Ignorance

Originally posted by Rajk999
It cant be stolen if it was properly leased.

Well... let's look at what Wikipedia says about it:

The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area. The current Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo illegal, arguing that the Cuban-American Treaty violates Article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which declares a treaty void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of international law.[1]
However, Article 4 of the same document states that Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties shall not be retroactively applied to any treaties made before itself.[2]

It certainly sounds like Cuba was forced into signing it, doesn't it? I mean, let's be honest, why else would they perpetually lease it?

Mhmmm...

Originally posted by shavixmir
Well... let's look at what Wikipedia says about it:

The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area. The current Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo illegal, arguing that the Cuban-American Treaty violates Article ...[text shortened]... t, doesn't it? I mean, let's be honest, why else would they perpetually lease it?

Mhmmm...

How do you jump to the conclusion that there was a forced signing of the lease in 1903? The lease was signed after the US assisted with the Spanish-American war in 1898. The current Cuban govt does not want the lease but thats not their prerogative to change the past. At the time the lease was signed in 1903 the US had just assisted the Cubans in their fight against Spain.

Originally posted by Rajk999
How do you jump to the conclusion that there was a forced signing of the lease in 1903? The lease was signed after the US assisted with the Spanish-American war in 1898. The current Cuban govt does not want the lease but thats not their prerogative to change the past. At the time the lease was signed in 1903 the US had just assisted the Cubans in their fight against Spain.

That's what it says there. Right there. In front of your nose.
I personally don't have a clue how anyone can own land, never mind something as abstract as a country leasing land to another abstract entity, but that's what it says there.

Right there.

In front of your nose.

Originally posted by shavixmir
That's what it says there. Right there. In front of your nose.
I personally don't have a clue how anyone can own land, never mind something as abstract as a country leasing land to another abstract entity, but that's what it says there.

Right there.

In front of your nose.

You don't own a home? That's land ownership isn't it?

Originally posted by shavixmir
That's what it says there. Right there. In front of your nose.
I personally don't have a clue how anyone can own land, never mind something as abstract as a country leasing land to another abstract entity, but that's what it says there.

Right there.

In front of your nose.

Shav, you need to think straight and talk sense.

You said "the US has to use stolen Cuban territory". How do you arrive at that ? The land is leased. The Cuban Govt claims its illegal. Again how can it be illegal when the 1903 Govt granted a perpetual lease ?

The fact of the matter is that things were sweet between Cuba and the US in 1903 and the then govt were the fools to grant such a lease. Howwever distasteful it is to Castro now, he cannot now claim that its illegal.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Well... let's look at what Wikipedia says about it:

The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area. The current Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo illegal, arguing that the Cuban-American Treaty violates Article ...[text shortened]... t, doesn't it? I mean, let's be honest, why else would they perpetually lease it?

Mhmmm...

To answer Rajk, he is (that is, you, Shav, are) getting it from the Wiki entry.

I think you've confused the premise behind Cuba's claim of illegality, article 52, with there having been activity which falls foul of article 52...but, as the Wiki entry states even if article 52 were an accurate representation of what occurred (which it isn't, as others here and various sources describe) article 4 renders the claim invalid anyway.

That's actually what is says "in front of your nose" 😉

EDIT :grammar correction....E&OE)

Originally posted by Rajk999
Why parade your ignorance when the information is available on the internet ? Is'nt this supposed to be a debates forum ? Not a FYI forum.

Google it .. basically the US bought it or rented it or leased it, so it belongs to the US.

And the spelling is 'there' not 'their'. Is English your second language?

It's a forum--nowhere does it say one cannot ask a question. Some of us do not embrace this "internet" of which you speak. You, Sir or Madam, are a rude, crude, unrefined boor. "Google" that.

Originally posted by Zadadka
To answer Rajk, he is (that is, you, Shav, are) getting it from the Wiki entry.

I think you've confused the [b]premise behind Cuba's claim of illegality, article 52, with there having been activity which falls foul of article 52...but, as the Wiki entry states even if article 52 were an accurate representation of what occurred (which it isn't, as othe ...[text shortened]... t's actually what is says "in front of your nose" 😉

EDIT :grammar correction....E&OE)[/b]

That point at hand is: WHY would a country sign a perpetual lease for such a tiddly sum of money?

Why would they?

Originally posted by shavixmir
That point at hand is: WHY would a country sign a perpetual lease for such a tiddly sum of money?

Why would they?

Maybe not "why would they", but "why did they?"

Originally posted by shavixmir
That point at hand is: WHY would a country sign a perpetual lease for such a tiddly sum of money?

Why would they?

If you (or I for that mattter) cant understand why something was done 100 years ago, is no reason to doubt the undeniable fact that it did happen, or to make unfounded claims of force.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
It's a forum--nowhere does it say one cannot ask a question. Some of us do not embrace this "internet" of which you speak. You, Sir or Madam, are a rude, crude, unrefined boor. "Google" that.

I think you meant 'bore'. Is English your second language as well?
If you want to ask a question the place to do it is in the 'general' forum sonny boy, and if you dont embrace the internet thats your problem. Why burden the rest of us because you are an incompetent?

By the way, how can sick disgusting terrorist supporters like yourself can call yourselves 'refined' ?

Originally posted by Rajk999
I think you meant 'bore'. Is English your second language as well?
If you want to ask a question the place to do it is in the 'general' forum sonny boy, and if you dont embrace the internet thats your problem. Why burden the rest of us because you are an incompetent?

By the way, how can sick disgusting terrorist supporters like yourself can call yourselves 'refined' ?

Dude

Have you not had your red stripe / white rum yet ?

Your blood pressure will be going through the roof if you keep arguing over trival with people.

Some people including myself, choose to embrace other peoples views, as when you research on the internet, they are conflicting views / or unclear information whcih can be manipulated, surely you can understand that ?

Originally posted by Rajk999
[b]I think you meant 'bore'. Is English your second language as well?

LMAO !!! Sweetpea, do you mean you don't know the simple ENGLISH word "BOOR"??? Do you own a dictionary? Can you spell? Do you speak the King's English, or some redneck offshoot thereof?! Wait, were your parents brother and sister? Haaaaaa!!!!!!!!