Subject:
|
Re: More throwbacks to Hitler...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:01:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
517 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for the info, I greatly appreciate it.
> > 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.
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.
> > 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.
You said nothing about independant nations in your post: you mentioned "former
British colonies". Hong Kong WAS a Crown Colony :-)
> > And Singapore.
>
> I said "1st-world". Singapore is currently considered to be a 3rd-world
> nation.
Check that claim! Do not confuse "first-world" with "western countries".
Singapore IS, in fact, first world (advantages of being a city-state...)
> > And Malta.
>
> Still a member of the British Commonwealth, and thus not an "independant
> nation".
Innacurate: they are a republic, with their own president and no such thing as a
Crown representative.
The Commonwealth is no longer the instrument of British colonial power it used
to be until the late sixties... it lost its significance from the day the UK
joined the EEC in 1973. In the present, it's more of a forum than anything else
- Mozambique, which was never in the British Empire but is surrounded by
Commonwealth nations, joined a few years ago.
Malta IS, in fact, independant.
> > 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").
Southern Cyprus is a republic. Northern Cyprus is "an issue"... nominally, a
republic as well. Neither has the Queen as head of state, nor any appointed
governor - ergo, independant. The UK has even promised to return the two
airbases it still retains in the island when the dispute is settled.
> > 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?!?!?
No. You're currently in the position of having the toy, and wanting it in small
limited edition so that it has more value. In the end, neither country will ever
use it, since they both know the price is total anihilation.
> 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?
Indeed, why? Should they listen?
In the end, the only nation that leaves me wondering if this doubt is legitimate
is North Korea. But the Chinese don't seem worried...
The problem is not the nuclear weaponry in itself: it is a lunatic behind the
button, surrounded by lunatics who will let him go wild.
> Any intervention in the Indian/Pakistani
> nuclear conflict must be done _before_ they can launch nuclear weapons at each
> other, not after.
Why intervene? Do you want to risk uniting those two and become their target
instead? Do you now understand why intervention is futile?
> 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.
India's is not that much dependant on foreign aid as it is on migrant labour.
Plus, they have the second largest domestic market - the growth potential is
comparable only to China's, and you'll find that China developed well enough
without "aid" (rather attracting investment).
> > 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.
It never was. The only thing that kept the UN resolutions more or less respected
was the cold war: it was in the best interest of both sides to have the opponent
agreeing with a solution before other states.
> > 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.
But they must vote "for". It was the case.
> 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.
I know.
I don't get the veto power in the security council, since it is a reminder of
whom has won WW2. Why should anyone have a permanent seat? Or veto power? Or
better still... why only 15 nations get to decide at any one point the whole
issues of world security? That organ is anacronic, at best.
> 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.
You're financing *zip* with aid money. The gross of what Angola gets from the US
is Oil money. Plenty of it, if you care to know. Not that there is anything
wrong with it, mind you! What I mean to say is that the aid value is neglectable
in the angolan economy.
> 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.
Angola does not need help money; they have plenty of oil and diamonds. The aid
they receive in the form of money ends up as bribes.
> > ???
> > 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.
Rampart Lion? Isn't it a St Andrew's Cross?
That is a law made in acknowledgement that the opposite would be unenforcable...
And frankly, since the Scots got their parliament back, it is kind of anacronic
to stick to the law.
In any case, a scot being accused of flying its colours could always argue
successfully at the ECJ that it is his right to do so. Being a signatary of the
ECJ, the Crown would have to comply (and more than likely strick that law).
> > 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?
Yes. Where despite all the violence, they held elections. The *political* scene
in SA has been very stable in the past decade, mind you.
> How about Egypt?
Egypt was a protectorate :-)
> Maybe you mean the Sudan?
A co-protectorate, run jointly with Egypt :-P
> No, no, you must be talking about Zimbabwe, right? "Most stable of African
> nations" pretty much defines the word "relative".
Evidently - not a single african nation has the same stability as North America
or Europe. Of course this is a comparison between african nations!
