MiaHM - "Pearl Harbor"
Eric S. Harris
post it again, to the right place this time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's an article listing various events which are portrayed as
"unprovoked attacks" on the United States but -- if the author's account
of events is correct and has no important omissions -- were actually
very much provoked, or in the case of the sinking of the "Maine" likely
not an attack at all.
Which brings to mind a strategy discussion in The Moon is a Harsh
Mistress", in which Prof says they need to antagonize the FN into
striking first: "the classic 'Pearl Harbor' maneuver of game theory, a
great advantage in Weltpolitick." -Eric
http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2011/05/10/unprovoked-attacks-from-1812-to-911/
This link to MiaHM at Google Books may work:
http://books.google.com/books?id=HtuRSsAb2fEC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=%22moon+is+a+harsh+mistress%22+%22pearl+harbor%22&source=bl&ots=qCpSxryF1Z&sig=WdYrelwUJkNuXMoXDBG2-A_8vds&hl=en&ei=dbbKTe6UJNTogQel6bnxBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
as might this shorter version:
http://tinyurl.com/455yktq
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet and I'm only one opinionated guy:
http://xkcd.com/386
Tian
> Meant to post this here, but posted it to RASWF instead, so I decided to
> post it again, to the right place this time.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Here's an article listing various events which are portrayed as
> "unprovoked attacks" on the United States but -- if the author's account
> of events is correct and has no important omissions -- were actually
> very much provoked, or in the case of the sinking of the "Maine" likely
> not an attack at all.
>
> Which brings to mind a strategy discussion in The Moon is a Harsh
> Mistress", in which Prof says they need to antagonize the FN into
> striking first: "the classic 'Pearl Harbor' maneuver of game theory, a
> great advantage in Weltpolitick." -Eric
>
>
> http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2011/05/10/unprovoked-attacks-from-1812-to-911/
>
>
> This link to MiaHM at Google Books may work:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=HtuRSsAb2fEC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=%22moon+is+a+harsh+mistress%22+%22pearl+harbor%22&source=bl&ots=qCpSxryF1Z&sig=WdYrelwUJkNuXMoXDBG2-A_8vds&hl=en&ei=dbbKTe6UJNTogQel6bnxBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
>
> as might this shorter version:
> http://tinyurl.com/455yktq
>
--
Tian
http://tian.greens.org
Latest change: words and pictures from the GPCA meeting in Berkeley.
The red security brick is on The All American Video Game Company. (4/29)
Eric S. Harris
> Eric S. Harris wrote:
>
>> Meant to post this here, but posted it to RASWF instead, so I decided
>> to post it again, to the right place this time.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Here's an article listing various events which are portrayed as
>> "unprovoked attacks" on the United States but -- if the author's account
>> of events is correct and has no important omissions -- were actually
>> very much provoked, or in the case of the sinking of the "Maine" likely
>> not an attack at all.
>>
>> Which brings to mind a strategy discussion in The Moon is a Harsh
>> Mistress", in which Prof says they need to antagonize the FN into
>> striking first: "the classic 'Pearl Harbor' maneuver of game theory, a
>> great advantage in Weltpolitick." -Eric
>>
>>
>> http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2011/05/10/unprovoked-attacks-from-1812-to-911/
>>
>
> That was a fascinating article! I'm thinking I need to forward the URL.
>
>>
>> This link to MiaHM at Google Books may work:
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=HtuRSsAb2fEC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=%22moon+is+a+harsh+mistress%22+%22pearl+harbor%22&source=bl&ots=qCpSxryF1Z&sig=WdYrelwUJkNuXMoXDBG2-A_8vds&hl=en&ei=dbbKTe6UJNTogQel6bnxBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>
>>
>> as might this shorter version:
>> http://tinyurl.com/455yktq
>>
> Ummm... Isn't that a copyright violation or something like that?
Google obviously doesn't think so. (Or thinks it might be but is worth
the risk.)
The text is searchable, but what you see is just an image of the text,
which probably makes the copyright violation claim a bit harder to support.
