"those in peril on the sea" - in this case, Canadian submariners
Kate Gladstone
for those who believe that prayer "does things"
let me direct your attention to the 56 remaining sailors on the disabled
Canadian submarine which went adrift in the North Atlantic during its
first voyage after a fire broke out onboard shortly after the sub left
Scotland. (The fire killed one sailor, through smoke inhalation. Two
others suffered various injuries: a rescue helicopter managed to get the
more seriously injured one to shore and a hospital, but apparently no
way exists to rescue the rest of the crew.)
One of many news-stories about this:
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=59
8506§ion=news
Canada acquired this submarine from the British Navy, along with three
others (all previously used by the British Navy). All four of the subs,
since the acquisition, have proven to have many, MANY mechanical
problems.
"Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee
For those in peril on the sea - "
- but what about those who *put* them in extra peril?!
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Kate Gladstone - Handwriting Repair - ka...@global2000.net
http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dee
> In case nobody has yet mentioned it ...
> for those who believe that prayer "does things"
> let me direct your attention to the 56 remaining sailors on the disabled
> Canadian submarine which went adrift in the North Atlantic during its
> first voyage after a fire broke out onboard shortly after the sub left
> Scotland. (The fire killed one sailor, through smoke inhalation.
<snip>
> "Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee
> For those in peril on the sea - "
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/mp3/Eternal Father.mp3
(The space breaks the link, but is required to get the address correct.
I recommend cut & paste.)
Nohbody
At least in Agent, putting <> around it makes it all one link, as
demonstrated above in the quoted material by Dee. Also, by
substituting %20 for the space (hex code of the space character) you
get the same end result, like so:
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/mp3/Eternal%20Father.mp3
--
Dan Poore
ICQ UIN: 3908950 <http://wwp.mirabilis.com/3908950>
A Meeting of Minds <http://nohbody.com/schtuff/meeting.html> - a
(mostly) cliche-free first contact story (updated periodically)
Dee
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 21:20:40 -0500, Dee <ke4...@amsat.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Kate Gladstone wrote:
>>
>>>In case nobody has yet mentioned it ...
>>>for those who believe that prayer "does things"
>>>let me direct your attention to the 56 remaining sailors on the disabled
>>>Canadian submarine which went adrift in the North Atlantic during its
>>>first voyage after a fire broke out onboard shortly after the sub left
>>>Scotland. (The fire killed one sailor, through smoke inhalation.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>"Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee
>>>For those in peril on the sea - "
>>
>><http://www.cyberhymnal.org/mp3/Eternal Father.mp3>
>>
>>(The space breaks the link, but is required to get the address correct.
>>I recommend cut & paste.)
>
>
> At least in Agent, putting <> around it makes it all one link, as
> demonstrated above in the quoted material by Dee. Also, by
> substituting %20 for the space (hex code of the space character) you
> get the same end result, like so:
>
> http://www.cyberhymnal.org/mp3/Eternal%20Father.mp3
>
Thanks, Dan. Hope I can remember it next time I need to know. Both
versions work in Mozilla.
Oh, and I guess I should have said what the lnk was to--an MP3 of the
Navy Sea Chanters singing the first stanza of Eternal Father.
--Dee
Lee Gold
>
> At least in Agent, putting <> around it makes it all one link, as
> demonstrated above in the quoted material by Dee. Also, by
> substituting %20 for the space (hex code of the space character) you
> get the same end result, like so:
>
> http://www.cyberhymnal.org/mp3/Eternal%20Father.mp3
>
> --
> Dan Poore
Worked very nicely viewed with Netscape.
Many thanks for the information.
--Lee
R Oxley
"Kate Gladstone" <ka...@global2000.net> wrote in message
news:kate-7D76A3.2...@syrcnyrdrs-01-ge0.nyroc.rr.com...
> In case nobody has yet mentioned it ...
> for those who believe that prayer "does things"
> let me direct your attention to the 56 remaining sailors on the disabled
Here is a "tiny url" that connects the broken link:
Tiny URL, http://tinyurl.com/ , like Google, is your friend!
I was going to make a statement about how any and all of the ships that are
with the broken sub could take it in tow, including the US sub if it really
had to, but at the end of the article they mentioned 4 to 5 meter waves!
That would render a towing operation problematic at best, even for an
oceangoing tug. The good part is, that a submarine is one of the safest
types of ocean vessel in which to ride out heavy seas, even with the main
engines out of order, so long as they have enough power to run the bilge
pumps! But with no motive power, that boat is going to end up with the waves
on the beam, and it is going to roll like crazy. There likely isn't anyone
with a strong enough stomache after this long to still be able to keep their
chow down! The article said they do have some power aboard. With just a
little luck, they should be able to ride out the heavy seas long enough for
towing to be safer.
But you are correct, Kate. Several figurative heads in the Royal Navy should
roll for this screwup. Those boats should have been refitted enough to
safely transit the Atlantic before being turned over to the Canadians.
Bob
San Diego
Perplexed Seal
"Kate Gladstone"
> Canada acquired this submarine from the British Navy, along with three
> others (all previously used by the British Navy). All four of the subs,
> since the acquisition, have proven to have many, MANY mechanical
> problems.
Just a point, all 4 boats were bought and accepted into service but never
used following a political decision to focus on Nuclear powered boats and
the deterrent fleet.
They have been in mothballs for about 10 years or so.
The Canadian teams have also been in extensive sea training for several
months, the Canadian forces have no organic submarine capacity at present so
they have all been trained in the UK to bring some form of capability.
Yes the refits have taken longer than planned, for a number of reasons.
> "Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee
> For those in peril on the sea - "
>
> - but what about those who *put* them in extra peril?!
The boat is now being towed back to HM Naval Base Clyde where an
investigation will be carried out.
Regards
Alistair
John in Detroit
> In case nobody has yet mentioned it ...
> for those who believe that prayer "does things"
> let me direct your attention to the 56 remaining sailors on the disabled
> Canadian submarine which went adrift in the North Atlantic during its
> first voyage after a fire broke out onboard shortly after the sub left
> Scotland. (The fire killed one sailor, through smoke inhalation. Two
> others suffered various injuries: a rescue helicopter managed to get the
> more seriously injured one to shore and a hospital, but apparently no
> way exists to rescue the rest of the crew.)
I had not seen this one before....
And by the way, A group of doctors in England did a bit of research,
basically it was a double blind study.
In this study they submitted, randomly selected names from the coronary
unit at a hospital to a prayer group... There were a few pre-conditions
and rules.
1: The patient's names were screened against the prayer group so as to
make sure none were family or friends (This was done before random
selection)
2: The prayer group was not allowed to contact the patients directly, or
tell anyone outside of their group who they prayed for
What the doctors did was chart the progress of ALL the patients, prayed
for or not, and then, once the patient went home (in either sense of
the term) they matched up the names with the list to see if they were a
prayer patient, or not.
Those prayed for were far (30%) more likely to recover, and to recover
fully, and faster, than those who were not.
All other factors, Age, condition, treatment and such, were randomized
out. Only prayer was the difference... Not even the doctors knew who
got prayer and who did not, (a secratary matched up numbered charts
with prayer groups. the doctors matched the numbers with the patients.
30 percent better with prayer... There are a lot of drugs that can not
demonstrate a 30 percent success rate
Mike Dworetsky
news:xwL9d.15208$R43.3718@fed1read01...
Video shown on UK TV shows the sub rolling severelyin heavy seas (I got
queasy just watching); the pictures of the helicopter rescue by Royal Navy
air-sea rescue show that it was truly "hairy". Apparently the weather
calmed down a lot and the sub is being towed back to Faslane.
> But you are correct, Kate. Several figurative heads in the Royal Navy
should
> roll for this screwup. Those boats should have been refitted enough to
> safely transit the Atlantic before being turned over to the Canadians.
>
It is by no means clear whether the fire was due to a defect of the refit or
an error by the crew. The boat had undergone sea trials before handing over
and the Royal Canadian Navy had been involved in refit and trials, AIUI.
The Canadian complaints are mostly about how the other three boats now in
service are in need of hull repairs due to corrosion.
Don't forget they were priced very low (about 1/5? of what new subs might
cost). You don't expect miracles when you buy a 20-yr old second-hand car,
do you?
Mike Dworetsky
Margaret Middleton
>
> roll for this screwup. Those boats should have been refitted enough to
> safely transit the Atlantic before being turned over to the Canadians.
>
> Bob
> San Diego
They apparently only got them into good enough shape to get FROM
Enbland TO Canada...once.
