(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.
How can I argue a point that you are leaving out of the analysis?
Ummmm, I'm not leaving anything out of the analysis-that entire quote was author's words YOU posted that I cut and pasted. You know, the author you said you agreed with. :) Don't be upset with me that the author's words you posted (that you said you agreed with) somehow work against your argument.
“as a U.S. possession at the time” IS my point.
Ok, so then are you dropping your claim that Panama was US territory and instead saying it was a possession? Or are you saying a possession and a territory are the same thing?
I’m done. I have no extra energy to argue a moot point. I am so sorry I brought it up.
Sorry you feel that way, I've seen many people making the same claim and I'm really just trying to get proof either way. Good talking with ya :)