue to suffer. the last remnents of the cold war on earth.

YOu mean to say that it is because of us that castro and Cuba has all these problems? That's amazing - considering he has free trade with Canada and with Europe. The suffering of his people has far more to do with the fact that that the Castro government does not work - than with any sanctions that the US has in place against him.

And as LCoU said - Cuba isn't the last remnant of the cold war. Cuab is just closer to us.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

YOu mean to say that it is because of us that castro and Cuba has all these problems? That's amazing - considering he has free trade with Canada and with Europe. The suffering of his people has far more to do with the fact that that the Castro government does not work - than with any sanctions that the US has in place against him.

I didnt make any qualifying statements about the Castro government. Just that it would be more likely to come into the kind of capitalist state we would be more comfortable with faster if it was able to trade directly with 300 million of the richest people on earth just a few short miles north of its shores. you dont agree with that? would isolation do it faster?

And as LCoU said - Cuba isn't the last remnant of the cold war. Cuab is just closer to us.

it certainly is in the classic sense. In that it was an extension of SOVIET influence. I dont consider china the equivalent of the soviet union in 2005. So I reject the notion we are in a cold war with them or any of their influences. Yeah North Korea is also a dinosaur anomaly so I would actually include them as well.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well Nurv -
It would be nice if Castro dies - just like it was very nice that Arafat finally kicked the bucket. We don't have a problem with Cuba - we have a problem with their government. We really don't think that Canada has to play mediator between us and Cuba. We're doing just fine in the relationship.

Well of course we don't have to be the mediator. I was just offering on behalf of the government, because I... erm... can.

Are you doing fine though? If you are, then okay, but it seems like you don't have all that much of a relationship with them.

Castro won't live forever, why not start some sort of dialogue with the country that will outlast the current government?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Cubans still look at the US as a friend - as evidenced by the thousands each year who risk their life to come to the US by raft. Some have even converted their cars so they float - but as far as I know - only one group of people made it over that way. In decemeber the entire Cuban dance troup defected to the US while putting on a huge show in NY.

What if there was some way to let people immigrate in a more normal way, like they could apply and then fly or take a boat. Or would the Cuban government not let people?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As long as Castro is in power and as long as their government is the oppressive dictatorship that it is - we will have nothing to do with them. This is partly because of the will of the many many Cubans who live here and this is partly because of the history of the US with Cuba.

I'm beginning to see this is very complex. It could probably be the subject of an entire university course.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

To give you a little history -

Cuba - colony of Spain
Spanish-American War
America defeats Spain and wins land - including Puerto Rico and Cuba
Cuba votes for independence from the US - which we grant (one of the arguments Puerto Ricans use when they vote whether to become a state or stay as a territory or become independant - they say - look at what happened to Cuab after it became independan)
Cuban Revolution
Kennedy's miserable failure with Bay of Pigs
Cuban Missile Crisis (which brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster)

Puerto Rico is part of the USA but not as a state, is that right?

What exactly happened at the Bay of Pigs? *mine's JDs knowledge*

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well of course we don't have to be the mediator. I was just offering on behalf of the government, because I... erm... can.

Are you doing fine though? If you are, then okay, but it seems like you don't have all that much of a relationship with them.

Castro won't live forever, why not start some sort of dialogue with the country that will outlast the current government?

Castro's brother who is in his 70;'s is supposed to take over the government. If his brother dies - then I'm not sure who would take over. Anyway - who wouold you suggest we talk to?

What if there was some way to let people immigrate in a more normal way, like they could apply and then fly or take a boat. Or would the Cuban government not let people?

Hahahaha - that's like saying why didn't we allow people behind the berlin wall immigrate in a more easy way than risking their lives to get to west germany. No - Castro will not let them. it's a totalitarian government. There is no outside contact.

Puerto Rico is part of the USA but not as a state, is that right?

Yes - they are a territory. They choose to be. It's about 50/50 now with the last vote of them wanting to be a state or remain a territory. The independents got about 4% of the vote. Once they vote for statehood -t hen it will go before the US congress to see if we would like them to be a state. Which I would like them to be a state.