The MiaHM PDF file Google found, on the other hand ... -Eric
Chris Zakes
caused Tian <tnha...@aceweb.com> to write:
>Eric S. Harris wrote:
>> Meant to post this here, but posted it to RASWF instead, so I decided to
>> post it again, to the right place this time.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Here's an article listing various events which are portrayed as
>> "unprovoked attacks" on the United States but -- if the author's account
>> of events is correct and has no important omissions -- were actually
>> very much provoked, or in the case of the sinking of the "Maine" likely
>> not an attack at all.
>>
>> Which brings to mind a strategy discussion in The Moon is a Harsh
>> Mistress", in which Prof says they need to antagonize the FN into
>> striking first: "the classic 'Pearl Harbor' maneuver of game theory, a
>> great advantage in Weltpolitick." -Eric
>>
>>
>> http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2011/05/10/unprovoked-attacks-from-1812-to-911/
>>
>That was a fascinating article! I'm thinking I need to forward the URL.
Gee, an article where the US is *always* the bad guy. No, it's not
surprising that you'd find it "fascinating."
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
Have you ever noticed how much a "zero tolerance" policy resembles a zero
thinking policy?
a425couple
> Eric S. Harris wrote:
>> Meant to post this here, but posted it to RASWF instead, so I decided to
>> post it again, to the right place this time.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Here's an article listing various events which are portrayed as
>> "unprovoked attacks" on the United States but -- if the author's account
>> of events is correct and has no important omissions -- were actually
>> very much provoked, or in the case of the sinking of the "Maine" likely
>> not an attack at all.
>>
>> Which brings to mind a strategy discussion in The Moon is a Harsh
>> Mistress", in which Prof says they need to antagonize the FN into
>> striking first: "the classic 'Pearl Harbor' maneuver of game theory, a
>> great advantage in Weltpolitick." -Eric
>>
>> http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2011/05/10/unprovoked-attacks-from-1812-to-911/
> That was a fascinating article! I'm thinking I need to forward the URL.
>>
>> This link to MiaHM at Google Books may work:
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=HtuRSsAb2fEC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=%22moon+is+a+harsh+mistress%22+%22pearl+harbor%22&source=bl&ots=qCpSxryF1Z&sig=WdYrelwUJkNuXMoXDBG2-A_8vds&hl=en&ei=dbbKTe6UJNTogQel6bnxBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
>> as might this shorter version:
>> http://tinyurl.com/455yktq
> Ummm... Isn't that a copyright violation or something like that?
Huh?
How is Eric Harris posting links to internet sources
violating copyrights?
Or, are you saying google books has no permission to
show that preview?
a425couple
"Eric S. Harris" <eric_ha...@mindspring.com> wrote in...
> Here's an article listing various events which are portrayed as
> "unprovoked attacks" on the United States but -- if the author's account
> of events is correct and has no important omissions -- were actually
> Mistress", in which Prof says they need to antagonize the FN into
> striking first: "the classic 'Pearl Harbor' maneuver of game theory, a
> great advantage in Weltpolitick." -Eric
> http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2011/05/10/unprovoked-attacks-from-1812-to-911/
Well, IMHO, the cited artical 'Unprovoked' Attacks, From 1812
to 9/11by Ivan Eland, May 11, 2011 has some interesting thoughts,
but tries to make them sound valid by using huge distortions.
(Popular nowdays, "Blame America First")
Consider just one area (of all the mud he throws against the wall):
"Although the hallowed World War II was fought against the ruthless
Imperial Japanese and Nazis, the full story is a bit more complex.
The Japanese didn't just attack Pearl Harbor for no reason, ----
--- Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. That Japanese attack
was made in desperation, because the United States, then the
world's largest oil producer, had cut off the supplies of petroleum
and other key materials to the island nation in an attempt to
economically strangle Japan for colonizing China by force. FDR
refused the Japanese prime minister's attempt to negotiate an end
to the dispute; the "Hail Mary" Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
followed."
#1 Japan's economy did not need oil. Their industry and homes
were fueled by coal.
#2 The US had friendly governmential, personal & commercial
interests with China.
#3 Japan was attacking, conquering, and masacuring in China.
#4 Japan's military was in need of oil to do this (Naval ships,
military aircraft, military transport).
