Here’s the paragraph that I referred to, I went to it from the link I posted to you. It is there.
Not trying to be difficult, but theres nothing there that says the canal zone was US territory. I'm assuming you are referring to this comment:
(One might also argue that the Canal Zone was not truly “foreign” as a U.S. possession at the time, but we can leave that out of the analysis.)
At best the author is saying what someone "might" argue. Do you have anything other than this one authors offhand comment about what someone "might" argue, that can back up your claim that "Panama was AMERICAN TERRITORY at the time."? Not trying to be a pest, lol, I'm just really curious about this issue. Thanks :)
(One might also argue that the Canal Zone was not truly “foreign” as a U.S. possession at the time, but we can leave that out of the analysis.)
How can I argue a point that you are leaving out of the analysis? “as a U.S. possession at the time” IS my point.
NP
I’m done. I have no extra energy to argue a moot point. I am so sorry I brought it up.