Aircraft carrier symbol of China's naval ambitions
DerbyX @ Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:04 pm
Wow. Cherry is really being pro-Boston/anti-Vancouver after the 1st. I thought Zip was being a bit over-zealous but ...... 
PimpBrewski123 @ Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:15 pm
raydan raydan:
PimpBrewski123 PimpBrewski123:
It sure would be nice for Canada to have its own aircraft carrier. At least that would be cool, although expensive but neat nonetheless. 
We did, and my dad served on it... HMCS Bonaventure 1957 to 1970, the third and the last aircraft carrier to serve Canada.
Perhaps meant and should have stated for today's Forces.
A current and modern ship, manned with several aircrafts. Now I know that we would need more personnel and other stuff. Or instead have better vessels for the Arctic, sure, that would be better. Either way, there is a need for increased funding in that department. But an aircraft carrier would be neat nonetheless.
BartSimpson @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:57 am
A few comments aimed at no one in particular:
1. Israel is no longer 'backed' by the USA in its possession of lands beyond the 1967 borders. I can't believe that anyone has missed this recent fracture in US-Israel relations.
2. Hawai'i was stolen from the native Hawai'ians by the United States. However, in the realm of the realpolitik of the day, Hawai'i was most defintely not going to remain independent. Hawai'i had been under the British sphere of influence up until sometime in the 1880's at which point there was a sort of 'gentleman's agreement' between the US and the UK that Hawai'i was thenceforth a matter of US interest and that the US would step back from matters defined as of interest to the UK.
Which is why in the course of the 1880's British influence in the islands declined and American influence increased.
Absent US or UK interest in Hawai'i it is a certainty that either France of Germany would've taken control of these islands. The Hawai'ian Islands are astride one of the best America-Asia shipping routes and anyone who controls Hawai'i controls a vast swath of the Pacific. Added to this the import of Hawai'i at the time as a coaling stop for coal-fired vessels and you'll see that the US saw a vital interest not so much in controlling those islands, but in denying control of them to anyone else. Given the nature of naval operations at the time the US control of Hawai'i denied the Germans and French the support base they'd have required to run operations against the US west coast.
It's just the way things were and, forgive me, I see it as mostly right for the US to have taken control of Hawai'i because if we had not done it the French or Germans would have.
Lemmy @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:02 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
1. Israel is no longer 'backed' by the USA in its possession of lands beyond the 1967 borders. I can't believe that anyone has missed this recent fracture in US-Israel relations.
Very true, although it's not really a "recent" fracture. US presidents have been saying the same thing back as far as Carter.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
2. Hawai'i was stolen from the native Hawai'ians by the United States. However, in the realm of the realpolitik of the day, Hawai'i was most defintely not going to remain independent. Hawai'i had been under the British sphere of influence up until sometime in the 1880's at which point there was a sort of 'gentleman's agreement' between the US and the UK that Hawai'i was thenceforth a matter of US interest and that the US would step back from matters defined as of interest to the UK.
Which is why in the course of the 1880's British influence in the islands declined and American influence increased.
Absent US or UK interest in Hawai'i it is a certainty that either France of Germany would've taken control of these islands. The Hawai'ian Islands are astride one of the best America-Asia shipping routes and anyone who controls Hawai'i controls a vast swath of the Pacific. Added to this the import of Hawai'i at the time as a coaling stop for coal-fired vessels and you'll see that the US saw a vital interest not so much in controlling those islands, but in denying control of them to anyone else. Given the nature of naval operations at the time the US control of Hawai'i denied the Germans and French the support base they'd have required to run operations against the US west coast.
It's just the way things were and, forgive me, I see it as mostly right for the US to have taken control of Hawai'i because if we had not done it the French or Germans would have.
Which is why in the course of the 1880's British influence in the islands declined and American influence increased.
Absent US or UK interest in Hawai'i it is a certainty that either France of Germany would've taken control of these islands. The Hawai'ian Islands are astride one of the best America-Asia shipping routes and anyone who controls Hawai'i controls a vast swath of the Pacific. Added to this the import of Hawai'i at the time as a coaling stop for coal-fired vessels and you'll see that the US saw a vital interest not so much in controlling those islands, but in denying control of them to anyone else. Given the nature of naval operations at the time the US control of Hawai'i denied the Germans and French the support base they'd have required to run operations against the US west coast.
It's just the way things were and, forgive me, I see it as mostly right for the US to have taken control of Hawai'i because if we had not done it the French or Germans would have.