Margaret
atwork
"Gary McGath" <gmc...@mcgathREMOVETHIS.com> wrote in message
news:gmcgath-2CB154...@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <7cO9d.5135$5b1....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> John in Detroit <Bla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > And by the way, A group of doctors in England did a bit of research,
> > basically it was a double blind study.
> >
> > In this study they submitted, randomly selected names from the coronary
> > unit at a hospital to a prayer group... There were a few pre-conditions
> > and rules.
> >
> > 1: The patient's names were screened against the prayer group so as to
> > make sure none were family or friends (This was done before random
> > selection)
> >
> > 2: The prayer group was not allowed to contact the patients directly, or
> > tell anyone outside of their group who they prayed for
> >
> > What the doctors did was chart the progress of ALL the patients, prayed
> > for or not, and then, once the patient went home (in either sense of
> > the term) they matched up the names with the list to see if they were a
> > prayer patient, or not.
> >
> > Those prayed for were far (30%) more likely to recover, and to recover
> > fully, and faster, than those who were not.
>
> implemented that show a consistent success rate. The results of a
> single study are subject to the monkeys-and-typewriters effect; out of
> every ten thousand studies done (and there are many, many legitimate
> studies undertaken every year), one will have an outcome that would
> occur by chance only once in ten thousand times. As far as I can tell,
> there was a single study, whose results have never been repeated, which
> the advocates of faith healing have cited over and over. Since the
> references to the study are usually vague, it's hard to tell.
>
> A percentage difference is meaningless in assessing a study without
> knowing the size of the group. There are frequently scare stories in
> the media about some population having a 50% greater than normal rate of
> occurrence of some rare cancer, without mentioning that this meant there
> were three occurrences rather than the statistically expected two. How
> significant the 30% difference was depends on the size of the test group.
>
> If you're going to cite statistics to demonstrate the alleged efficacy
> of faith healing, cite the study properly and provide sufficient
> information to evaluate it.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and
without faith I am nothing."
`"But," says Man, "the English doctor-prayer study is a dead giveaway isn't
it? It could not have happened by chance. It proves you exist, and so
therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
`"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a
puff of logic.
--
Oscagne
/with apologies to Douglas Adams.
Marc
>> But you are correct, Kate. Several figurative heads in the Royal Navy should
>> roll for this screwup. Those boats should have been refitted enough to
>> safely transit the Atlantic before being turned over to the Canadians.
>>
>> Bob
>> San Diego
>
> They apparently only got them into good enough shape to get FROM
> Enbland TO Canada...once.
A nice urban myth in ther making, a pity the submarines didn't actually
leave from England.
Howard Berkowitz
wa8...@do.not.spam.arrl.net wrote:
And where can the citation for this, which seems to have very little to
do with the thread, be found in a peer-reviewed medical journal?
Fred J. McCall
:It is by no means clear whether the fire was due to a defect of the refit or
:an error by the crew. The boat had undergone sea trials before handing over
:and the Royal Canadian Navy had been involved in refit and trials, AIUI.
:The Canadian complaints are mostly about how the other three boats now in
:service are in need of hull repairs due to corrosion.
:
:Don't forget they were priced very low (about 1/5? of what new subs might
:cost). You don't expect miracles when you buy a 20-yr old second-hand car,
:do you?
Listening to the whole thing, what is most extraordinary to me is what
it says about the kit handed to the Royal Navy if UK defenses of the
quality of these boats and Canadian complaints about the same are both
true.
The UK claim is that these boats are up to the service standard
required for RN use. If true, that's a pretty damning statement about
quality standards of the RN, wouldn't you say?
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Boojumhunter
"Howard Berkowitz" <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
news:hcb-6EBDBF.1...@news-central.giganews.com...
Richard Eney
Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
>
>"Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee
>For those in peril on the sea - "
>
>- but what about those who *put* them in extra peril?!
The Canadian Navy, like our own (and most nations') is a volunteer
service.
-- Dick Eney
Stephanie
>And by the way, A group of doctors in England did a bit of research,
>basically it was a double blind study.
>
>In this study they submitted, randomly selected names from the coronary
>unit at a hospital to a prayer group... There were a few pre-conditions
>and rules.
>
>1: The patient's names were screened against the prayer group so as to
>make sure none were family or friends (This was done before random
>selection)
>
>2: The prayer group was not allowed to contact the patients directly, or
>tell anyone outside of their group who they prayed for
>
>What the doctors did was chart the progress of ALL the patients, prayed
>for or not, and then, once the patient went home (in either sense of
>the term) they matched up the names with the list to see if they were a
>prayer patient, or not.
>
>Those prayed for were far (30%) more likely to recover, and to recover
>fully, and faster, than those who were not.
>
>All other factors, Age, condition, treatment and such, were randomized
>out. Only prayer was the difference... Not even the doctors knew who
>got prayer and who did not, (a secratary matched up numbered charts
>with prayer groups. the doctors matched the numbers with the patients.
>
>30 percent better with prayer... There are a lot of drugs that can not
>demonstrate a 30 percent success rate
>
I could aruge that those being prayed over had a firmer sense that people
cared, therefore had more reason to improve. People generaly have stronger
recoveries when they know people still want them around.
--
Stephanie
"And I'd give up forever to touch you
Cuz I know that you feel me somehow
You're the closest to heaven that I'll ever be
And I don't want to go home right now"--GooGoo Dolls
Mike Dworetsky
"Marc" <Marcd...@btinterent.com> wrote in message
news:ck8mrt$94g$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Faslane is on the West Coast of Scotland.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Perplexed Seal
"Mike Dworetsky"
>
>
> "Marc"
>> A nice urban myth in ther making, a pity the submarines didn't actually
>> leave from England.
>
> Faslane is on the West Coast of Scotland.
Which means that Marc is exactly right.
Alistair
My Name Is Not Simon Jester
> In case nobody has yet mentioned it ...
> for those who believe that prayer "does things"
> let me direct your attention to the 56 remaining sailors on the disabled
> Canadian submarine which went adrift in the North Atlantic during its
> first voyage after a fire broke out onboard shortly after the sub left
> Scotland. (The fire killed one sailor, through smoke inhalation. Two
> others suffered various injuries: a rescue helicopter managed to get the
> more seriously injured one to shore and a hospital, but apparently no
> way exists to rescue the rest of the crew.)
>
> One of many news-stories about this:
>
> http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=59
> 8506§ion=news
>
> Canada acquired this submarine from the British Navy, along with three
> others (all previously used by the British Navy). All four of the subs,
> since the acquisition, have proven to have many, MANY mechanical
> problems.
>
> "Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee
> For those in peril on the sea - "
>
> - but what about those who *put* them in extra peril?!
>
They should have just left the submarines to the West Edmonton Mall...
--
Simon Jester says my name is not real...
Bad jokes will be told, straight faced or with glee.
Puns a specialty.
LJ - mynameisnotreal
Bill Reich
Which has the massive importance of showing that the defective submarines
that the British sold to their friends from across the North Atlantic left
from a port in a different part of the British Isles.
No court would convict.
Will in New Haven
--
Clearly, and despite competing opinions, a kitten is substantially preferable to a puppy. It's also, incidentally, obvious that a new video card is 1.5 times as desirable as a baby.
In their favour, babies can be made at home and offer superior resale value.
The kitten, however, is obviously the better option.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Dee
> Faslane is on the West Coast of Scotland.
So only Scots live life inthe Faslane?
--Dee
Joel Polowin
Even in a volunteer service, those volunteers have a reasonable
expectation that they will not be put in danger unnecessarily.
--
Joel Polowin jpolow...@sympatico.ca but delete "XYZZy" from address
"If you show trophy fish in first act, then by third act you must
show that it is only red herring." -- Pavel Chekov
John in Detroit
> In article <7cO9d.5135$5b1....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
>
> I'll believe that when I see widespread faith healing programs
> implemented that show a consistent success rate. The results of a
> single study are subject to the monkeys-and-typewriters effect; out of
> every ten thousand studies done (and there are many, many legitimate
> studies undertaken every year), one will have an outcome that would
> occur by chance only once in ten thousand times. As far as I can tell,
> there was a single study, whose results have never been repeated, which
> the advocates of faith healing have cited over and over. Since the
> references to the study are usually vague, it's hard to tell.
While it is true I do not recall the size of the study, It was a fairly
decent number of patients as they took their time (This type of study
has a fairly low cost factor)
There is a major difference between this and faith healing however
In faith healing it is believed "Faith alone" These were medical
doctors and the patients were all receiving the best of medical care the
hospital had to offer.... The difference is that where some patients
received only the best medical care the hospital had.
