Hufsa wrote: i still dont understand how that works. or generally dont understand how owning land works either. i could build a home deep in the woods and if i was found out id be fined or whatever. itd be illegal. why? im sorry but who decides this and how can someone just take another country? if someone can explain in simple words id be grateful cause im spiraling wtf it doesnt make any sense
BloomCissi wrote: I mean, nowadays it's all based on tradition, convention, and politics.
still makes no sense imo, can other leaders of other countries just buy them out. if i had enough money could i just like buy antarctica if i wanted? its weird
BloomCissi wrote: I mean, nowadays it's all based on tradition, convention, and politics.
still makes no sense imo, can other leaders of other countries just buy them out. if i had enough money could i just like buy antarctica if i wanted? its weird
Well Trump (USA) tried to buy Greenland of Denmark... so yes i had assume so
BloomCissi wrote: I mean, nowadays it's all based on tradition, convention, and politics.
still makes no sense imo, can other leaders of other countries just buy them out. if i had enough money could i just like buy antarctica if i wanted? its weird
That's definitely not how it works. What are you referring to when you say that some countries own other countries?
BloomCissi wrote: I mean, nowadays it's all based on tradition, convention, and politics.
still makes no sense imo, can other leaders of other countries just buy them out. if i had enough money could i just like buy antarctica if i wanted? its weird
Well Trump (USA) tried to buy Greenland of Denmark... so yes i had assume so
still makes no sense imo, can other leaders of other countries just buy them out. if i had enough money could i just like buy antarctica if i wanted? its weird
Well Trump (USA) tried to buy Greenland of Denmark... so yes i had assume so
BloomCissi wrote: I mean, nowadays it's all based on tradition, convention, and politics.
still makes no sense imo, can other leaders of other countries just buy them out. if i had enough money could i just like buy antarctica if i wanted? its weird
That's definitely not how it works. What are you referring to when you say that some countries own other countries?
yea well im sure i dont really have it all figured out, but easiest refrence is i guess germany after the ww2. they were owned by russia, usa, france and gb.
Hufsa wrote: still makes no sense imo, can other leaders of other countries just buy them out. if i had enough money could i just like buy antarctica if i wanted? its weird
That's definitely not how it works. What are you referring to when you say that some countries own other countries?
yea well im sure i dont really have it all figured out, but easiest refrence is i guess germany after the ww2. they were owned by russia, usa, france and gb.
occupied, not owned, congo was owned by king leopold II
BloomCissi wrote: That's definitely not how it works. What are you referring to when you say that some countries own other countries?
yea well im sure i dont really have it all figured out, but easiest refrence is i guess germany after the ww2. they were owned by russia, usa, france and gb.
occupied, not owned, congo was owned by king leopold II
Hufsa wrote: yea well im sure i dont really have it all figured out, but easiest refrence is i guess germany after the ww2. they were owned by russia, usa, france and gb.
occupied, not owned, congo was owned by king leopold II
BloomCissi wrote: That's definitely not how it works. What are you referring to when you say that some countries own other countries?
yea well im sure i dont really have it all figured out, but easiest refrence is i guess germany after the ww2. they were owned by russia, usa, france and gb.
occupied, not owned, congo was owned by king leopold II
is there really a difference in that tho? dunno who the congo king was lol. honestly just think countries are stupid. or more so the fact that you can own a patch of grass and dirt with humans living in them and call it whatever you want and make them do whatever you want. also the money thing. a weird world to live in
Hufsa wrote: yea well im sure i dont really have it all figured out, but easiest refrence is i guess germany after the ww2. they were owned by russia, usa, france and gb.
occupied, not owned, congo was owned by king leopold II
is there really a difference in that tho? dunno who the congo king was lol. honestly just think countries are stupid. or more so the fact that you can own a patch of grass and dirt with humans living in them and call it whatever you want and make them do whatever you want. also the money thing. a weird world to live in
yes there is, occupied entails that it is taken by force, owning is fundamentally more "peaceful" so svalbard is owned by norway, while depending on your sources, hong kong is occupied