What exactly happened at the Bay of Pigs? *mine's JDs knowledge*

An anti-castro counter-revolutionary group of Cubans were secretly supported by Kennedy and the CIA. They stormed the beaches of Cuba and wereexpecting backup from Kennedy. Kennedy had second thoughts, didn't fully give his support once the invasion started and let them be massacred on the beaches and captured.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I didnt make any qualifying statements about the Castro government. Just that it would be more likely to come into the kind of capitalist state we would be more comfortable with faster if it was able to trade directly with 300 million of the richest people on earth just a few short miles north of its shores. you dont agree with that? would isolation do it faster?

Would trade with them boost Castro's power? Very possible. Castro won;'t live for ever - then just like after that scum araft - we can deal with Cuba. As of right now - it is impossible to deal with Cuba - just like it was impossible to deal witht he Palastinians as long as Arafat was involved.

it certainly is in the classic sense. In that it was an extension of SOVIET influence. I dont consider china the equivalent of the soviet union in 2005. So I reject the notion we are in a cold war with them or any of their influences. Yeah North Korea is also a dinosaur anomaly so I would actually include them as well.

I didn't point out any particular countries - I would also not agree with China of 2005 being in the same league. But for you to say that Cuba is the only remnant of the cold is completely erroneous.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Castro's brother who is in his 70;'s is supposed to take over the government. If his brother dies - then I'm not sure who would take over. Anyway - who wouold you suggest we talk to?

Hahahaha - that's like saying why didn't we allow people behind the berlin wall immigrate in a more easy way than risking their lives to get to west germany. No - Castro will not let them. it's a totalitarian government. There is no outside contact.

Heh... I guess there's a reason there hasn't been a dialogue thus far.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Yes - they are a territory. They choose to be. It's about 50/50 now with the last vote of them wanting to be a state or remain a territory. The independents got about 4% of the vote. Once they vote for statehood -t hen it will go before the US congress to see if we would like them to be a state. Which I would like them to be a state.

Aha, I thought so.

What would be the advantage of being a state? More rights? In other threads you mentioned a lot of things are defined by the state.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

An anti-castro counter-revolutionary group of Cubans were secretly supported by Kennedy and the CIA. They stormed the beaches of Cuba and wereexpecting backup from Kennedy. Kennedy had second thoughts, didn't fully give his support once the invasion started and let them be massacred on the beaches and captured.

That's horrible! If he couldn't warn them he was backing down, he should have shown up anyway!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What would be the advantage of being a state? More rights? In other threads you mentioned a lot of things are defined by the state.

They would have full representation in Congress basically. Right now they have one non-voting member who observes.

Negatives that they feel -

1) they would lose their olympic team.
2) They are afraid they will have to pay taxes - but considering that most people live under the poverty line - this is just a scare tactic by the "stay as a territory" group - since they really wouldn't be paying any taxes.
3) they are concerned that they would have to give up their language. The US does not have an official language, nor do we want two languages like Canada does.

Puerto Rican statehood

VIEW OF STATEHOOD
Statehood supporters "see the United States as a union of 50 sovereign states united to give their citizens the best opportunity to succeed in life. "They believe that "Puerto Rico is in an unique position to join this union and partake of the benefits, and responsibilities, of being an integral part of the United States of America. There are economic, social, and political advantages to becoming the 51st state."

Twenty seven point one percent of Puerto Rican's who live in the United States prefer statehood . Residents of Puerto Rico voted on their status in 1993 in a non-binding advisory vote. Proponents of statehood won with 46.3 percent of the vote . The breakdown of statehood proponents in the U.S. is 57.4% of first generation, 25.7% of second generation, and 16.9% of third generation. Thirty point two percent of statehood proponents consider themselves as liberals, 22.6% are moderates, and 47.2% are conservative. The breakdown of statehood proponents based on language ability is 2.2% speak only English, 42% are better in English, 25% have no preference, 27.5 are better in Spanish, and 3.4 speak only Spanish.