Others received that PLUS prayer... and they tended to recover faster,
with better recoveries, and shorter hospital stays.
So it was "Prayer Assist"
Also in faith healing it is the faith of the PATIENT that matters
In this case that was not factored in, The patients prayed for were
unaware they were even in the study till after the fact. Many may not
even be aware of it now... Since medically, nothing was done different,
there was no need to sign permission forms or anything like that.
John in Detroit
> If you're going to cite statistics to demonstrate the alleged efficacy
> of faith healing, cite the study properly and provide sufficient
> information to evaluate it.
>
I beileve you also asked for the cititation.
I do not read British medical journals... However i do read New
Scientist Magazine's online newsletter (E-mail list)
And it is there that I read the article. It did cite a proper medical
journal and it had the info. However now the article will have moved to
the archive, and since I'm not paying the membership fee I can not pull
it up.
I also referenced it on Compuserve's diabetes forum at the time, I may
have put more information in that post (Since I had the article in front
of me) but you will have to look it up,
http://community.compuserve.com/diabetes should get you read only access
to that forum
Howard Berkowitz
wa8...@do.not.spam.arrl.net wrote:
While I am not suggesting any statistical validity, I have watched the
physiological monitors of patients in an ICU, who received the Catholic
Sacrament for the Sick. The ones that were awake consistently improved
in terms of vital signs (and other parameters if monitored), although
the benefits tended to wear off gradually after several hours.
Unconscious patients did not seem to change.
Let's put it this way -- if you are religious, seriously ill, and aware,
being blessed every 4 hours or so might be a good idea. I can't
generalize beyond that.
Paul Rubin
> I do not read British medical journals... However i do read New
> Scientist Magazine's online newsletter (E-mail list)
>
> And it is there that I read the article. It did cite a proper medical
> journal and it had the info. However now the article will have moved
> to the archive, and since I'm not paying the membership fee I can not
> pull it up.
You can get free access to the New Scientist archive through a 2-week
trial subscription. If I remember correctly, you need to supply an
email address, but not other personal info.
Engr Bohn
Hail, Dee! We who are about to post salute you.
>> Faslane is on the West Coast of Scotland.
>
> So only Scots live life inthe Faslane?
Oh, Dee -- I never thought you'd stoop so low. I thought you'd be more
interested in sun spots than pun Scots.
Take care,
cb
ps:
888888888888888888888
--
Christopher A. Bohn ____________|____________
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~bohn/ ' ** ** " (o) " ** ** '
"I wish to God these calculations had been executed by steam!"
- Charles Babbage
TreetopAngel
"Dee" quips:
> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>
>> Faslane is on the West Coast of Scotland.
>
> So only Scots live life inthe Faslane?
>
KEYBOARD!
E!
Big_Fella
"Stephanie" <merfi...@aol.combzzyxvt> wrote in message
news:20041009120950...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> >From: John in Detroit
<snipt>
> >basically it was a double blind study.
> I could aruge that those being prayed over had a firmer sense that people
> cared, therefore had more reason to improve. People generaly have
stronger
> recoveries when they know people still want them around.
>
> --
> Stephanie
> "And I'd give up forever to touch you
> Cuz I know that you feel me somehow
> You're the closest to heaven that I'll ever be
> And I don't want to go home right now"--GooGoo Dolls
>
>
the old auto suggestion thing - while valid - does not apply in this case.
--
If *everybody knows* something,you can
guarantee - by a ratio of about a million to
one - that's it's not so.
Fred J. McCall
:Mike Dworetsky wrote:
:
:> Faslane is on the West Coast of Scotland.
:
:So only Scots live life inthe Faslane?
That would certainly explain all the heavily spiced foods. :-)
Norman Bullen
>
> While I am not suggesting any statistical validity, I have watched the
> physiological monitors of patients in an ICU, who received the Catholic
> Sacrament for the Sick. The ones that were awake consistently improved
> in terms of vital signs (and other parameters if monitored), although
> the benefits tended to wear off gradually after several hours.
> Unconscious patients did not seem to change.
>
> Let's put it this way -- if you are religious, seriously ill, and aware,
> being blessed every 4 hours or so might be a good idea. I can't
> generalize beyond that.
Have you ever had the opportunity to observe the results when a
conscious patient received Last Rites?
Norm
--
--
To reply, change domain to an adult feline.
Howard Berkowitz
Norman Bullen <no...@BlackKittenAssociates.com.INVALID> wrote:
Yes. Same thing, Sacrament for the Sick being the new term for Last
Rites. The Catholic Church decided that sick people were depressed
enough without telling them these were the Last Rites.
I can't say that I saw a statistically valid sample, but I observed
improvement of physiological status for 2-4 hours, for reasons I cannot
explain. Since these were conscious patients, suggestion can be a
factor. I did not see changes in patients with altered consciousness or
lack of consciousness.
Marc
>>>> A nice urban myth in ther making, a pity the submarines didn't actually
>>>> leave from England.
>>>
>>> Faslane is on the West Coast of Scotland.
>>
>>Which means that Marc is exactly right.
>>
>>Alistair
>>
>
> Which has the massive importance of showing that the defective submarines
> that the British sold to their friends from across the North Atlantic left
> from a port in a different part of the British Isles.
If one easily checked "fact" was incorrect, how much weight should be
given to the rest of the report?
John in Detroit
> Let's put it this way -- if you are religious, seriously ill, and aware,
> being blessed every 4 hours or so might be a good idea. I can't
> generalize beyond that.
IN the British study they eliminated the "Religous" "Aware of being
blessed" factors And those who were prayed for still improved faster
As I said, it was written up and published, and the publicaion was
re-written and published in New Scientist mag, if you can find a library
that carries that mag look over the last 12 issues and you should find
it, I don't think it was more than a year ago
John in Detroit
>
> You can get free access to the New Scientist archive through a 2-week
> trial subscription. If I remember correctly, you need to supply an
> email address, but not other personal info.
I believe you are correct.. But I did that a couple of years ago and
computers keep records so I suspect I can't do it again.
Anyway... I've said all I have on this issue. If folks wish to follow
it up. That is the starting place. I was a bit more specific in the
compuserve post and anyone can look those up, I was 73455,43 at the time
I posted it, I'm not any more
Margaret Middleton
> > Enbland TO Canada...once.
>
> A nice urban myth in ther making, a pity the submarines didn't actually
> leave from England.
I meant, they got them into condition to deliver to Canada.
Just barely.
David G. Bell
<YY7ad.15432$Qv5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
New Scientist is a weekly. Not a monthly publication.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Bill Reich
"Cybernaut" <cybe...@orion-nebula.co.uk> wrote:
>Err, Canada is self-sufficient in food and resources. Why would they need
>the US to defend them, and against whom? America's money and troops are
>spent on defending the interests (markets) of the USA, not her allies.
>
>BTW, Canadian troops were fighting Hitler for nearly 2 years before the
US
>decided to get its arse off the fence.
>
>If you *must* post to a British (or even Canadian) newsgroup, please try
not
>to inflict American spelling on us. The word is "Defence".
I agree with much of what you say about Canada and besides it is Canada's
business if one of its policies went wrong.
However, it is "defense" when I type it, just as it is "defence" when you
type it and it is mutually intelligable and you shouldn't make a fuss about
it because you aren't going to change anything.
>
>"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:O4W9d.428$C4.1...@eagle.america.net...
>> "Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee
>> For those in peril on the sea - "
>>
>> My heart goes out to the noble, hard-working, Canadian submariners and
>> their families.
>>
>> We should all commiserate with them and pray no more pain and suffering
>> will be inflicted on them.
>>
>> However, I cannot help but wonder how much of this disaster can be laid
>> at the feet of the CANADIAN PEOPLE and their GOVERNMENTS for STILL
>> trying to do things on the CHEAP and not to fund their National DEFENSE
>> Budget adequately.
>>
>> The CANADIAN PEOPLE do seem to be NIGGARDLY and SHORT-SIGHTED when it
>> comes to giving their soldiers, sailors and airmen the TOOLS they need
>> to do the job.
>>
>> And that is a damned shame.
>>
>> They cannot expect the United States to assume all the costs of
>> defending their interests in the 21st Century.
>>
>> DSH
>>
>> "Perplexed Seal" <alrae_s...@iee.org> wrote in message
>> news:2spn56F...@uni-berlin.de...
>> |
>> | "Kate Gladstone"
>> |
>> | > Canada acquired this submarine from the British Navy, along with
>> three
>> | > others (all previously used by the British Navy). All four of the
>> subs,
>> | > since the acquisition, have proven to have many, MANY mechanical
>> | > problems.
