Subject:
|
Re: More throwbacks to Hitler...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:47:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
573 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
> I'm being preciosist here, but what exactly was the status of Hawaii in 1941?
> AFAIK it only became a state in 1959, and until the late 1800's it was a
> kingdom. Honest, I got curious when I read this! :-)
Hawaii was a US territory during WWII, just like Puerto Rico is now.
Unlike Puerto Rico, Hawaii had been seeking to become a State back in 1903, with
Congress finally giving full consideration to the issue in the 1930's, well
before WWII began. Statehood issues take time, especially now that it has
become a less commonplace event. So, in answer to your question, Hawaii was in
the process of seeking full Statehood.
> You may be wrong. The Republic of Ireland does not have the Queen's face on
> their Euros... (I say "may" because it is arguable that Ireland was at any
> point a colony, at least in the traditional sense of the word)
Conquered nation. They were once part of Great Britain, but never a
colony.
> Then there is Hong-Kong, I honestly don't know what is on their present
> currency.
Hong Kong is not an independant nation. They reverted from British to
Chinese control a few years ago.
> And Singapore.
I said "1st-world". Singapore is currently considered to be a 3rd-world
nation.
> And Malta.
Still a member of the British Commonwealth, and thus not an "independant
nation".
> And Cyprus.
Was a member of the British Commonwealth until they were invaded by Turkey.
Southern Cyprus is still part of the British Commonwealth (and thus not
"independant", and I believe Northern Cyprus is still Turkish-occupied territory
(and thus also not "independant").
> Are you saying the US will intervene in a hipothetical nuclear conflict
> between India and Pakistan? Wouldn't that be... suicidal?
And allowing India and Pakistan the freedom to develop the world's most
devastating WMD _isn't_ suicidal?!?!? If we allow it to happen without doing
something to stop it, why would any other nation listen to _any_ nation when
told not to develop nuclear weapons? Any intervention in the Indian/Pakistani
nuclear conflict must be done _before_ they can launch nuclear weapons at each
other, not after. And currently, it appears that the threat of allowing their
economies (both of which are heavily propped up by international economic aid)
to utterly collapse is at least getting their attention.
> The UN is not perfect, I agree with you. Far from perfect. But it is the only
> thing in the way of "bully-diplomacy", or "jungle rules" if you prefer.
Lately, the UN doesn't seem to be capable of even enforcing its own
decrees.
> And about the bribes... check the aid Angola (and others, for that matter)
> would receive for voting favourably the US intervention in Iraq, *had it gone
> to vote*. Bribery is NOT an exclusive of petty thug dictators.
Angola alone can't prevent a vote from going through. Both France and
Russia have full and permanent veto powers, so if just one of them says no, it's
the same as if a majority vote said no. And Security Council members should be
above covert bribery (the security of the world is, after all, supposedly
entrusted to them). Angola is not being covertly bribed. We are heavily
financing their economy, as well as those of many other nations, at great
personal expense to US taxpayers, I might add. It is all above-board, and it is
a known restriction that we generally choose not prop up the failing economies
of countries who oppose us politically. Angola is free to petition other
countries for economic aid in lieu of getting it from the US, but they should
expect to receive similar conditions for any potential aid from other
governments.
> ???
> Check the Scotish National Rugby team playing at home... then look for those
> flags.
Special permission was granted by King George V in 1934 to fly it as a
"mark of loyalty", and the Lord Lyon King of Arms has decided this permission
covers flying the flag at football matches, but by an Act passed in 1679 it is
still a capital offense to fly the Rampart Lion from a flagpole or a building
without royal permission.
> If you look carefully, you'll find that the former British colonies are the
> most stable of African nations. Coincidence?
You mean like South Africa? How about Egypt? Maybe you mean the Sudan?
No, no, you must be talking about Zimbabwe, right? "Most stable of African
nations" pretty much defines the word "relative".
> Arguable as argument: these countries began doing it far *after* the US began,
> and in a less bloody fashion. Surprise: they were also the first to begin
> reverting such policies *with visible action*.
Tell that to the Torres Strait Islanders, who are still being denied
Australian citizenship or independant status despite UN pressures, all while
their natural resources are being strip-mined without due compensation.