PROS OF STATEHOOD
In the economics of Puerto Rico, statehood has many pros. The first is that Puerto Rico will receive taxes from their citizens to build the infrastructure of the state. They will have an open market to trade with all nations that are in alliance with the U.S. With becoming a state, Puerto Rico will enjoy the benefits of America's high per capita income and low unemployment rates.

"Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States has been directly responsible for Puerto Rico having one of the highest standard of living of Central, South America, and the Caribbean. However, the American citizens of Puerto Rico are still very far from attaining the same level of economic prosperity other American citizens enjoy in the other 50 states.. Becoming a state would give Puerto Rico the opportunity of improving its economic situation."

Politically, there are several advantages to becoming a state. The first is that Puerto Rico will have a voice in the Congress with at least seven represenatives and two senators. Currently, Puerto Rico only has a resident commissioner in ther Congress. He has a voice, but no vote. Puerto Rico has no electoral votes in the Presidental elections . Becoming a State would remove Puerto Rico form under the Territorial "claws" of ther U.S. Constitution, and would put Puerto Rico on the same political footing as the other 50 states. This is the single most compelling argument for Puerto Rican statehood that Puerto Ricans have.

CONS OF STATEHOOD
There are several economic reasons that can be argued against Puerto Rico becoming a state. The first is that the cost of living will greatly rise. At last count, my friend, Jose and Noemi Mendoza said that the average monthly income is around $300 dollars. The average electric bill is around $12 a month and water and waste collection is around $5 to $7 dollars a month. When Puerto Rico becomes a state the prices will greatly rise.

The electric bill will go to $80 and the water and waste will go to $16 to 20 dollars. The average interest rate in Puerto Rico is only 5 to 6%, whereas the U.S. interest rate is somewhere between 8.5 to 12%. Currently a $40,000 house would cost about $253 a month, whereas with the U.S. rates it would cost around $411 a month.

There are several arguments against statehood on the social structure of Puerto Rico. The first is that Puerto will no longer have a representative in their Miss Universe Pageant, which they have won on three occasions. Also, they would not be recognized as an individual nation in the Olympic games. "These international representations would be curbed under Statehood, as Puerto Rico would be required to participate in the same manner as the other 50 states, and to compete to represent the United States collectively, and not Puerto Rico individually, in these international events ."

The statehood opponents believe that Statehood will infringe on their "sovereign" rights and threaten their international presence and image.

The last social issue against Puerto Rico becoming a state is a proposed bill in Congress. The bill proposes that English will become the official language of the United States. If this bill passes, and Puerto Rico is granted statehood, the inhabitants will have to abide this requirement. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga, said, "we must encourage everyone to speak English, but we must not discriminate against those that speak other languages. "

In that site - you can also read about the pros and cons of territory and independence.

Here is another site - pro-statehood - US Council for Puerto Rico Statehood
What Should be Done with Puerto Rico? (University of Utah)
Anti-Puerto Rican Statehood status - Puerto Rican Statehood: A Path to Disunion By Pat Buchanan

[jerseydevil]

Here is another anti-Puerto Rican Statehood one...

No Statehood for Caribbean Dogpatch
by Don Feder
Boston Herald
11/30/98

On Dec. 13, Puerto Ricans will cast their ballots for statehood, independence or a continuation of commonwealth status. The referendum implicitly acknowledges their right to self-determination.

But don't Americans have the same right - the right not to be saddled with an impoverished, crime-ridden island of non-English speakers as our 51st state?

An advertisement statehood proponents are running on television in San Juan assures voters that, with admission to the Union, ``we will not become blue-eyed blondes . . . Nor will we change our language and culture. With statehood, we will remain as we are.''

True enough. With statehood, Puerto Rico will still have an annual per-capita income of $8,509 - one-third the U.S. average and less than half that of Mississippi, our poorest state. The murder rate will remain 25 per 100,000, more than twice New York City's.

However, there will be some changes. Puerto Rico will send two senators and five or six representatives to Congress, to vote in lockstep with Ted Kennedy and Richard Gephardt on everything from affirmative action to taxes.