>> |
>> | Just a point, all 4 boats were bought and accepted into service but
>> never
>> | used following a political decision to focus on Nuclear powered boats
>> and
>> | the deterrent fleet.
>> |
>> | They have been in mothballs for about 10 years or so. ******
>> |
>> | The Canadian teams have also been in extensive sea training for
>> several
>> | months, the Canadian forces have no organic submarine capacity at
>> present so
>> | they have all been trained in the UK to bring some form of capability.
>> |
>> | Yes the refits have taken longer than planned, for a number of
>> reasons.
>> |
>> | > "Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee
>> | > For those in peril on the sea - "
>> | >
>> | > - but what about those who *put* them in extra peril?!
>> |
>> | The boat is now being towed back to HM Naval Base Clyde where an
>> | investigation will be carried out.
>> |
>> | Regards
>> |
>> | Alistair
D. Spencer Hines
Grist For The Mill:
"Don't forget they were priced very low (about 1/5? of what new subs
might cost). You don't expect miracles when you buy a 20-yr old
second-hand car, do you?"
Mike Dworetsky
--------------
Nope. Particularly if it has been in mothballs for 10 years.
The CANADIAN PEOPLE are trying to buy a really CHEAP DEFENSE. That is
niggardly and appalling and a hazard to everyone in the Canadian Armed
Forces.
It's long past time that the CANADIAN PEOPLE woke up and stopped
expecting Uncle Sam to defend all their National Security Interests.
They Are Freeloaders....
DSH
Kel Rekuta
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> "Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee
> For those in peril on the sea - "
>
> My heart goes out to the noble, hard-working, Canadian submariners and
> their families.
>
> We should all commiserate with them and pray no more pain and suffering
> will be inflicted on them.
>
> However, I cannot help but wonder how much of this disaster can be laid
> at the feet of the CANADIAN PEOPLE and their GOVERNMENTS for STILL
> trying to do things on the CHEAP and not to fund their National DEFENSE
> Budget adequately.
You absolute idiot. Are you or any of your acquaintances responsible for
the absurdly stupid, blind or misguided actions of the people that form
your government? Why should we be held responsible for the inaction of
several decades of government mismanagement? Blame our government,
castigate them if you will. Leave the Canadian people out of it,
blockhead. We held our noses and voted, just like the American people
did four years ago. Look what that got you.
>
> The CANADIAN PEOPLE do seem to be NIGGARDLY and SHORT-SIGHTED when it
> comes to giving their soldiers, sailors and airmen the TOOLS they need
> to do the job.
We keep hoping. Too bad our resources are wasted supporting the UN and
world order, eh? Ignoramus.
>
> And that is a damned shame.
>
Its a damned shame that you have access to the internet.
> They cannot expect the United States to assume all the costs of
> defending their interests in the 21st Century.
Like we have a choice? Your governments threaten or attack other
countries and we become a doormat for them to attack your country. It
would be helpful if the American government helped pay our cost of added
security for your benefit. Moron.
Kel Rekuta
Spiv
> As I was saying...
>
> Grist For The Mill:
>
> "Don't forget they were priced very low (about 1/5? of what new subs
> might cost). You don't expect miracles when you buy a 20-yr old
> second-hand car, do you?"
>
> Mike Dworetsky
The subs had never been used. The RN never took them up.
Andy Dingley
<pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The CANADIAN PEOPLE are trying to buy a really CHEAP DEFENSE. That is
>niggardly and appalling and a hazard to everyone in the Canadian Armed
>Forces
Yeah ! Build a huge fleet of Avro Arrows !
DM
> The subs had never been used. The RN never took them up.
Yes they had, and yes we did
DM
D. Spencer Hines
disaster -- as a sacrificial lamb, if nothing else?
DSH
"DM" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ckafn2$4o2$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Perplexed Seal
>
> Yes they had, and yes we did
They'd been through sea trials, but never used operationally. Source was
Janes, www.janes.com
Alistair
William Black
> Shouldn't someone in the Canadian Government be canned in this
> disaster -- as a sacrificial lamb, if nothing else?
I would think that the politicians took advice, I find it unlikely in the
extreme that any Canadian politician said to the Canadian admiralty 'There
are these really good ex RN submarines going cheap, we're going to buy
them, get some of those quaint sailor people of yours over there and bring
them back...'
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
Spiv
They were effectively brand new - well sort of.
William Black
"Cybernaut" <cybe...@orion-nebula.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ckb5o5$ug$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> BTW, Canadian troops were fighting Hitler for nearly 2 years before the US
> decided to get its arse off the fence.
The USA didn't decide to get off the fence.
Japan attacked them and Germany declared war on them.
Cybernaut
"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ckbbtm$tc2$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Cybernaut" <cybe...@orion-nebula.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ckb5o5$ug$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > BTW, Canadian troops were fighting Hitler for nearly 2 years before the
US
> > decided to get its arse off the fence.
>
> The USA didn't decide to get off the fence.
>
> Japan attacked them and Germany declared war on them.
>
> --
Rich Johnson
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MA3ad.483$C4.1...@eagle.america.net...
>> Shouldn't someone in the Canadian Government be canned in this
>> disaster -- as a sacrificial lamb, if nothing else?
>
> I would think that the politicians took advice, I find it unlikely in
> the extreme that any Canadian politician said to the Canadian
> admiralty 'There are these really good ex RN submarines going cheap,
> we're going to buy them, get some of those quaint sailor people of
> yours over there and bring them back...'
>
>
You don't know our politicians then
--
Rich
Enfield NS
Canada
Keith Willshaw
"Spiv" <nyl...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:2sra1vF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> The subs had never been used. The RN never took them up.
>
>
Incorrect, the submarine in question was in commission
with the RN from June 1990 to April 1994 as HMS Upholder
Keith
Keith Willshaw
Then Janes is wrong
HMS Upholder was in commission for 4 years
Keith
Spiv
"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ckbbtm$tc2$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Cybernaut" <cybe...@orion-nebula.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ckb5o5$ug$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > BTW, Canadian troops were fighting Hitler for nearly 2 years before the
US
> > decided to get its arse off the fence.
>
> The USA didn't decide to get off the fence.
>
> Japan attacked them and Germany declared war on them.
Otherwise they still be on it.
Perplexed Seal
"Keith Willshaw"
> "Perplexed Seal"
>>
>> They'd been through sea trials, but never used operationally. Source was
>> Janes, www.janes.com
>>
>
> Then Janes is wrong
>
> HMS Upholder was in commission for 4 years
OK, I've made a couple of phone calls. She completed part 4 trials, which
as I understand it are pretty extensive for a first of class and can take
some time.
She was mothballed for a while before being taken out of commission.
Mind you I also understand OCEAN was still on trials when she was invovled
in disaster relief work in the Carribean.
Regards
Alistair
George
I'm praising the ships company for their obviously successful damage
control.
What a load of nonsense calling it a disaster.
The Kurst was a disaster..
Any ex matelot here ever served on a 'new' or rebuilt ship that
-didn't- have problems?
William Black
No, we'd have won by now...
In reality the USA was looking for any decent excuse to get involved more
formally, remember that the USN was already involved in fighting the German
submarines, oh yes, and the nationality of the guy who actually spotted
Bismarck...
William Black
I obviously know them better than you do...
Or did we forget the :-) ?
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "Cybernaut" wrote in message
> > BTW, Canadian troops were fighting Hitler for nearly 2 years before the
US
> > decided to get its arse off the fence.
>
> The USA didn't decide to get off the fence.
>
> Japan attacked them and Germany declared war on them.
And why do you suppose that happened? Could it have been US warships
escorting British convoys loaded down with contraband war material? Could it
have been the sale of warships to Britain in contravention of all laws of
neutrality? Could it have been the embargo of raw materials to Japan? You
are being viciously unfair again, Sir William. -the Troll
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> In reality the USA was looking for any decent excuse to get involved more
> formally, remember that the USN was already involved in fighting the
German
> submarines, oh yes, and the nationality of the guy who actually spotted
> Bismarck...
Thank you, much fairer. You can ignore my earlier remarks. -the Troll
Spiv
>
> "Spiv" <nyl...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:2st65gF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ckbbtm$tc2$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> > >
> > > "Cybernaut" <cybe...@orion-nebula.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:ckb5o5$ug$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > > BTW, Canadian troops were fighting Hitler for nearly 2 years before
> the
> > US
> > > > decided to get its arse off the fence.
> > >
> > > The USA didn't decide to get off the fence.