#5 The US objected to these attacks and tried to use diplomatic
and economic pressure to change Japan's actions without war
(which was something we were not prepared to do).
#6 IS ANYONE REALLY TRYING TO SAY IN
OPEN COMMERCE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO
SELL A THUG THE TOOLS HE NEEDS TO
MURDER YOUR FRIEND?
#7 The US was negotiating. (Unless by one's definition,
"negotiating" means always giving the other exactly what
they want!?)
Related in subject (also related, few fiction writters
I enjoy = Heinlein, WEB Griffin, Neal Stephenson),
recently posted link:
http://volokh.com/2011/05/06/apropos-admiral-yamamoto-2/
"To those Army fuckheads, [the decision not to deliver the declaration
of war until after the Pearl Harbor attack] is nothing - just a typo,
happens all the time. Isoroku Yamamoto has given up on trying to
make them understand ---"
Mike Dworetsky
Yamamoto had a point. One thing that got America so fired up about Pearl
Harbor was not just the attack itself, but the fact that it was done without
the declaration of war being formally given beforehand to the United States
Government in Washington. The film, "Tora, Tora, Tora!" spells out the way
in which this happened, and at least in outline the producers got it right.
Would American righteous anger have been so great if the declaration had
been received an hour, ore even a half hour, before the attack? I don't
know. Did the US deliberately provoke Japan to attack because of its
embargo? Did Japan think the US would then whimper a bit and hand over all
the oil it wanted? Yamamoto knew what would eventually happen.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Eric S. Harris
Of course, to some folks it's not that someone finds it fascinating or
someone finds that fascination unsuprising, but whether it's true or
false or some combination. -Eric
Eric S. Harris
Just so we're clear on this: you mean the civilian economy did not use
any petroleum-based product, or not enough to matter? And that it was
the government of Japan or firms providing military equipment and
supplies (or both) which was prohibited from buying petroleum from
willing private-sector sellers in the US?
> #2 The US had friendly governmential, personal & commercial
> interests with China.
But no actual treaties of mutual defense?
> #4 Japan's military was in need of oil to do this (Naval ships,
> military aircraft, military transport).
> #5 The US objected to these attacks and tried to use diplomatic
> and economic pressure to change Japan's actions without war
> (which was something we were not prepared to do).
Could you describe specifically how that "economic pressure" was
applied? I'm assuming it took the form of tariffs and/or bans on
exports and/or imports.
> #6 IS ANYONE REALLY TRYING TO SAY IN
> OPEN COMMERCE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO
> SELL A THUG THE TOOLS HE NEEDS TO
> MURDER YOUR FRIEND?
Who is the "you" and "your" in this? The US government? Or firms
operating in the US and subject to US jurisdiction?
It's looking like you are saying that the US government obstructed
Imperial Japan's military efforts to the greatest extent that it could
without actually committing an overt act of war, and that it was
effective enough at this that Imperial Japan was goaded into attacking
Pearl Harbor. Is that right?
I'd have to re-read the original article, but I think that's the gist of
the Pearl Harbor segment.
If I got both of those things right, why the anger? (I assume item 6
was in in all caps due to anger, not by accident.) -Eric
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> Meant to post this here, but posted it to RASWF instead, so I decided to
> post it again, to the right place this time.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Here's an article listing various events which are portrayed as
> "unprovoked attacks" on the United States but -- if the author's account
> of events is correct and has no important omissions -- were actually
> very much provoked, or in the case of the sinking of the "Maine" likely
> not an attack at all.
What a buffoon this man is. Just as Susan Sontag evidently thought she
was telling us something we didn't know after 9/11 he is attacking the
straw man "they object to your policies" gives someone license to
attack a major power and not expect to be crushed. In a few cases, he
had information that isn't widely known but for the most part
everything that he says is well-known and carries no weight.
Yes, to give one example, the Japanese didn't like our oil embargo; it
was interfering with their plans to conquer China. Isn't that too
fucking bad. Yamamoto was correct; they were signing their Empire's
death warrant.
al-Quaida didn't like our foreign policy. Well, why do they get a veto
over our foreign policy? Because they are willing to do violence?
Well, guess what, so were we.