Current caps will come off federal welfare spending for the island. The average Puerto Rican family won't pay a penny in federal income taxes but could receive an Earned Income Tax Credit of $2,713 annually. Statehood will cost us an additional $3 billion a year in welfare payments alone.

Carlos Romero-Barcelo, Puerto Rico's non-voting (God be praised) delegate in the House of Representatives, candidly titled his pro-statehood book, ``Statehood Is for the Poor.''

With Puerto Rico incorporated, America would be well on its way to becoming a bilingual nation. Ask the Canadians how splendidly that works.

According to a New York Times story of May 19, 1997, ``Fully 90 percent of the island's 650,000 public school students lack basic English skills by the time they graduate.'' When the commonwealth proposed increasing the amount of English instruction, Puerto Rican teachers rioted.

Romero-Barcelo doesn't pull his punches, ``Yes, we want statehood [My comment: For purely pecuniary reasons], but neither our language nor our culture are negotiable.''

Apparently, America's language and culture are negotiable. With Puerto Rican statehood, to the problem of unassimilable immigrants we would add an unassimilable state.

Earlier this year, by a single vote, the House passed a bill fast-tracking Puerto Rican statehood. The legislation provided that if a plurality of the island's voters ever opt for statehood, Congress must vote on its admission to the Union every two years, for a decade, until it passes.

Passage came after a perfunctory debate. In the Senate, the bill died in committee.

Hot for Hispanic support, the GOP leadership, including its neutered speaker, pushed the plan - as if Mexicans in California and Cubans in Florida really give a hill of frijoles for Puerto Rican statehood.

Despite their leadership's position, better than three-quarters of House Republicans opposed the measure. Unlike his predecessor, incoming Speaker Bob Livingston is an energetic opponent of statehood.

Whatever the outcome of the referendum, Americans have a right to insist that their representatives act exclusively in the interests of the United States.

We need more non-English speakers in this country like we need more welfare recipients, higher crime rates and an alien culture - all of which we'll get with Puerto Rican statehood.

The issue is such a no-brainer that only a multiculturalist, a welfare-state Democrat or a pandering Republican could possibly support Puerto Rican statehood. That's why the island's government had to spend $200 million this year lobbying for the same.

English First, a 150,000-member organization that promotes official English, is leading the opposition to this multicultural madness. Executive Director Jim Boulet Jr. sardonically notes, ``Puerto Rico is as proud of its language and culture as the United States used to be of ours.''

In June, Puerto Ricans in New York City staged impassioned protests when a character on the sitcom ``Seinfeld'' accidentally burned a Puerto Rican flag. They had every right to be outraged.

But, let me ask you a question: If someone singed your state's flag, would you be bent out of shape? However they vote in the referendum, Puerto Ricans have a national consciousness that's incompatible with statehood.

It's hard to imagine a worse candidate for admission to the Union than this Caribbean Dogpatch.

I currently support statehood - but I don't want NJ to lose representation and I do not want dual language.

[Earniel]

I've split off the posts dealing with national languages into a new thread. Follow the rabbittrail to the new "National Language(s)" thread.

[Nurvingiel]

Ri would be proud.

Carlos Romero-Barcelo, Puerto Rico's non-voting (God be praised) delegate in the House of Representatives, candidly titled his pro-statehood book, ``Statehood Is for the Poor.''

Was he serious? That seems in very bad taste.


The article does bring up a good point about poverty in Puerto Rico. If it becomes a state, maybe the standard of living for many Puerto Ricans would be increased over time.

Why would that not happen as a territory though? What does it mean to be a territory? It seems like they are their own nation with their dollar tied to the American dollar. In fact, for quite a while I thought that was exactly how it was, and only recently realized they're a territory. Are they part of the USA only in name and money?

I'm actually not quite sure how we use the term territory. The Yukon, Nunavut, and the North West Territories are our three.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i always thought of the term in this context was a polite way of saying colony,
but without being colonial, woodrow wilson wouldn't approve of the imperialism
behind holding on to colonies, would he?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Why would that not happen as a territory though? What does it mean to be a territory? It seems like they are their own nation with their dollar tied to the American dollar. In fact, for quite a while I thought that was exactly how it was, and only recently realized they're a territory. Are they part of the USA only in name and money?