> > >
> > > Japan attacked them and Germany declared war on them.
> >
> > Otherwise they still be on it.
>
> No, we'd have won by now...
>
> In reality the USA was looking for any decent excuse to get involved more
> formally, remember that the USN was already involved in fighting the
German
> submarines, oh yes, and the nationality of the guy who actually spotted
> Bismarck...
Swedish. He saw it leave the Baltic and reported it to the UK.
D. Spencer Hines
Dumber than a rock is this one, "Spiv."
No wonder he's afraid to use his Real Name.
DSH
-------------------
"A Moment in Time Archives: Ensign Smith Finds the Bismarck"
Volume: 1 Number: 100 Date: 01/01/1900
Lead: With the world breathlessly awaiting the news an American pilot
peered out into the mist and found the Bismarck. Tag: A Moment in Time
with Dan Roberts.
Content: Ensign Leonard Smith was 26 years old, a farmer's son from
Higgensville, Missouri. Since his boyhood he had wanted to fly and in
1938 joined the Navy, flying Catalinas, the huge slow flying boats used
for shore patrol out of Seattle.
In May, 1941 he joined 16 other volunteers loaned to the British coastal
command as special observers. It was a case of the blind leading the
blind. The Brits had plenty of experience flying but knew little about
Catalinas.
The Yanks knew something about Catalinas but had no operational
experience. On the 24th of May, 1940 the British battleship H.M.S. Hood
was sunk. It was literally blown out of the water by the largest
warship afloat at the time, the German battleship Bismarck. Shortly
after engaging Hood, the Bismarck had disappeared into the icy Atlantic.
he British were frantic to catch her before she could escape into the
protection of air cover in French waters. On May 26th Ensign Smith's
Catalina left the coast of Scotland to join the search for the Bismarck.
The huge planes carried nearly 2000 gallons of fuel and could remain
airborne for up to 28 hours. It was a hazy morning with very rough
seas. At 10:15 Smith looked out the front window and said "What's
that?" About eight miles away a dull black shape came out of the mist.
Smith banked to starboard, went up into a cloud, but misjudged his
position. A few minutes later the clouds parted and there was the
Bismarck, 500 yards away vomiting a huge blinding flash of antiaircraft
fire. Smith jammed the throttle forward and got out of there. The next
day the Bismarck was found and sunk, in part because of the help of an
American volunteer far from home. At the University of Richmond, this
is Dan Roberts."
"Resources
Kennedy, Ludovic. Pursuit: The Chase and Sinking of the Bismarck. New
York: The Viking Press, 1974.
Shirer, William L. All About the Sinking of the Bismarck. New York: W.
H. Allen, 1963."
"Spiv" <nyl...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:2stve2F...@uni-berlin.de...
| > ...oh yes, and the nationality of the guy who actually spotted
Jim Voege
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:7Nydne2Vr_l...@giganews.com...
I'm inclined to agree. Is there really any doubt that Roosevelt was itching
to get into the fight and did everything he could get away with prior to
Pearl Harbour?
Jim
Dallas Patterson
hippo wrote:
> "William Black" wrote in message
>
>
>>"Cybernaut" wrote in message
>>
>
>>>BTW, Canadian troops were fighting Hitler for nearly 2 years before the
>>>
> US
>
>>>decided to get its arse off the fence.
>>>
>>The USA didn't decide to get off the fence.
>>
>>Japan attacked them and Germany declared war on them.
>>
>
> And why do you suppose that happened? Could it have been US warships
> escorting British convoys loaded down with contraband war material? Could it
> have been the sale of warships to Britain in contravention of all laws of
> neutrality?
The comment, in contravention of all laws of neutrality, is false and a
very common misconception of the laws of neutrality. The United Statee
had by that time enacted and declared a state of armed neutrality. While
there are many people who have declared their belief that the American
armed neutrality was illegal, it was in fact the basis in international
law for all forms of neutrality prior to the adoption of laws regarding
strict neutrality in the Hague conventions. The fact that Germany was
already abridging and then utterly disregarding most of the Hague
conventions and its provisions regarding maritime warfare and
neutrality, including the occupation and looting of the Hague itself,
was the basis for the decision by the United States to invoke the
customary laws of neutrality and armed neutrality which were in
existence before Germany rendered the Hague conventions a dead letter
with respect to strict neutrality.
The legal basis for the United States to convoy the ships to the MOMP
was the declaration by the United States in concert with the other
nations of the Western Hemisphere a zone of armed neutrality which
prohibited belligerant operations. The legal basis for this declaration
was the same principloes of naval warfare which Germany relied upon to
declare a blockade of Great Britain and later other maritime combat
zones. Germany could not expect to assert a legal claim to attack
neutral ships, whether under a regime of strict neutrality or armed
neutrality, without having other nations declare their own non-combat
zones for the protection of their maritime fleets.
D. Spencer Hines
Had the Americans not jumped into World War II and bailed out both the
Brits and the French, who had made VERY bad political, military and
naval decisions in the 1930's, both the Brits and the French would now
be speaking either German or Russian, in communicating with their
overseers.
Sort of like the English with the Normans after 1066....
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
hippo
"Jim Voege" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > And why do you suppose that happened? Could it have been US warships
> > escorting British convoys loaded down with contraband war material?
Could
> > it
> > have been the sale of warships to Britain in contravention of all laws
of
> > neutrality? Could it have been the embargo of raw materials to Japan?
>
> I'm inclined to agree. Is there really any doubt that Roosevelt was
itching
> to get into the fight and did everything he could get away with prior to
> Pearl Harbour?
None. He did everything he and Churchill could think of between them to
worsen relations between the US and Japan and Germany. The Japanese and
Germans co-operated nicely, the Japanese by bombing a US gunboat in China,
raping Nanjing, and bombing Pearl Harbor without a declaration of war, the
Germans by torpedoing a US destroyer in frustration at flagrant US
violations of neutrality to even include repairing British warships,
attacking German U-boats, and 'relieving' the British garrison on Iceland
for use elsewhere. -the Troll
D. Spencer Hines
Canada cannot expect to keep defending itself on the cheap.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
prepare the Armed Forces for the Wars -- Atlantic & Pacific he was
INVITING.
One of FDR's most stupid and pig-headed decisions was INSISTING on
basing the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor in the face of STRONG advice to
the contrary from Admiral Richardson, the Fleet Commander.
Left-Wing, Roosevelt-loving historians have completely ignored that
fateful BLUNDER on FDR'S part.
John Kerry keeps saying President Bush does not listen to his military
and naval advisors -- which is a lie.
FDR is the one who did not do that before Pearl Harbor.
DSH
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:6-SdnYat8-D...@giganews.com...
Dallas Patterson
There is every doubt.
A Greek friend described to me his gratitude for the efforts the United
States made to keep the Communists from taking over Greece. When he was
just a baby, the Communists murdered the village's teachers and forced
his mother and many other women of his village to make a dangerous trek
across the mountains with their children. they were to be taken out of
greece, where the children could be reaised as Communists and become
re-introduced into Greece at a later date. Fortunately, the Communists
were stopped and everyone saved from being taken out of the country,
when Greek forces aided by the United States intercepted the Communist
guerillas and defeated them. Despite his tremendous gratitude towards
the United States, he was bitter about the fact that the United States
did not stop Germany from invading and occupying Greece during the
Second World War. He changed his mind, however, when I showed him how
Greece had an army in 1940 which was then much larger than the U.S.
Army. In other words, the U.S. Army and its air forces were too small to
intervene in Grece and the Second World War in any offensive way until
they had been vastly enlarged enough to challenge the Axis forces, and
this rearmament and expansion was begun in May 1940, and it did not
begin to reach effective levels until the period of July 1942 to July
1943. Roosevelt's only credible armed force for limited intervention in
the belligerancies remained a U.S. Navy whose new constructio programme
was not due to arrive in the fleets in strength until 1943.
Consequently, the policy of the United State by necessity had to serve
the interets of the Allies as best it could by armed neutrality and
diplomacy until such time as the rearmament of the U.S. armed forces
permitted United States foreign policy to shift from a defensive posture
to an offensive posture in late 1942 or in 1943. The Axis forces times
and initiated their wars well before 1943-1944, because they had
calculated and anticipated that the new construction programme of the
U.S. Navy was not expected to permit the United States to effectively
intervene in their wars until 1943 or later.
