In article , Spiv wrote:

"David Thornley" wrote in message
m...
In article , Spiv
wrote:

Yes I am. Alaska has a lot of Canada between it and the USA.

If you're going to talk some language vaguely related to English,
as opposed to English, you might as well let us know beforehand.

Alaska and Hawaii are part of the US.

As is are the Falklands a part of the UK if we go to the point of who has
sovereignty.

Sovereignity is not the issue here. Do the people who live in the
Falklands vote for members of the Parliament that sits in London?
Do they have UK citizenship? It is possible to have sovereignity
over a territory without it being a part of the sovereign country.
That's not the point here.

However these places are not a part of the main mother. They
are detached and acquired much later.

Some are, some aren't. The Falklands is not a part of the UK in
the same way Hawaii is part of the US.

Between WWI and WWII, East
Prussia was part of Germany.

And it disappeared because it was not a part of the mother country.

No, it disappeared along with a good chunk of Silesia, in a
Stalin-dictated border shift.

Granted that the US stole the islands, like a lot of other US
territory, are you sure the locals want independence?

Last I read.

Could be. It really doesn't matter much, except to them.

I wouldn't
be surprised to find some do; on Puerto Rico (stolen in the 1898 war)

Not a part of the USA apparently being some sort of protectorate as are the
US Virgin Islands.

Puerto Rico is in its own anomalous status, and it isn't really part of
the US by the standards I set. It is conceivable that it could be
formally independent within the next ten or twenty years, although
it would surprise me. That isn't happening with Hawaii.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-