The Maine is the only incident where he had a really good case and
everyone knows about the Maine. And why is the name of a battleships
in quotes. It really was named the Maine.
--
Will in New Haven
>
> Which brings to mind a strategy discussion in The Moon is a Harsh
> Mistress", in which Prof says they need to antagonize the FN into
> striking first: "the classic 'Pearl Harbor' maneuver of game theory, a
> great advantage in Weltpolitick." -Eric
>
> http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2011/05/10/unprovoked-attacks-from-...
>
> This link to MiaHM at Google Books may work:http://books.google.com/books?id=HtuRSsAb2fEC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=%...
lal_truckee
> And why is the name of a battleships
> in quotes. It really was named the Maine.
The "literature" is currently "plagued" by an "excess" of ""quotes.""
Michael Stemper
>> Here's an article listing various events which are portrayed as
>> "unprovoked attacks" on the United States but -- if the author's account
>> of events is correct and has no important omissions -- were actually
>> very much provoked, or in the case of the sinking of the "Maine" likely
>> not an attack at all.
>The Maine is the only incident where he had a really good case and
>everyone knows about the Maine. And why is the name of a battleships
>in quotes. It really was named the Maine.
Presumably, the author didn't know that the names of ships are supposed
to be italicized (like the titles of novels), rather than quoted (like
the titles of short stories).
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A preposition is something that you should never end a sentence with.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> In article <1fce30e7-8e59-4ff1-b0ff-369da8ad8...@q30g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> writes:
>
> >> Here's an article listing various events which are portrayed as
> >> "unprovoked attacks" on the United States but -- if the author's account
> >> of events is correct and has no important omissions -- were actually
> >> very much provoked, or in the case of the sinking of the "Maine" likely
> >> not an attack at all.
> >The Maine is the only incident where he had a really good case and
> >everyone knows about the Maine. And why is the name of a battleships
> >in quotes. It really was named the Maine.
>
> Presumably, the author didn't know that the names of ships are supposed
> to be italicized (like the titles of novels), rather than quoted (like
> the titles of short stories).
Well, I can't italicize on usenet, or I don't care to find out how I
could, so I can see that someone might use quotes instead of italics.
I guess it isn't unreasonable.
Tian
Keyboard.
Alan Dicey
/Italics/
*Bold*
_underline_
Bruce C. Baker
========================================================================
As long as we're being hyper-finicky here, it's just /Maine/, not "the
Maine".
Tian
I'd love to know how you did that italics, bold, and underline stuff.
Alan Dicey
I simply enclosed the words in the standard markings for italics (//)
bold (**) and underlined(__). In an ASCII context this would indicate
to the reader that the words so enclosed should be taken as italicised,
bolded or underlined.
Many mail/news clients will interpret these markings and perform the
action as well. Thunderbird (which you're using) is one of them.
Mike C
>>
>> /Italics/
>> *Bold*
>> _underline_
>
>
> I'd love to know how you did that italics, bold, and underline stuff.
>
The news reader you are using as shown below, states TB 2.0.0.24 so it
is easy for your reader to mime the actual appearence even though you do
not see any html codes. The 'code' you see with the poster were the
codes you use. These codes are 'rendered' just as they say by most
reader apps of recent vintage. I see you are paying for usenet access,
you do not need to pay if all you read and post are text groups. The
binary groups might be what you want as well though so to each his own.
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <iqt9t...@enews5.newsguy.com>
References: <8I-dnS6GePqBJFfQ...@earthlink.com>
<1fce30e7-8e59-4ff1...@q30g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>
<iqrosk$qh2$2...@dont-email.me>
<34c37712-9710-46a4...@e21g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
<G_2dnT66u47tCUzQ...@brightview.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host:
pdc09cd6c513c3c45475694449e003a7f4277bbddc77e7e59f71c3b369338f457.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101027)
^^^^
In-Reply-To: <G_2dnT66u47tCUzQ...@brightview.co.uk>
Xref: feeder.eternal-september.org alt.fan.heinlein:5207
I see someone up thread has answered this question as well. So I shall
expand on the answer.