> Not Afghanistan (which was the most clamorous British defeat in the 19th
> century expansion).
...and which was a British protectorate from 1880-1921. I'd say that
technically qualifies them for inclusion as a one-time British colony.
> Hardly. The Brits wanted instead to "get rid" of Quebec in a neat fashion...
> so they passed the ball. And in the process, they turned from Quebec's
> greatest threat (1840, Act of Union) to its greatest guarantee of national
> identity...
They still suppressed the Canadian revolutionaries in their bid to wrest
freedom from the British Crown in 1837. Obviously they had some level of desire
to retain Canadian control, and I'd say they probably weren't interested in
"getting rid" of Quebec simply because they didn't like French-Canadians. I'm
sure they had concerns over what might happen if they tried to maintain direct
control over that Province. Also, the Act of Union didn't actually give them
any form of meaningful self-governance, as the regional governors could still
appoint their Cabinets without Assembly approval. That was first acheived in
1848, and the political instability that resulted from "responsible government"
is what led directly to Canada becoming an independant nation in 1867. As I
understand it, the French-Canadians were also royally shafted by the Act of
Union, which highly favored Upper Canada over Lower Canada.
> (Not-so-rich people go to Cuba, and even get a discount... :-)
I wouldn't, even if it was free.
> So what, it should not even be attempted? Defeatism, coming from an american?
Not at all. If you would kindly convince the scourge of
medical-malpractice law teams to stop suing for millions of dollars over the
tiniest little mistakes or uncontrollably random happenstance, we might find
that the money wasted on malpractice insurance could be rechanneled into funding
better medical care for the less fortunate. I'll let you cry on my shoulder if
your feelings are hurt when they laugh in your face.
> Agreed, very few people do so.
> Now, assuming for a second that you're a Christian: isn't that the lamest
> argument, "others don't help so I don't have to do it either"? Heck, if
> there's anything from christian ethics that I identify with, it is solidarity!
What makes you think that solidarity isn't based on self-centered motives
at the core? If you experience joy from helping the needy, aren't you motivated
at least in part by the joy you experience? And if you're motivated by joy on
any level, how can you say you're doing it for purely altruistic reasons?
> You don't want them to change their minds either. Remember the amount of
> radars and airbases the US have access to in Canada...
I think we'd weather bad political relations a lot better than Canada
would. We've got Alaska in the northwest, and Europe in the northeast. It's
certainly more convenient to have access to military installments in Canada, but
I doubt there are currently any countries which are both capable of directly
attacking the United States and foolish enough to try. Unless we have the
misfortune of electing some simpering ultra-pacifist wuss as the leader of the
Free World, I think the threat of imminent reprisal is enough to deter any
country capable of waging war on US soil.
> In sequence with the preceding paragraph, what if Canadians one day grow fed
> up of this paternalistic approach? What will the US do then?
I imagine we'll continue to have the world's most powerful military, and
life will go on pretty much as it has. We'd probably also enforce trade
restrictions, which I suspect would be much more harmful to the Canadian economy
than to the US economy.
> I can imagine the Canadians pretty much relaxed, since *they* don't have any
> enemies...
Everyone has enemies. Even Canada.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: More throwbacks to Hitler...
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote: -snip- (...) -snip- Um... Torres Strait Islanders being denied Australian Citizenship? I don't think that is the case... or are you meaning those from the coastal area of PNG (who are not Australian (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: More throwbacks to Hitler...
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote: <snip some good stuff that I didn't know--good geography and history lesson there> (...) Well isn't that the American Dream--get rich quick? Everything is a lawsuit these days--how much is a life (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: More throwbacks to Hitler...
|
| (...) Thanks for the info, I greatly appreciate it. (...) Hence my doubt regading this one: colony refers to settlement, or pure governance? I'll go with the first, in order to restrict the options. (...) You said nothing about independant nations (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More throwbacks to Hitler...
|
| (...) I'm being preciosist here, but what exactly was the status of Hawaii in 1941? AFAIK it only became a state in 1959, and until the late 1800's it was a kingdom. Honest, I got curious when I read this! :-) (...) You may be wrong. The Republic of (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