Check "RDC", "Rwanda", "Burundi" (fmr. Belgium);
Check "Algeria", "Senegal", "Comores" (frm. France);
Check "Guinea-Bissau", "Angola", "Mozambique" (frm. Portugal).
My point: the former british colonies in Africa were not exempted from the wave
of dictators that swept the continent from the sixties onwards. However, they
were seldom field for civil wars (the most obvious exception being Nigeria)
Check Tanzania or Kenya, for instance. In our Euro-American context, they are
pretty unstable. In the african context, they have enjoyed a fairly good
stability. Which is not to say it will last - I only claim the former British
colonies were more prepared to face independence, benefiting from institutions
that granted a relative degree of stability.
> > 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.
Or you can tell that to Nauru inhabitants. They were also stripped of their
mineral assets, but got their independence AND compensation in the form of an
Office building in central $ydney.
> > 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.
A British protectorate, because on the other side of Afghanistan was Russia. The
afghanis were well aware the best way to keep the Russians out was to say the
Brits were already in (despite that being not 100% true).
And read on the beginning, I restricted "colony" to "settlement" - otherwise
Ireland WAS a 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.
Oh but they did. The British politician sent to assess the situation in Canada
after the 1837 events proposed the "assimilation" of Lower Canada by Upper
Canada, which sparkled the protest in the first.
And the British DIDN'T like french canadians. The mistrust was (is?) reciprocal,
and it's hard to find such an irrational hatred as the one between Frogs and
Roastbeefs...
> I'm
> sure they had concerns over what might happen if they tried to maintain direct
> control over that Province.
Not so much that, as they were focusing on India. they wanted to stabilize
things on Canada, and fast.
> 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.
Exactly, that was my point. In the end, the independance came because of that:
the Quebecois were tremendously upset with the outcome of the AoU, and wanted
another solution - the only way to grant their wishes without stepping on
Ontarian toes was Independence, in the form of federation. Ta-daa! That's why I
say the Brits passed from being Quebecans greatest threat onto their greatest
guarantee (contitutionally, Quebec enjoyed many Crown privileges since the
independance)
> > (Not-so-rich people go to Cuba, and even get a discount... :-)
>
> I wouldn't, even if it was free.
Why would you? You live in the US and have Health insurance. It would be pretty
unethical to get free treatment in an empoverished nation, wouldn't it? ;-)
> > 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.
Why should *I* cry? It's your legal system that allows it, deal with it.
> > 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 consider "help now to be helped later" a self centered motive, then yes,
it is based on self centered motives, and pretty much always.
> 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?
What are altruistic reasons, then? In the end, no action you undertake is
altruistic *to you*. However, if you don't ask for compensation, you're being
altruistic *to others*, and that's what matters. Since "joy" in unmeasurable, it
cannot count as compensation, can it?
> > 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.
As things stand, if Canada "got rid" of the US, guess who'd follow. The US would
be left with UK, Norway, and the "New Europe". And then, who'd be the threat?
Why the need for bases, now that the threat is no longer coming from the cold?
Get it?
> 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.
That's precisely that line of thinking that makes Iran, Pakistan, and India want
to have nuclear capabilities, especially after Iraq's conflict.
> Unless we have the
> misfortune of electing some simpering ultra-pacifist wuss as the leader of the
> Free World,
Since I don't get to vote for him, he's not my leader! :-P
(Or is the free world an alias for USA?)
> I think the threat of imminent reprisal is enough to deter any
> country capable of waging war on US soil.
Agreed!
And read above your proposed intervention in India/Pakistan. 2+2=?
> > 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.
Exactly.
> We'd probably also enforce trade
> restrictions, which I suspect would be much more harmful to the Canadian economy
> than to the US economy.
Not if they wisely turn to the East and West, instead of the South. I mean, they
can't sell us electricity, but most everything else is tradable...
> > I can imagine the Canadians pretty much relaxed, since *they* don't have any
> > enemies...
>
> Everyone has enemies. Even Canada.
Whom, may I ask, threatens Canada?
What enemies does MY country have, for that matter? Name *one* enemy intrinsecal
to Portugal, and you've proved your point.
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: More throwbacks to Hitler...
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 7-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
|
|
|
|