Furthermore, one of the indicators of Roosevelt's reluctance to bring
the United States into the Second World War as a belligerant was his
refusal to request a gigantic incerase in the appropriations bills in
Congress to massively expand the U.S. Army Air Corps and the naval air
forces of the U.S. Navy. Even after Germany violated the neutrality of
the Low Countries with their invasion and occupation and after the
defeat and occupation of France, Roosevelt knew he had an emergency
which required the utmost in support of Britain's defense and began the
American mobilization, yet he still refused to ask Congress for the
gigantic appropriations required to build the new Army Air Forces. It
was not until mid-1941 that Arnold and the other chiefs of staff were
finally able to persuade Roosevelt that the gigantic appropritaitons for
the new air forces were necessary and vital because the entry of the
United States into the war was by then made unavoidable by the known
Japanese intent to make war and increasing numbers of neutral ships
being sunk by Germany's U-Boats. Due to necessity, Roosevelt needed to
remain in a defensive posture until the United States was armed well
enough to effectively take the offensive against the Axis, yet Roosevelt
delayed requests for the military appropriations for the rearmament
required to shift from a defensive to an offensive posture and role in
the war until the Summer of 1941. Consequently, there must be every
doubt about the desire of Roosevelt to enter the United States into the
Second World War as a belligerant until sometime in the Summer of 1941
or 7 December 1941.
hippo
"Dallas Patterson" wrote in message
> hippo wrote:
If the Hague conventions were the internationally accepted definitions of
neutrality then we certainly were in contravention of them and the statement
is literally correct.
Neutrality only came up in this discussion to show we were not sitting
around doing nothing while the Commonwealth and USSR were fighting the
Germans alone, a suggestion often made on this NG. US sailors were killed
during this time and we were certainly helping directly as well as building
up our forces. -the Troll
Dallas Patterson
hippo wrote:
Absolutely not! You couldn't be more wrong. The Hague Conventions were
absolutely NOT the "accepted definitions of neutrality" in the Second
World War, and anyone who tries to summon them as the final authority on
the law of neutrality is hopelessly confused and ignorant of the actual
facts of law which were invoked in the Second World War.
President Roosevelt did not just get up one morning and remark that
today was a good day to go out and break some international laws of
neutrlaity today. The "qualified neutrality" which the United States
adopted as its practice with respect to the Axis was firmly grounded in
the international law and legal principles which were being developed
during the 20th Century. For just one example of an international legal
authority which helped in 1934 to provide the legal basis for the acts
of the United States in the period from 1939 to 1946, see the following
quotation of an international law association.
[QUOTE]
"WHEREAS the Pact is a multilateral law-making treaty whereby each of
the High Contracting Parties makes binding agreements with each other
and all of the other High Contracting Parties, and
"WHEREAS by their participation in the Pact sixty-three States have
abolished the conception of war as a legitimate means of exercising
pressure on another State in the pursuit of national policy and have
also renounced any recourse to armed force for the solution of
international disputes or conflicts:
"(1) A signatory State cannot, by denunciation or non-observance of the
Pact, release itself from its obligations thereunder.
"(2) A signatory State which threatens to resort to armed force for the
solution of an international dispute of conflict is guilty of a
violation of the Pact.
"(3) A signatory State which aids a violating State thereby itself
violates the Pact.
"(4) In the event of a violation of the Pact by a resort to armed force
or war by one signatory State against another, the other States may,
without thereby committing a breach of the Pact or of any rule of
International Law, do all or any of the following things:
(a) Refuse to admit the exercise by the State violating the Pact of
belligerent rights, such as visit and search, blockade, etc.;
(b) Decline to observe towards the State violating the Pact the duties
prescribed by International Law, apart from the Pact, for a neutral in
relation to a belligerent;
(c) Supply the State attacked with financial or material assistance,
including munitions of war;
(d) Assist with armed forces the State attacked.
"(5) The signatory States are not entitled to recognize as acquired de
jure any territorial or other advantages acquired de facto by means of a
violation of the Pact.
"(6) A violating State is liable to pay compensation for all damage
caused by a violation of the Pact to any signatory State or to its
nationals.
"(7) The Pact does not affect such humanitarian obligations as are
contained in general treaties, such as The Hague Conventions of 1899 and
1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1864, 1906 and 1929, and the
International Convention relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,
1929."
Report of the Thirty-eighth Conference of the International Law
Association, Budapest (1934) pp. 66-68; also, 33 A.J.I.L. (Supp.)
825-826, note 1.
[UNQUOTE]
Note the several instances where a state was permitted by internaitonal
law to "Decline to observe towards the State violating the Pact the
duties prescribed by International Law, apart from the Pact, for a
neutral in relation to a belligerent...."
>
> Neutrality only came up in this discussion to show we were not sitting
> around doing nothing while the Commonwealth and USSR were fighting the
> Germans alone, a suggestion often made on this NG. US sailors were killed
> during this time and we were certainly helping directly as well as building
> up our forces. -the Troll
The United States was certainly not "sitting around doing nothing while
the Commonwealth and USSR were fighting the Germans alone...." Britain,
the Axis powers, and the Soviet Union had a five to ten year headstart
on the United States in the rearmament of their armed forces. This was
due in part to American isolationaism and pacifism, but it was also due
to a serious extent from the economic distress which resulted when
Britain and the other Allies from the First World War failed to repay
their massive debts to the United States and severely dislocated the
American economy as a consequence. The United States was not rearmed for
the Second World War also in part because Japan and Germany carefully
planned and timed their initiation of the hostilities to preempt the new
construction programme of the U.S. Navy, which they recognized as the
minimum requisite for any effective projection of armed forces by the
United States into the Axis battlefields in the Old World. While the
United States rearmed and constructed the "Arsenal of Democracy" for the
benefit of Britain, the Soviet Union, and other Allies almsot from
scratch in little more than two to three years, the United States used
its privileged diplomatic status and status as a qualified neutral to
best serve the interests of the Allies wherever possible. This was done
with a strict regard for international law as it was deemed to be after
the effects of the Kellogg-Briand Pact and other related international
treaties, conventions, and agreements had been taken into account and
redefined in compliance with the pact.
Spiv
"Dallas Patterson" <n...@fidalgo.net> wrote in message
news:4169F0BA...@fidalgo.net...
There was another policy. Give the Brits and Canadians the tools of war to
fight the war for the US. The bitter part is that the US charged for their
own tools used by others for their benefit - with interest.
If the US was planning to enter the war, it was in their interests to keep
the enemy at bay by having others do the fighting for you.
Spiv
Directly? A US ship was sunk by the Germans yet the US never declared war.
An ideal opportunity to do so, and one in which the US people could
understand.
Spiv
"Jim Voege" <jfvo...@SPAMsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:KXjad.9816$hk6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
He could have just declared war at any time, but never. He could have
entered in May 1940, when it was clear that Germany holding of western
Europe certainly was not to their benefit. The US army was very small then,
but the navy was large enough and would have made the Germans think twice
about any invasion of the UK. There again the likelihood of Germany
mounted any successful invasion of the Uk was very slim, so I maybe the US
knew that and held off.
Dallas Patterson
You do keep trying to pass off that old fraud in complete disregard for
the truth that the United States granted more funds and forgave more
debt owed by Great Britian than it ever collected from payments on
principal and interest for those loans. You also disregard the fact that
Britain borrowed billions of dollars from the United States in the First
World War and then proceeded to re-loan those U.S. tax dollars to other
Allies with interest due on the pre-condition those Allies would use the
former U.S. tax dollars re-loaned by the British to buy war materials
from British industry instead of the U.S. industries who supplied those
tax dollars. If you think it was so "bitter...that the US charged for
their own tools used by others for their benefit - with interest", then
you have a lot of explaining to do as to why Britian did it before and
does it even now?
>
> If the US was planning to enter the war, it was in their interests to keep
> the enemy at bay by having others do the fighting for you.
The U.S. was trying to stay out of the war, if at all possible, or at
least until rearmament had progressed far enough to justify a
counteroffensive role. Even after the Axis declarations of war and
resultant emergencies no longer permitted further delay, the United
States was still not rearmed, equipped, and prepared to go onto a
limited counteroffensive until the second quarter of 1942. Until then,
it was necessary for the United States to remain on the defensive, just
as Britain was still on the strategic defensive after more than two
years of war.
Dallas Patterson
Roosevelt knew that his armed forces were nowhere near manned and
equipped well enough to serve in a counteroffensive role, even if he
wanted to and the American electorate was prepared to permit it. So,
Roosevelt attempted to bluff Hitler with an aggressive Neutrality Patrol
and defense of the Western Hemisphere. Hitler called Roosevelt's bluff
and upped the stakes just short of war, knowing Roosevelt was not
prepared to follow through with a declaration of war by the United
States. No, the United States electorate was not prepared to voluntarily
enter the Second World War over a single sunken naval destroyer
convoying on Neutrality Patrol, anymore than they were ready to go to
war with Japan over the sinking of the USS PANAY, or with Saddam
Hussein's Iraq over the near sinking of the USS STARK.
