REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
The takeback of Hawaiian lands?
- Thread starter casa_mugrienta
- Start date
[/QUOTE]
There is a very interesting story that took place on Ni'iahu December 7th through December 15th 1941. A Japanese Naval Air Service pilot crash landed on the Island after taking part in the attack on Pearl Harbor. The story was made into a film a few years back. One of the main characters in the Ni'ihau incident was Ben Kanahele, a resident of the Island and the reason for the old saying "never shoot a Hawaiian more than twice, you will only make him mad"
On two occasions, I was privileged to make a boat trip to surf the outer reefs of the island and the waves were very good.
Didn’t Kauai fire get in trouble for surfing and diving over by Niihau with the fire boat couple years back?
Before the existence of artillery that might be the case. Not so much anymore. The last 100 years proves this. You're arguing excluding the most relevant variable- technology.
The more collectivist a society is, the more psychopaths flourish by garnering most of the weaponry for themselves. Some cases-
The former Soviet Union. Stalin (psychopath) murdered somewhere between 50-100 MILLION people.
China- Mao and Xi JinPeng have murder 10's of millions of their own people.
North Korea- Psychopath Kim Jong Un did the same thing.
Cambodia- Psychopath Pol Pot did the same thing. 1-2 million.
And the list actually goes on. A collectivist utopia pre-dating modern weaponry still isn't realistic though. But I'm sure the probability of its success is higher.
If China had a superior form of government I would be down for the takeover. But they don't. They're communist murderers who destroy their own people. They run slave camps and operate with zero ingenuity. They steal technology and ideas because they are unable to come up with any of their own.
They lack the free market we have. Everything is sanctioned and overseen by the state. The greed that fuels competition and empowers the individual in our economy is replaced by lazy beuracrats that siphon the life out of workers and crush anyone who pushes back.
Like I've stated before, your uninformed shallowness disables you from viewing life as it really is. Collectivism is doomed to fail after the eixstence of weaponry. Additionally that sort of governance sounds good in theory until the will of the majority starts conflicting with what you perceive to be individual rights.
I can’t believe I’m saying this but @Jonahbrah is right.
I don’t think people realize just how good we have it
I don’t think people realize just how good we have it
Psychopaths are attracted to positions of power.
So they are everywhere.
Trump displays psycopathic and sociopathic traits. He's thriving in the land of the free.
Psychopaths are not nessarily bad.
A prosocial psychopath leader is a treasure.
A really intelligent psychopath realizes that his own success is dependant on the success of those around him.
Sure let's call Trump psychopathic while Obama funds gain of function reaearch, further degrades education through common core (hates making children smart), and abolishes our economy with socialist legislature. As long as he's set for life right. Screw America. We are an inherently racist country that deserves to go down.
Another disattached lemming...
In America (and most of the West, actually) we enjoy a level of personal freedom and autonomy that is unthinkable in China.
China has already shown the world that they have big ambitions and are willing to push for expansion. They haven't done it to Taiwan because they think they rule Taiwan. They don't recognize the acting government.
The only thing preventing China from doing the full blown imperial march through the Pacific is they know the U.S. and Allies in the region will confront them. That doesn't mean they aren't trying by way of debt diplomacy and island building where they push the envelope of acceptable international norms.
The location that makes Hawaii so amazing is also its own worst enemy. If you control Hawaii then you control more than half of the free world.
Perhaps there is an intermediate step between vassal state of the US and naked babe in the middle of the Pacific, waiting for the next takeover?
The big problem with Hawaii is that it is a living violation of one of the core messages of the United States - that they are not an imperialist nation. Hawaii proves that the US is indeed an empire (westward expansion in general proved that, but still), so other empires, whom we denounce regularly for being empires, can ignore the US' anti-expansion admonitions.
Perhaps the US should just come right out and say it - damn right we're an empire, but we're better than all the other ones. It's a more respectable position, although it would dramatically alter our foreign policy rhetoric.
we've been building an empire from the beginning. We took the British model and multiplied it x3. And yes, I'd rather it be us than Russia or China. despite our whackadoodle political scene and all the divisiveness and racism and VERY checkered past of atrocities and slaughter to secure said empire, i'd still it rather be us. And so would a large chunk of the world who has enjoyed unprecedented increases in quality of life and over the decades. The old saw reigns true even today- if you want to run the world, you need a military/imperial presence at LEAST 3x the size of the next 2 biggest powers, combined. The British figured that out in the late 1600's, and held sway over the vast majority of the planet for HUNDREDS of years. A little cluster of cold rainy islands. They lost the North American colonies because they lacked the will to engage that formula on our former colonies, and they got whooped. if they had brought their full "3x" model to bear during the War for Independence, we would still be British.
Why is it a problem? Not trying to be a smart ass, just curious why you think it is an actual problem.
Hawai'i needs a navy and leaders who can't be bought-off or forget it. It doesn't need a navy like we have, it just needs one that can control its own waters, kind of like Iran has or the Latin American countries.
Principles of Maritime Strategy (Dover Military History, Weapons, Armor): Corbett, Julian S.: 9780486437439: Amazon.com: Books
Principles of Maritime Strategy (Dover Military History, Weapons, Armor) [Corbett, Julian S.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Principles of Maritime Strategy (Dover Military History, Weapons, Armor)
www.amazon.com
Comparisons to Tawain aren't good because you need to steam out a long way to reach Hawaii to occupy it. OTOH, the Formosa strait is only 110 miles wide.
The Atlantic elite put a different spin on it (they are nuts):
The US added stars to the flag over the last 200 years and will subtract them in this century. I remember in the 80s I thought the USSR would last forever. It was about the same population. In 10 years, it was gone.
That’s an extremely poor comparison.
A littoral navy in Hawaii is useless. The entire war in Hawaii can be fought over the horizon.
Iraq is different because it is located inside the major choke point-Straight of Hormuz. So they have control geographically of the gulf because of that.
Hawaii has a 360 degree protection need.
I could see multiple states west of the Mississippi seceding.
The South will never secede, it relies too much on government handouts. Nor will the midwest or any of the eastern states.
The question is if they will be allowed to secede peacefully. Unfortunately the precedent for violence in response to secession was already set during the first Civil War.
Do you think the current union of states would ever unite to form one country today?