Good historical and economic points. I don't agree that Hawaii was "stolen", however. I see Hawaii's addition to the USA much the same as Texas'. It had a native population, but for many years before the US gained control, American settlers were moving in and uspetting the political power. Hawaii had a lot of wealthy and influential American settlers. It was a popular internal movement to seek annexation, rather than an external takeover. Given the large population of Americans living in Hawaii, it's highly doubtful that Germany or any other foreign power would have been able to exert any influence over Hawaii, so I dismiss the notion that there was any real danger of Hawaii going anywhere but into American hands.
BartSimpson @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:01 am
Lemmy Lemmy:
Given the large population of Americans living in Hawaii, it's highly doubtful that Germany or any other foreign power would have been able to exert any influence over Hawaii, so I dismiss the notion that there was any real danger of Hawaii going anywhere but into American hands.
You're putting the cart before the horse. Had the British not 'ceded' Hawai'i to the US sphere of influence then the American businesses and settlers would not have gone there in the numbers that they did.
Absent US or UK interest, Hawai'i would have likely gone to France, first, given French proximity in Tahiti, or to Germany, which was very interested in the Pacific islands in that time.
Wada @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:04 am
Not sure what "stolen" means in your dictionary but natives still to this day have a difficult time owning their own homes or land what with the white man owning almost all and if my memory serves me well the church had a big hand in this tragedy. 
Lemmy @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:30 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
You're putting the cart before the horse. Had the British not 'ceded' Hawai'i to the US sphere of influence then the American businesses and settlers would not have gone there in the numbers that they did.
Absent US or UK interest, Hawai'i would have likely gone to France, first, given French proximity in Tahiti, or to Germany, which was very interested in the Pacific islands in that time.
Absent US or UK interest, Hawai'i would have likely gone to France, first, given French proximity in Tahiti, or to Germany, which was very interested in the Pacific islands in that time.
I guess we're just thinking about different time periods. I'm thinking about the 1880-1900 time period, you're thinking earlier. Certainly by 1880, the game was up and Hawaii was destined for US control.
BartSimpson @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:33 am
Wada Wada:
Not sure what "stolen" means in your dictionary but natives still to this day have a difficult time owning their own homes or land what with the white man owning almost all and if my memory serves me well the church had a big hand in this tragedy.
Hawai'ians can own land just like anyone else can. The problem is the cost. Some Hawai'ians are currently looking for recognition as a tribe under US law so they can obtain lands currently owned by the Federal government as tribal lands...I do not oppose this.
The church that had a big to-do here was the Methodist Church. For the most part, their influence was good and most Hawai'ians have a decent view of the church.
CommanderSock @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:06 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Wada Wada:
Not sure what "stolen" means in your dictionary but natives still to this day have a difficult time owning their own homes or land what with the white man owning almost all and if my memory serves me well the church had a big hand in this tragedy.
Hawai'ians can own land just like anyone else can. The problem is the cost. Some Hawai'ians are currently looking for recognition as a tribe under US law so they can obtain lands currently owned by the Federal government as tribal lands...I do not oppose this.
The church that had a big to-do here was the Methodist Church. For the most part, their influence was good and most Hawai'ians have a decent view of the church.
I've wondered why the natives, and slaves were never compensated with a piece of land for their..."troubles".
I mean it's not to hard to toss out an acre or two their way. And in the future, they could always cash in if they don't wish to maintain it.
I digress...
BartSimpson @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:44 pm
In the USA the natives have been compensated with dispensations to run casinos and etc. on tribal lands that are not permitted elsewhere. The slaves were initially compensated with '40 acres and a mule' but that policy was undone by (Southern) President Andrew Johnson. After that freed slaves were still able to use the Homestead Act to obtain as much as 160 acres of land in the West but few did so.
It was ironic, but many freed slaves elected to stay working on the plantations as sharecroppers which managed to put them into a situation that was arguably worse than slavery. Still, the sharecroppers preferred the 'security' of what they knew to the hazards of actual freedom and it took the atrocities of the Flood of 1927 to start the blacks on a mass migration out of the South.
Wada @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:52 pm
Bart Yer a funny guy!
BartSimpson @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:49 pm
Wada Wada:
Bart Yer a funny guy!
So I've been told.
herbie @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:35 pm
Fuck dat. I can't quit smoking and it's all the red man's fault for getting my ancestors hooked on tobacco. I demand reparations.