The codes shown are very standard and a hold over from the early days of
usenet and or fidonet and the ilk. I used them for years while editing
articles submitted to the various rags I was nominally in charge of. The
standard was established by right thinking folks with a yen to
communicate nuances with in the ascii restrictions of usenet. The
pictures you might remember and even have printed yourself on some mono
spaced line printer were another effort to use ascii for all it could
display. But some folks wanted more from ascii than it was capable of
displaying, some wanted color and flashing characters, etc. This was the
beginning of ANSI code within text messages... I could go on but I
suggest and encourage anyone wishing more history on these many subjects
of the early days to do the research, you'll have a better appreciation
for the ingenuity and prowess displayed by these giants we stand athwart
the shoulders.
Best,
Mike C
Eric S. Harris
> wrote:
>
>>Meant to post this here, but posted it to RASWF instead, so I decided to
>>post it again, to the right place this time.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Here's an article listing various events which are portrayed as
>>"unprovoked attacks" on the United States but -- if the author's account
>>of events is correct and has no important omissions -- were actually
>>very much provoked, or in the case of the sinking of the "Maine" likely
>>not an attack at all.
>
>
>
> What a buffoon this man is. Just as Susan Sontag evidently thought she
> was telling us something we didn't know after 9/11 he is attacking the
> straw man "they object to your policies" gives someone license to
> attack a major power and not expect to be crushed. In a few cases, he
> had information that isn't widely known but for the most part
> everything that he says is well-known and carries no weight.
Apparently you think everyone or almost everyone is as knowledgeable as
you. Around here, those things may be well known, but in the larger
world where people think a Keynesian is a person from Kenya, not so
much. (Sorry for the redundant links. Don't know which is the best to
post.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBrHkxqNT7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouXB-tvUF4w
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/is-obama-a-keynesian-rall_n_777245.html
has a shorter version: http://tinyurl.com/3ow2u65
("Andy Cobb and the Partisans"? Sounds like a great name for a band.)
> Yes, to give one example, the Japanese didn't like our oil embargo; it
> was interfering with their plans to conquer China. Isn't that too
> fucking bad. Yamamoto was correct; they were signing their Empire's
> death warrant.
The author said it wasn't actually unprovoked, and gave his reason.
You're saying yes it was provoked, and the provocation was justified.
So what's the problem? Maybe he said he thought the provocation was
unjustified. I didn't read it that closely.
And I don't care much, either way. That's because the point of the
original post was that Prof de la Paz said that Luna needed to goad FN
into throwing the first punch, and this article refers to that.
Well, maybe once or twice I did want to goad someone into, um, showing
their work, i.e. making explicit their case for whatever point they were
trying to make.
> al-Quaida didn't like our foreign policy. Well, why do they get a veto
> over our foreign policy? Because they are willing to do violence?
> Well, guess what, so were we.
If you park your car for two weeks on a street of vacant buildings in
East St. Louis and are shocked and appalled when you go to pick it up
that it's been stolen or vandalized, you're a bit naive. That doesn't
mean the thief or vandal did nothing wrong. It just means you made a
mistake in judgment, perhaps out of ignorance or inexperience, or a
flawed idea of how the world works. "Naive" is probably the best word.
If you park your new car on that same street for two weeks and expect it
to not be stolen and not be vandalized, your mental status should be
downgraded from "naive" to "stupid".
A foreign policy that pisses off enough crazy people so much that some
of them will kill themselves by flying airplanes into buildings might be
worthy of reconsideration. Not because they were right to do what they
did -- they weren't -- but because it's perhaps a dumb thing to have
such a foreign policy.
> The Maine is the only incident where he had a really good case and
> everyone knows about the Maine. And why is the name of a battleships
> in quotes. It really was named the Maine.
Yeah. I thought it should be in italics, and my italicizer was in the
shop, so I used the nearest thing handy. Sorry if that offended ...
especially if italicizing wasn't right, either. -Eric
Eric S. Harris
> On 17/05/2011 09:04, Tian wrote:
>
>> Alan Dicey wrote:
[snip]
>>>
>>> /Italics/
>>> *Bold*
>>> _underline_
>>
>>
>> I'd love to know how you did that italics, bold, and underline stuff.