Brian Sharrock
Just out of interest; can you cite the precise "... forces aided by the
United States" invovled in this _interception_; presumably into
Yugoslavia / Bulgaria / Macedonia ... ? I freely confess to not
having heard of this incident, I thought US forces had been deployed
to the east of Italy.
I can't quite parse this statement ... Roosevelt's reluctance .. refusal
to _request_ a gigantic increase ... ;do you mean that the Congress
(Representatives and Senators) were clamouring for appropriation
bills to massively expand the ... forces? Did the man in the White House
refuse to expand the military? Or could it be that Roosevelt's
advisors were reporting that the critters on The Hill would _refuse_
to fund any increase?
snip
Brian Sharrock
snip
>
> "A Moment in Time Archives: Ensign Smith Finds the Bismarck"
>
> Volume: 1 Number: 100 Date: 01/01/1900
>
snip
>
> Content: Ensign Leonard Smith was 26 years old, a farmer's son from
> Higgensville, Missouri. Since his boyhood he had wanted to fly and in
> 1938 joined the Navy, flying Catalinas, snip
> On the 24th of May, 1940 the British battleship H.M.S.
Hood
> was sunk. It was literally blown out of the water by the largest
> warship afloat at the time, the German battleship Bismarck. Shortly
> after engaging Hood, the Bismarck had disappeared into the icy Atlantic.
>
It should be fairly obvious that Ensign Smith wasn't the _first_
man to spot the Bismark. Only the most chauvinistic USAian
would claim the commendable Ensign -serving on a RAF CC
marked aircraft? - carrying out a 'Lost Contact' exercise could
have been the _first_ . Hint for the comprehension-challenged
" ... HMS Hood was sunk ...".
--
Brian
Brian Sharrock
>
> "Perplexed Seal" <alrae_s...@iee.org> wrote in message
> news:2ss4f4F...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "DM" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:ckafn2$4o2$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > >> The subs had never been used. The RN never took them up.
> > >
> > > Yes they had, and yes we did
> >
> > They'd been through sea trials, but never used operationally. Source
was
> > Janes, www.janes.com
>
but never used operationally (Source was 'Janes')
> They were effectively brand new - well sort of.
>
--
Brian
Nohbody
> "Jim Voege" <jfvo...@SPAMsympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:KXjad.9816$hk6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > I'm inclined to agree. Is there really any doubt that Roosevelt was
> itching
> > to get into the fight and did everything he could get away with prior to
> > Pearl Harbour?
>
> He could have just declared war at any time, but never.
Um, 'fraid that's not how things work, in the US.
Congress, under the US Constitution*, is the only one that can declare
a war, and at the time the voters that elected said body weren't all
that inclined to get involved in a "foreign" war, especially
considering that the US was still in the grip of the Great Depression
at the time.
--
Dan Poore
ICQ UIN: 3908950 <http://wwp.mirabilis.com/3908950>
A Meeting of Minds <http://nohbody.com/schtuff/meeting.html> - a
(mostly) cliche-free first contact story (updated periodically)
* Article I, Section 8, to be exact:
The Congress shall have Power To [...] To declare War, grant Letters
of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and
Water[.]
Jim Voege
"Dallas Patterson" <n...@fidalgo.net> wrote in message
news:4169F0BA...@fidalgo.net...
> Jim Voege wrote:
>
After all, appropriate appropriations at the appropriate time don't do much
good if they cost you the next election to an isolationist...
Jim
Jim Voege
"Brian Sharrock" <b.sha...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:KJsad.94$HV...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>> the interets of the Allies as best it could by armed neutrality and
>> diplomacy until such time as the rearmament of the U.S. armed forces
>> permitted United States foreign policy to shift from a defensive posture
>> to an offensive posture in late 1942 or in 1943. The Axis forces times
>> and initiated their wars well before 1943-1944, because they had
>> calculated and anticipated that the new construction programme of the
>> U.S. Navy was not expected to permit the United States to effectively
>> intervene in their wars until 1943 or later.
>>
>> Furthermore, one of the indicators of Roosevelt's reluctance to bring
>> the United States into the Second World War as a belligerant was his
>> refusal to request a gigantic incerase in the appropriations bills in
>> Congress to massively expand the U.S. Army Air Corps and the naval air
>> forces of the U.S. Navy.
>
> I can't quite parse this statement ... Roosevelt's reluctance .. refusal
> to _request_ a gigantic increase ... ;do you mean that the Congress
> (Representatives and Senators) were clamouring for appropriation
> bills to massively expand the ... forces? Did the man in the White House
> refuse to expand the military? Or could it be that Roosevelt's
> advisors were reporting that the critters on The Hill would _refuse_
> to fund any increase?
>
operate in a political vacuum.
Jim
Jim Voege
No he couldn't have. The U.S. President doesn't have the authority to
declare war. He requests and recommends such a declaration from Congress.
Jim
Dallas Patterson
Brian Sharrock wrote:
This particular incident took place within Greece, if I understood his
story correctly. He was a baby when his mother was forced to carry him
out of the village and towards the Greek border along a mountain trail
along with many others from the village. When he began to cry, the
Communists threatened to kill him if his mother couldn't keep him quiet.
His mother borrowed some sugar being carried by another woman, mixed the
sugar with water, dipped her fingers in the sugar water, and let him
such on her sweetened fingers to keep him pacified and quiet. The
Communists were impatient, however, and nearly killed him.
"Unfortunately, the effect of the Greek Civil War on Greece was
devastating. Over the course of the Civil War, Greek Communists kept
records on all the children aged three to fourteen in the areas that
they controlled. In March of 1948, these children were gathered together
in the border regions, and several thousand were taken into Albania,
Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. The villagers tried to protect their children
by hiding them in the woods. The Red Cross also aided the villagers in
whatever way they could, despite the numerous obstacles in their path.
In the summer of 1948, 11,600 of the children who had been living in
Yugoslavia were moved to Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Poland,
despite the protests of the Greek government. On November 17, 1948, the
Third UN General assembly passed a resolution roundly condemning the
removal of the Greek children. In 1949, the assembly again demanded
their return. These and all other subsequent UN resolutions remained
unanswered. The neighboring Communist regimes claimed that the children
were being kept under conditions superior to those that they would be
experiencing in Greece. But, this was not the case. In reality, the
forced deportation of the children was carried out in appalling
conditions. Starvation and epidemics were extremely common, and many of
the children simply died. House together in "children villages," they
were subjected to rigid courses in politics besides their normal
education. At the age of thirteen they were forced into doing manual
labor, carrying out such arduous tasks such as land reclamation in the
marshy Hartchag region of Hungary. The intention of the Communist
leaders was to form a new generation of devoted militants, but they
failed miserably...."
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/big/coldwar.htm
It's been a long while since I read those sources, so I don't recall
exactly what they had to say about the legislative support. To
summarize, however, there was some measure of support for taking the
case to the American electorate and making the case that American
defenses demanded a radical and immediate apropriations for an
unprecedented expansion of th armed forces, particularly with respect to
the air forces. The sources characterized Roosevelt's response to the
appeals of his officers for the appropriations as unfavorable, until the
Summer of 1941, when Roosevelt was described as doing a sudden and
dramatic change of attitude towards the urgent requests of his officers
for the appropriations. Where before the Roosevelt White House always
found problems in obtaining the requisite political support, suddenly
the attitude was one in which those former obstacles would simply be
overcome. If you are interested enough in the subject, you can try to
find the sources I was using. If I recall correctly, one of the key
descriptions of these meetings with Roosevelt were described in the
official histories of the Army Air Forces in WWII. Another source I
believe was Martin Caidin's books about the Boeing B-17, because it was
Roosevelt's reluctance to obtain the massively increased appropriations
which contributed so much to the late beginnings of mass production of
the B-17 bomber.