What do you mean in money? They use the dollar, just like they all have American Passports and are considereed American citizens. The only they don't really get is they don't get to vote in national elections - for preisdent and they don't get representation in the house - they also don't pay federal taxes.

I'm actually not quite sure how we use the term territory. The Yukon, Nunavut, and the North West Territories are our three.

We have several territories. Guam, Virgin Islands, etc. We used to Have Cuba and Phillipines - but they voted for Independence (at least Cuba did) we my have just let the Phillipines go - I"m not sure.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

What do you mean in money? They use the dollar, just like they all have American Passports and are considereed American citizens. The only they don't really get is they don't get to vote in national elections - for preisdent and they don't get representation in the house - they also don't pay federal taxes.

I meant "the same in money" as in the use th US dollar. I guess what I'm wondering, is what are the differences between being a sovereign nation and being a territory?

One thing is, they have a non-voting delegate in the Senate instead of an ambassador to the country.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

We have several territories. Guam, Virgin Islands, etc. We used to Have Cuba and Phillipines - but they voted for Independence (at least Cuba did) we my have just let the Phillipines go - I"m not sure.

The Phillipines is/was a US territory? That's so cool! I'm not sure why it's cooler than the Virgin Islands... I just didn't know about the Phillipines before.

I don't think it's the same as a colony Chrys. That implies that one country has sent people to "civilize the natives" or whatever it was that they did "back in the day".

Then again, there are still remnants of those attitudes - and we still have the Commonwealth games.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I meant "the same in money" as in the use th US dollar.

Well you said their nation's currency tied to the the dollar. That's what i was wondering about. They don't have their own currency. However many countries' currencies are tied to the dollar - such as China's.

I guess what I'm wondering, is what are the differences between being a sovereign nation and being a territory?

Well - they can't do whatever they wish without the approval of the US. But then again - neither can the European states in the EU.

One thing is, they have a non-voting delegate in the Senate instead of an ambassador to the country.

Well they don't have ambassadors either - nor do they have embassies. They have a Governor of Puerto Rico - just as any other state in the country.

The Phillipines is/was a US territory? That's so cool! I'm not sure why it's cooler than the Virgin Islands... I just didn't know about the Phillipines before.

yeah - it was a territory of the US.

These are our current dependant areas according to the CIA Factbook -

American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Wake Island

note: from 18 July 1947 until 1 October 1994, the US administered the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. It entered into a political relationship with all four political units:
the Northern Mariana Islands is a commonwealth in political union with the US (effective 3 November 1986);
Palau concluded a Compact of Free Association with the US (effective 1 October 1994);
the Federated States of Micronesia signed a Compact of Free Association with the US (effective 3 November 1986);
the Republic of the Marshall Islands signed a Compact of Free Association with the US (effective 21 October 1986)

What it says regarding the Phillipines -

The Philippine Islands became a Spanish colony during the 16th century; they were ceded to the US in 1898 following the Spanish-American War. In 1935 the Philippines became a self-governing commonwealth. Manuel QUEZON was elected President and was tasked with preparing the country for independence after a 10-year transition. In 1942 the islands fell under Japanese occupation during WWII, and US forces and Filipinos fought together from 1944-45 to regain control. On 4 July 1946 the Philippines attained their independence.

I don't think it's the same as a colony Chrys. That implies that one country has sent people to "civilize the natives" or whatever it was that they did "back in the day".

That is basically what a colony is - the parent country brings in their own citizens to run things and to settle. Britain for instance with India - had put in place Britons to rule the country.

Then again, there are still remnants of those attitudes - and we still have the Commonwealth games.

To comment or not to comment - that is the question.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well you said their nation's currency tied to the the dollar. That's what i was wondering about. They don't have their own currency. However many countries' currencies are tied to the dollar - such as China's.

Yeah, I was confused, never mind.

Slight rabbit trail, but what does it really mean to be tied to the dollar? I thought it would fluctuate with the dollar in that case.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

To comment or not to comment - that is the question.

Wether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous posting...