>>
>
> I simply enclosed the words in the standard markings for italics (//)
> bold (**) and underlined(__). In an ASCII context this would indicate
> to the reader that the words so enclosed should be taken as italicised,
> bolded or underlined.
>
> Many mail/news clients will interpret these markings and perform the
> action as well. Thunderbird (which you're using) is one of them.
Cool. I didn't know any mail/newsreader software did that. I figured
it was up to the reader to mentally adjust the font on the fly -- which
apparently in olden times it always was. (I live in the land of FidoNet
Zone 1, Net 100.)
I meant to switch over to Thunderbird a long time ago. Maybe over the
weekend I will. Thanks for the nudge. -Eric
Will in New Haven
>
> > al-Quaida didn't like our foreign policy. Well, why do they get a veto
> > over our foreign policy? Because they are willing to do violence?
> > Well, guess what, so were we.
>
> If you park your car for two weeks on a street of vacant buildings in
> East St. Louis and are shocked and appalled when you go to pick it up
> that it's been stolen or vandalized, you're a bit naive. That doesn't
> mean the thief or vandal did nothing wrong. It just means you made a
> mistake in judgment, perhaps out of ignorance or inexperience, or a
> flawed idea of how the world works. "Naive" is probably the best word.
>
> If you park your new car on that same street for two weeks and expect it
> to not be stolen and not be vandalized, your mental status should be
> downgraded from "naive" to "stupid".
>
> A foreign policy that pisses off enough crazy people so much that some
> of them will kill themselves by flying airplanes into buildings might be
> worthy of reconsideration. Not because they were right to do what they
> did -- they weren't -- but because it's perhaps a dumb thing to have
> such a foreign policy.
Really? So you really want anyone with a credible threat of violence
to be able to cause us to change our foreign policy. Maybe our
_security_ procedures but not our foreign policy.
MajorOz
> A foreign policy that pisses off enough crazy people so much that some
> of them will kill themselves by flying airplanes into buildings might be
> worthy of reconsideration. Not because they were right to do what they
> did -- they weren't -- but because it's perhaps a dumb thing to have
> such a foreign policy.
I don't give a rat's ass what crazy people think about anything, much
less our foreign policy.
If they feel (as opposed to "think", Dr. Phil) that their crazy
response justifies hurting us.......fuck 'em; blow 'em away.
Their craziness is not a reason, by itself, to change anything.
I squish mosquitoes that bite me, also.
cheers
oz
Quadibloc
> a425couple wrote:
> > #6 IS ANYONE REALLY TRYING TO SAY IN
> > OPEN COMMERCE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO
> > SELL A THUG THE TOOLS HE NEEDS TO
> > MURDER YOUR FRIEND?
>
> Who is the "you" and "your" in this? The US government? Or firms
> operating in the US and subject to US jurisdiction?
>
> It's looking like you are saying that the US government obstructed
> Imperial Japan's military efforts to the greatest extent that it could
> without actually committing an overt act of war, and that it was
> effective enough at this that Imperial Japan was goaded into attacking
> Pearl Harbor. Is that right?
>
> I'd have to re-read the original article, but I think that's the gist of
> the Pearl Harbor segment.
>
> If I got both of those things right, why the anger? (I assume item 6
> was in in all caps due to anger, not by accident.)
Given such things as the Rape of Nanking, clearly the United States
was entirely within its rights to refuse to sell the oil that belonged
to it to Japan, a country engaged in such acts of aggression.
Thus, while Japan might have *felt* provoked, in no way did the United
States do something to Japan which in any way excused or mitigated the
MURDER of Americans at Pearl Harbor.
Killing innocent people is something that people _should_ be angry
about. And trying to make it something other than it is on the basis
of dishonest arguments is disgusting. Anger is an appropriate response
to such nonsense.
John Savard
Quadibloc
wrote:
> I simply enclosed the words in the standard markings for italics (//)
> bold (**) and underlined(__). In an ASCII context this would indicate
> to the reader that the words so enclosed should be taken as italicised,
> bolded or underlined.
>
> Many mail/news clients will interpret these markings and perform the
> action as well. Thunderbird (which you're using) is one of them.