You may also find some related comments about the sudden shift in
appropriations and priorities in 1941 by seeing the history of the War
Plans Division (WPD) for the Phillipines. In it, they talk about the
inability to procure the latest 1941 era anti-aircraft artillery for the
Phillipines until sometime in the future of 1943 to 1944, at the current
rate of reinforcement of the Phillipines.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/csppp/ch13.htm
The sense of the comments I recall was a view from the insiders that
Roosevelt was facing considerable opposition inside and outside Congress
for such a gargantuan increase in military appropriations, but they also
noted there was also some very important political support for those
appropriations which President Roosevelt seemingly refused to use to his
advantage. In other words, despite whatever opposition existed to the
appropriations, events prior to the Pearl Harbor Attack proved it was
possible to secure the appropriations, but Roosevelt was himself for
some reason avoiding, delaying, or otherwise procrastinating even when
the political opportunity was feasible. The sources then descirbe how a
meeting with Gen. 'Hap' Arnold finally shocked and succeeded in
persuading President Roosevelt that the appropriations were not only
necessary, they were necessary in such urgency and astronomical amounts
as to amount to a virtually inconceivable task in 1941. Wish I had those
sources right now, bcause they were an especially interesting read and
so different from the usual conspoiracy theories.
Dallas Patterson
Jim Voege wrote:
That's very true. However, the appropriations were requested from
Congress in 1941 and approved before the Pearl Harbor Attack. It was
politically feasible in the historical event. The historical sources I
was reading described how President Roosevelt was not going to approve
his subordinate's request for those gargantuan increases of
appropriations, until Gen. Arnold and others had a meeting with
President Roosevelt where they presented him with certain facts and
figures which shocked Roosevelt into suddenly reversing his decision.
Dallas Patterson
Jim Voege wrote:
True, but as Commander-in-Chief and the leader of the majority political
party in Congress, Roosevelt's refusal to request or support such
appropriations was quite capable of defeating almost any effort to lobby
for such appropriations, especially since the information which
persuaded Roosevelt was either classified or confidential intelligence
at that time. Furthermore, the opposition Republican Party was also
opposed to such appropriations and was Roosevelt's chief critic when he
finally did request the appropriations. The lobby in favor of the
appropriations consisted chiefly of people from both political parties
who understood the danger and the urgency, but they lacked the
widespread support of the majority political party , the Democrats, or
the minority party, the Republicans, until President Roosevelt went
public with his stated resons for the neccesity of the appropriations
and their great urgency.
Brian Sharrock
>
>
> Brian Sharrock wrote:
>
big snip
I've not snipped or edited your response to my questioning of
your original post ;- " ... when Greek forces aided by the United States
.."
although I've read and reread your response I can't discern the
part which equates to "Greek forces aided by the United States ".
Very nasty things were done by the Communists in Greece -mostly
by Greeks to Greeks- and one should not forget that the Communist
party in Greece is still quite strong. But still, I repeat my question;-
'Just out of interest; can you cite the precise "... forces aided by the
United States" involved in this _interception_; " '?
--
Brian
Dallas Patterson
Brian Sharrock wrote:
No, he didn't describe them. He was only a baby, and the story was told
to him by his mother, father, and villagers. The way I understood his
story, the rescuers were the Greek Army, who were getting some kind of
unnamed assistance from the United States. The Communists abruptly
abandoned the women and children on the trail, and the Greek soldiers
arrived and took them into their protection. I didn't ask any questions
about the U.S. role and his graditude towards the U.S. I was already
aware of the history behind these events, where postwar Britain found it
necessary for reasons of economy to withdraw British forces from Greece,
and they asked the United States to replace them in the confrontation
with the KKE Communist forces in Greece. The U.S. role in Greece led to
the so-called Truman Doctrine. Greece received extensive military
assistance in the form of logistics, training, counterespionage,
military advisers, and more. I don't know why he seemed to think the
U.S. was important to his rescue, but he certainly did believe in it.
During his service with the Greek equivalent of the Marines, they made
extensive use of U.S. arms, equipment, and vehicles; but they also used
the British style hobnailed boots. He said the were always slipping on
the cobblestone streets with those hobnailed boots.
Jim Voege
>
> The sense of the comments I recall was a view from the insiders that
> Roosevelt was facing considerable opposition inside and outside Congress
> for such a gargantuan increase in military appropriations, but they also
> noted there was also some very important political support for those
> appropriations which President Roosevelt seemingly refused to use to his
> advantage. In other words, despite whatever opposition existed to the
> appropriations, events prior to the Pearl Harbor Attack proved it was
> possible to secure the appropriations, but Roosevelt was himself for some
> reason avoiding, delaying, or otherwise procrastinating even when the
> political opportunity was feasible. The sources then descirbe how a
> meeting with Gen. 'Hap' Arnold finally shocked and succeeded in persuading
> President Roosevelt that the appropriations were not only necessary, they
> were necessary in such urgency and astronomical amounts as to amount to a
> virtually inconceivable task in 1941. Wish I had those sources right now,
> bcause they were an especially interesting read and so different from the
> usual conspoiracy theories.
>
received sufficient evidence and opinion to persuade him that it was
unavoidable. While a cynic might disagree, this sounds like responsible
governance to me. While it is unquestionably bootstrapping, my impression
of Roosevelt was that he was no dove and at the same time a master
politician, quite capable of accurately counting votes in Congress. So
another way of looking at it would be that he deferred until he had
sufficient evidence to persuade sufficient legislators to support him. To
have tried early, and failed, could have led to even greater delays,
notwithstanding later enhanced grounds for large appropriations.
Jim
Jim Voege
>
> Jim Voege wrote:
>
>> What about the political realities? This was the context of my question.
>> After all, appropriate appropriations at the appropriate time don't do
>> much good if they cost you the next election to an isolationist...
>>
>
> in 1941 and approved before the Pearl Harbor Attack. It was politically
> feasible in the historical event.
I take this point. However, my sense is that the sense of urgency increased
dramatically over the course of 1940 and 1941. Not just to Roosevelt and
the Congress but to the American people in general -- a rapidly growing
appreciation that they were heading into a fight -- across both the Atlantic
and Pacific.
Jim
Dick
> If you *must* post to a British (or even Canadian) newsgroup, please try not
> to inflict American spelling on us. The word is "Defence".
>
I thought De Fence was something use to mark boundary lines of lots and fields.
Dick
Jim Voege
"Cybernaut" <cybe...@orion-nebula.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ckb5o5$ug$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> If you *must* post to a British (or even Canadian) newsgroup, please try
> not
> to inflict American spelling on us. The word is "Defence".
>
of us are fully ambilingual. ;-)
Jim
Brian Sharrock
So, AIUI, 'it' may - or may not have happened and the United States
may or may not have given unspecified assistance ... hmm !
> The Communists abruptly
> abandoned the women and children on the trail, and the Greek soldiers
> arrived and took them into their protection. I didn't ask any questions
> about the U.S. role and his graditude towards the U.S.
> I was already
> aware of the history behind these events, where postwar Britain found it
> necessary for reasons of economy to withdraw British forces from Greece,
postwar Britain was being urged by United States to withdraw as
rapidly as possible form all overseas places ...
> and they asked the United States to replace them in the confrontation
> with the KKE Communist forces in Greece.
Who 'they'? Greece or the UK?
> The U.S. role in Greece led to
> the so-called Truman Doctrine. Greece received extensive military
> assistance in the form of logistics, training, counterespionage,
> military advisers, and more. I don't know why he seemed to think the
> U.S. was important to his rescue, but he certainly did believe in it.
> During his service with the Greek equivalent of the Marines, they made
> extensive use of U.S. arms, equipment, and vehicles; but they also used
> the British style hobnailed boots. He said the were always slipping on
> the cobblestone streets with those hobnailed boots.
>
The Greek armed forces made extensive usage of 'FMS'.
Essentially 'here's American soft loans to buy American goodies'
I note that they tend to buy German stuff nowadays ... :(
I may, or dependant on the timescale may not: have gazed across
my rifle's sights at your gratitudinous 'Ellinko as he, or his colleagues,
assisted the Enossis-aspiring Kipriotis with "their logistics, training,
military advisers and more". The Greek soldiery we encountered
could barely march upright and in step ... fancy blaming that on the
same boots as worn by the Household Brigade!
"Otan stin kipros .." , but that's another story.
--
Brian
M. J. Powell
<jfvo...@SPAMsympatico.ca> writes
I'm not sure of my memory here but in FDR's speech to Congress after the
PH attack didn't he say that ' a state of war now exists ....Etc'?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Nuclear Waste
>
> "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ckbbtm$tc2$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> >
> > "Cybernaut" <cybe...@orion-nebula.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:ckb5o5$ug$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
the
> US
> > > decided to get its arse off the fence.
> >
> > The USA didn't decide to get off the fence.
> >
> > Japan attacked them and Germany declared war on them.
> >
> Exactly, otherwise they'd still be sitting there today.
Lend-Lease, The Flying Tigers, trade sanctions against Japan... I do not
think the US was as on the fence as you would like to indicate.
NW