Why is it ok for the US to try and annex places like Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Okinawa (Japan), even if unsuccessfully

Why is it ok for the US to try and annex places like Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Okinawa (Japan), even if unsuccessfully,
but it's not ok for Russia to annex Crimea?

We aren't trying to annex Okinawa you massive retard

In what kind of school were you?

We conquered that shit in the 19th century. Right of conquest was still an accepted part of international diplomacy back then.

because DEUS VULT

German wikipedia says

>Während der Besatzungszeit versuchte man einen von Japan unabhängigen „Staat Okinawa“ oder die „Republic of the Ryukyus“ zu bilden. Sogar einen Anschluss als US-Bundesstaat, wie Hawaii, wurde noch vor dem Koreakrieg in Erwägung gezogen. Jedoch ging die Kontrolle über die Insel am 15. Mai 1972 an Japan zurück. Mehr als ein Fünftel der Insel ist allerdings weiterhin eine US-Militärbasis.

run through google translate:

>During the occupation, they tried to form a "state Okinawa" or the "Republic of the Ryukyus" independent of Japan. Even a connection as a US state like Hawaii was considered before the Korean war. However, the control of the island returned to Japan on May 15, 1972. However, more than a fifth of the island remains a US military base.

That happened as a result of WWII, right? USSR annexed lots of land (some from Czechoslovakia too).

You know why is the Crimea situation so alarming? Because this post-WWII consensus in Europe just broke down. Russia will try military conquest in Europe in the future too. That should worry you.

hmmmmn it really zonks my noggin

More than a fifth of Germany is a US military base, so what?

The real difference is that annexing shit just isn't done in this day and age. It's an example of how backwards Russia is.

Yeah and gave it to every shitty republic then

So what? USSR was dominated by Russia and you thought it's going to last forever.

Doesn't change the fact that you took a huge dump on this decades old consensus with the Anschluss of Crimea.

Ukranian Crimea was a mistake waiting to be fixed.

They don't care if the world order doesn't fit our desires, it was created to serve theirs. We are not humans for them.

Nah. Why then didn't Russia take Crimea and east ukraine before if they allegedly wanted it so much?. They didn't even express any intent in that direction before.

Perhaps it was someone else who actually broke the status quo and triggered Russia.

Action, reaction.

good shit vlad

It wasn't just Russia wanting Crimea, it also were crimeans wanting to get to Russia. There was an attempt there to leave Ukraine in early 90's but it was stoped by "trains of friendships" from Ukraine.

land taken by declared warfare =/= land you move troops onto while denying it and then messing with the elections

Crimea held our troops since 1991. There always was our base there.

>Hurrr why can't I holocaust Muslims since Germany tried to kill all the jews

Things that happened during World War 2 don't apply to today. You fucking retard.

if you want Crimea declare actual war on Ukraine and then take it. If Russia is to much of a pussy to wage a proper war then you don't deserve to own the land

>inb4 no russian troops secretly invaded crimea

If it fits your aims though then it's ok.

You know perfectly well nothing would have happened without the orange revolution altering the status quo in Ukraine.

All else is bs.

But why? Crimea already had our troops and local popular support. Delcaring war would mean losing it.

Like?
Nice moving goalposts there.

That wasn't even a question really. I was replying about "moving troops".

Like bombing residential areas of cities of the whple country and forcing ethnical cleansings? You basically genocided serbs in Kosovo and literally bombed the whole country like in WWII.

if the land truly belonged to russia you would not lose crimea from a war declaration

Because the US did it before setting up the current international system,

What?

That's rich coming from a country that annexed Texas via filling it up with immigrants, then seceding then joining the Union then engineering a war with lots of bullshit to get California and New Mexico as well. Or fomenting and financing a separatist insurgency in Panama to grab clay and build a canal. The list of freedom is pretty long.

Tell us more about righteous american values, Donald san.

>genocided serbs
we most definitely did not go in and murder all serbians because they are serbians, attacks were performed to cripple the enemy military force (which worked) and collateral damage happens in dense areas

this would be like an american saying that russia went in and genocided Georgians and other nationalities in that area when it was a purely strategic maneuver

>bombed residential areas
NATO bombings were performed under necessity and were supported by many other modern nations, thereby meaning they were acceptable actions for the time period

you won't find many modern nations supporting a secretive annexation of the Crimea

if you have popular support you would not lose the popular support by making a formal declaration of war in order to take in Crimea

we had a proper war against mexico to officially take the territory we wanted, and the panama canal was returned to panama

literally history from before ww2, if you want to go that far back we can talk about spanish colonialism

>NATO bombings were supported by modern nations, annexation of Crimea was not
Hm, jeez, I guess it was because bombing Serbia is good and annexing your rightful clay is bad, not because NATO's only purpose is to oppose Russia...

>Why is it okay

America doesn't like it because they want to keep Russia, their competitor, contained.

Europe doesn't like it because they're afraid Russia is going to invade them.

Because we dictate what's right and wrong. We're the fucking best, bitch.

Because US won the Cold War and Russia lost. Russia doesn't get to have a sphere of influence nor does it get to be a superpower again.

Is this bait? It's not about losing popular support, it's about how you don't declare wars in the 21 century because that means total alienation and opposition from the civilized world, not mentioning the global stability going to shit.

the Balkan war had nothing to do with Russia

legitimate genocides were happening so NATO stepped in to end it

NATO may have served specifically to oppose russia during the cold-war, but once that ended it did things such as stopping genocides in the Balkans

>we had a proper war
That so doesn't make it right. we don't want the territory back, it's yours forever, but you could at the very least acknowledge what you did was immoral. It isn't any different than me putting a gun to your wife's head and forcing you to sign your home over to me.

russia is already under sanctions and is opposed by most of the civilized world, partly because of actions in Crimea

if you actually care about stability and good terms with the rest of the civilized world you would gtfo out of Ukraine's sovereign territory

True.
It's like America kidnapped your wife, raped her, forced her to have several kids with him, and then tattooed his name all over her tits and ass.
After that, you probably don't want her back, but you still want him to acknowledge that what he did was wrong.

i completely acknowledge it was immoral, i'm not some imperialist, but as you said the land does now belong to us and its because we went through the proper procedures of war instead of indefinitely dicking around there and denying it like Russia is doing

Not that guy, all that stuff about "proper wars" is spooky bullshit.

The U.S. was next to a potential competitor with a fuckton of empty, largely indefensible land, so they decided to fuck them over.

Nothing against Mexico, but it was a good move.

Cmon civilized world you don't even trying 2008 was harder

well i suppose your guy's strategy has worked out in the long run, trump will probably be lifting sanctions and officially recognizing crimea as russian territory