And here I thought that _this_ was the USENET standard for italics,
enclosing things in slashes being far too visually obtrusive.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> A foreign policy that pisses off enough crazy people so much that some
> of them will kill themselves by flying airplanes into buildings might be
> worthy of reconsideration. Not because they were right to do what they
> did -- they weren't -- but because it's perhaps a dumb thing to have
> such a foreign policy.
This may make sense if you're American.
On the other hand, it doesn't make a lot of sense if you're Chinese or
Israeli.
The thing to do with crazy people who may do violence to you if you
don't let them get away with violence against other innocent people -
is not to live in fear of them and yield to their demands. No. The
thing to do with them is to hunt them down and kill them - if you are
able to do so, that is the most ethical thing to do.
How many Americans get blown up each week by someone trying to reclaim
vast tracts of the U.S. for the American Indian? Israel should be so
lucky. And America, with its power, should make it so, so that the
world can go on to solving more important problems.
John Savard
Michael Stemper
>On May 17, 2:12=A0am, Alan Dicey <a...@diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>> I simply enclosed the words in the standard markings for italics (//)
>> bold (**) and underlined(__). =A0In an ASCII context this would indicate
>> to the reader that the words so enclosed should be taken as italicised,
>> bolded or underlined.
>>
>> Many mail/news clients will interpret these markings and perform the
>> action as well. =A0Thunderbird (which you're using) is one of them.
>
>And here I thought that _this_ was the USENET standard for italics,
>enclosing things in slashes being far too visually obtrusive.
It's a second-generation hack. When typewriters started being used,
people noticed that there was a shift key, but no italic key, which
left them up a crick when trying to denote the title of a book. So,
the first-generation hack, of under-lining to indicate italicization,
was developed. Then, along came Usenet, which is a straight string
of consecutive ASCII characters. People discovered that putting a "+"
in column 1 didn't cause overtyping, as it would on a line printer,
so the weren't even able to underline any more. So, they developed
the second-generation hack, which was to preceed and follow text
with an underscore character to indicate that the text was to be
considered underlined (which in turn meant that it was to be
considered italicized).
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
There is three erors in this sentence.
MajorOz
MajorOz
...punched the wrong button.
What he meant to do was respond to the post below:
> On May 19, 5:10 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 3:22 pm, "Eric S. Harris" <eric_harris...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > A foreign policy that pisses off enough crazy people so much that some
> > > of them will kill themselves by flying airplanes into buildings might be
> > > worthy of reconsideration. Not because they were right to do what they
> > > did -- they weren't -- but because it's perhaps a dumb thing to have
> > > such a foreign policy.
>
> > This may make sense if you're American.
It certainly does............today. America's sense of "punish the
bastards" is a pretty pussy policy.
Wasn't always, or even usually, that way.
The going after Iraq and Afghanistan is, MISTAKENLY, seen, by many,
as such, but it was not. It was just a spasm to "do something".
> > The thing to do with crazy people who may do violence to you if you
> > don't let them get away with violence against other innocent people -
> > is not to live in fear of them and yield to their demands. No. The
> > thing to do with them is to hunt them down and kill them - if you are
> > able to do so, that is the most ethical thing to do.
>
> > How many Americans get blown up each week by someone trying to reclaim
> > vast tracts of the U.S. for the American Indian? Israel should be so
> > lucky. And America, with its power, should make it so, so that the
> > world can go on to solving more important problems.
Complete agreement, but our current CINC seems to be in category
referred to, above, as evidenced by speeches in recent days.
cheers
oz
Eric S. Harris
I don't want vandals and car thieves to change my "parking policy". I
should be able to park my car any permitted place I want and not have it
vandalized or stolen.
And I also don't want the expense and hassle of dealing with car theft
or vandalism.
And I'd be stupid to think that my parking decisions don't affect events.
Besides, I was opposed to a US military presence in damn near every
country on the planet before that policy gained the attention of Mr.
bin Laden, for a number of reasons. Not pissing off dangerously crazy
people was only part of it.
A certain G. Washington and a couple others of that crowd were of a
similar mind.
As for that whole "credible threat of violence" thing, I seem to recall
something called the Soviet Union. It presented such a threat, and it
certainly caused changes in foreign policy.
