505
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: + +
Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified? (view source)
Revision as of 02:52, January 2, 2009
, 02:52, January 2, 2009→Affirmative Opinions
I would have to agree with Ben on the point that while perhaps deciding that the original 'occupation' of Hawaii may have been incorrect, it borders on unconstitutional to all of a sudden tell everyone born there as American citizens that they're not in the club anymore and to go back to their monarchy. It would be difficult for them to reestablish a stable governemtn after being apart of the union for a hundred years [[User:Katieb|KTB]] 19:47, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
I would have to agree with Ben on the point that while perhaps deciding that the original 'occupation' of Hawaii may have been incorrect, it borders on unconstitutional to all of a sudden tell everyone born there as American citizens that they're not in the club anymore and to go back to their monarchy. It would be difficult for them to reestablish a stable governemtn after being apart of the union for a hundred years [[User:Katieb|KTB]] 19:47, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
I say Yes . What would Hawaii be if we had not invaded/stolen/taken the islands? The IJN would have used Hawaii as a staging point for raids on the American mainland - the people of Hawaii would not have access to the benefits of American life, and even if we had not taken Hawaii, someone else would have taken Hawaii---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]<sup>[[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']]</sup> 21:52, 1 January 2009 (EST)
==Negative Opinions==
==Negative Opinions==