There were differences, of course. (1) The threat was recognized before
an attack occurred. (2) It was a government, with uniforms and all
that. (3) It was run by white people, not brown people.
And perhaps most importantly, when it was no longer a threat, it was
obvious.
For those nostalgic for the Cold War, the current "War on Terror" is
much better. There's no obvious way to know that Cold War II is over --
and some powerful incentives for those who benefit from its existence
and are in a position to know, to not say, when it becomes obvious to
them. -Eric
Eric S. Harris
Agreed.
> I squish mosquitoes that bite me, also.
So Al Qaeda is no more?
I'm thinking a better approach for the long run is to drain the swamp.
Or at least quit pumping water into it.
Opinions differ. -Eric
Chris Zakes
caused "Eric S. Harris" <eric_ha...@wahoo.com> to write:
>MajorOz wrote:
>
>> On May 18, 4:22 pm, "Eric S. Harris" <eric_harris...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A foreign policy that pisses off enough crazy people so much that some
>>>of them will kill themselves by flying airplanes into buildings might be
>>>worthy of reconsideration. Not because they were right to do what they
>>>did -- they weren't -- but because it's perhaps a dumb thing to have
>>>such a foreign policy.
>>
>>
>> I don't give a rat's ass what crazy people think about anything, much
>> less our foreign policy.
>>
>> If they feel (as opposed to "think", Dr. Phil) that their crazy
>> response justifies hurting us.......fuck 'em; blow 'em away.
>>
>> Their craziness is not a reason, by itself, to change anything.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> I squish mosquitoes that bite me, also.
>
>So Al Qaeda is no more?
>
>I'm thinking a better approach for the long run is to drain the swamp.
>Or at least quit pumping water into it.
>
>Opinions differ. -Eric
Okay, and *how* do we do that? (Short of nuking Israel and everyone in
the US and western Europe converting to the correct--whatever *that*
means--flavor of Islam.)
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
Very well, then I exaggerate! There are things in this world a man does well to
carry to extremes.
-Cyrano in "Cyrano de Bergerac" by Edmond Rostand
Will in New Haven
You'd be stupid to _give_ the vandals and car thieves anything in
return for not messing with your car. What the people in question want
is _not_ simply to be left alone and in peace. Parking your car in a
different place is NOT analogous to doing what the extremists want
done.
>
> Besides, I was opposed to a US military presence in damn near every
> country on the planet before that policy gained the attention of Mr.
> bin Laden, for a number of reasons. Not pissing off dangerously crazy
> people was only part of it.
That policy is not the main problem for any of our foes. And, for that
matter, I think we do too much of it ourselves. However, today's
Islamicists are the direct decendants of the movement that began in
the late Forties in Egypt, which obviously had earlier antecedents.
What they want is to no longer be second-rate, to overcome "centuries
of humiliation." If you think not having bases in the Arabian
Penninsula will apease them, you have not read the people whose works
started the whole thing. Even Israel is only a small part of what they
imagine has been taken from them. To read these people is to imagine
rings of refugee camps around Spain and Portugal.
Certainly, we could lessen their appeal to the masses by doing some of
the things they claim would be enough but it would not keep them from
continuing their quest.
I do wish we could get to the discussion of your original point, from
MOON, because it seemed interesting.
--
Will in New Haven
>
> A certain G. Washington and a couple others of that crowd were of a
> similar mind.
>
> As for that whole "credible threat of violence" thing, I seem to recall
> something called the Soviet Union. It presented such a threat, and it
> certainly caused changes in foreign policy.
>
> There were differences, of course. (1) The threat was recognized before
> an attack occurred. (2) It was a government, with uniforms and all
> that. (3) It was run by white people, not brown people.
>
> And perhaps most importantly, when it was no longer a threat, it was
> obvious.
>
> For those nostalgic for the Cold War, the current "War on Terror" is
> much better. There's no obvious way to know that Cold War II is over --
> and some powerful incentives for those who benefit from its existence
> and are in a position to know, to not say, when it becomes obvious to
> them. -Eric
>
> --
> Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
> replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
> of correction; it's a big Internet and I'm only one opinionated guy:http://xkcd.com/386- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -