If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Not to mention the Phillipines, Extensively discussed in the thread Puerto Rico Discussed Chris Mark |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Not to mention the Phillipines, Extensively discussed in the thread Puerto Rico Discussed Wake, Ceded to the US by Spain as part of the settlement of the Spanish-American War, which has been discussed Guam, Discussed Kwajalein, Eniwetok etc Spanish possessions sold to Germany, seized by Japan, seized by the US. Already discussed. panama canal zone Mentioned, not discussed Then there's the little matter of US forces intervening in various central and south american nations to protect US economic interests, Nicaragua in 1933 comes to mind. Protecting economic interests, even with limited use of military force to ensure order and the maintenance of friendly governments is not the same thing as imperialism, although the more radical left (and libertarian right) loves to obscure the difference. Lumping US actions in Central America into the same box with what the US did with Puerto Rico or the Philippines is to make a false comparison. The fact is the US went through a colonial period too. No one has disputed that. The proposition is that the US flirtation with "classic" imperialism was brief in duration and limited in extent, largely due to domestic opposition. Chris Mark |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Mark" wrote in message ... From: "Keith Willshaw" Protecting economic interests, even with limited use of military force to ensure order and the maintenance of friendly governments is not the same thing as imperialism, Of course it is, thats why Britain built an Empire fer crying out loud. Keith |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Keith Willshaw"
snip I only replied to you to point out that you were bringing up points already discussed as if they had not even been mentioned. That suggests you were only interested in making a put down, not actually discussing the subject. Based on previous encounters, I'm really not interested in having a conversation with you. Have a nice day. Chris Mark |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Denyav
writes Ouote: "Democracy is inimical to IMPERIAL mobilization" page 35 Is it? Why? If only 20 percent of population support your imperial mobilization plans a system in which every vote counts is not very helpful for the realization of your plans,I guess Why 20%? Is that an arbitrary figure? Where are we talking about? 18th century France? 20th century USSR? o. You still don't make sense. There appear to be words missing. Anyway, why shouldn't they have? It fitted in with the thinking of the time. Let me give you some hints,Brzezinski is a member of extremely influental CFR, (Council on Foreign Relations). I don't want hints, I want a sentence that is structured and comprehensible. English is my primary language, and I find it helps comprehension if it's written sensibly. Does CFR really exist? Or ,is it only a loudspeaker placed inside US and connected to the music source located inside Great Britain? More obscure thinking. The British settlers and their descendants were the major factor in founding the USA, and stayed in the country. You leave, and, unless everybody has learnt your language in the meantime, it goes with you as far as the majority of the population is concerned. Interesting,I guess Britons,Germans,French,Greeks,Arabs etc, were much dumber than Indians,Zambians,Jamaicans etc. No. The Empire educated the people, so they learnt English as they grew up. You know Romans ruled Britons,Germans and others for longer periods than Britons ruled Indians. But nobody speaks italian In UK,Germany,France ,Greece and Arab countries,but almost everybody speaks English in former British colonies. This is something to do with Roman "cultural appeal" and Anglo "Cultural Assertiveness". Romans were actually much more than Roman legions,they also represented cultural highpoint of their era. Confident cultures need not be assertive.period. The cultural appeal can't have been that great then. You are wilfully ignoring the question of education. Empire and 16th-20th century India and USA. Nobody else in Europe has Latin as their daily language either. Few people outside the clergy and the upper classes spoke Latin, just like now. Nobody in Europa speaks Italian either (except Italians of course) Truth is Romans were not culturally assertive,they did not try to force any body in empire to use their language. What has Italian got to do with it? The Romans didn't speak it. Oh yes it was. History is more or less accidental where the majority of events is concerned. Only,if you call sexual preferences of British foreign officers that helped to create the Empire accidental . Hardly relevant, even if it's true, which I doubt. Your prejudices are showing again. sake. Why did the Allies spend so much time, money and effort, lose so many lives and endure such suffering to rid the world of him? To make Henry Ford rich? You've been In order to thrust Germany into a premature war,of course. So the British Army occupied the Saar, concluded the Anschluss, occupied Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland? Let's look at that again: the Allies (even before they were the Allies) conspired to put the NSDAP into power in Germany, forced Germany to make war on the rest of Europe, and then spent six years undoing that work? Gotta get some of what you're smoking, it's powerful stuff. A war with Germany,armed with nuclear tipped ICBMs and other exotic stuff,would be much more bloodier and even harder,if not impossible,to win What? Henry Ford rich? You've been reading too many thrillers. Who needs thrillers,their authors cannot even imagine whats really happening in real world. And you do know what's happening? How? nd you still haven't told me what an "Anglo" is. -- Does it matter? Since the first Homosapiens appeared in African continent? Of course it matters! You're the one who is telling us all that we're subject to an "Anglo" conspiracy. You might do us the courtesy of letting everyone know exactly who they're up against. -- Peter Ying tong iddle-i po! |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Mark" wrote in message ... From: "Keith Willshaw" snip I only replied to you to point out that you were bringing up points already discussed as if they had not even been mentioned. That suggests you were only interested in making a put down, not actually discussing the subject. Based on previous encounters, I'm really not interested in having a conversation with you. Have a nice day. Evasion noted Keith |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Why 20%? Is that an arbitrary figure? Where are we talking about? 18th
century France? 20th century USSR? Whats about 21st century US? I don't want hints, I want a sentence that is structured and comprehensible. English is my primary language, and I find it helps comprehension if it's written sensibly. As far as I know English was also Rhodes' primary language ,so there is apparently a comprehension problem among native English speakers. Its interesting because I am pretty sure that the individuals who use English as second or even third language could immediately understand what Rhodes meant. Or ,is it only a loudspeaker placed inside US and connected to the music source located inside Great Britain? More obscure thinking. No Sir,famous and for some dreaded CFR is nothing but the American Branch or loudspeaker of not so famous British roundtable group. No. The Empire educated the people, so they learnt English as they grew up. Empire educated them to be their servants,and education was not in their native language but in English,in empires language, a perfect example of empire building using "cultural assertiveness". The tactic of Empire was the destruction of existing social structures and the elimination of the elite class in colonized countries as the elites of the colonies,as it happened in colonies in America,could form the nucleus of resistance aganist colonial masters. For example in India,Empire tried to terminate elite Brahmin caste all methods. Nazis tried to imitatate british tactics in Poland,they tried to liquidate whole Polish elite while they tried pretty hard to be friendly with the peasants,even though polish elite was much closer to the Nazis "Superhuman" picture than peasants. Empires do NOT educate the people of colonized countries.Its aganist their nature. What you called "education" is a brainwashing program designed de-root colonized people and to make them the obedient servants of their colonial masters. The cultural appeal can't have been that great then. You are wilfully ignoring the question of education. See above Hardly relevant, even if it's true, which I doubt. Your prejudices are showing again. Thats a fact,life for them was very hard in puritan Britain,they could live more freely in colonies . Let's look at that again: the Allies (even before they were the Allies) conspired to put the NSDAP into power in Germany, forced Germany to make war on the rest of Europe, and then spent six years undoing that work? Gotta get some of what you're smoking, it's powerful stuff. Great Nations and their leaderships usualy make projections and plans for 50 years or more,so if you could prevent Germans from becoming worlds dominant power for next centuries with only six years of blood and tears,its pretty good investment. Typical Anglo pragmatism. A war with Germany,armed with nuclear tipped ICBMs and other exotic stuff,would be much more bloodier and even harder,if not impossible,to win What? Well if war started in late 40s ,Anglos had to deal with it. And you do know what's happening? How? If I lived in Anglo homeland ,I would not want to learn that. You might do us the courtesy of letting everyone know exactly who they're up against. -- In spite of 1500 years of "dilution" process,they are apparently still in a very good condition. I wonder how good the "less diluted" Anglos are. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Kambic wrote:
(Eunometic) wrote in message Impressive but is there even the slightest chance of hitting a ship 22 nm away? The Type 93 or "Long Lance" had this 40,000 meter range. It was however a large ship launched torpedo. The Type 95 was a reduced size version of the "Long Lance" with a range of 12,000 meters designed for submarine use. For giggles it is worth mentioning that the US Navy's surface torpedoes managed about 5500 yards and their submarine torpedoes about 1800 at this time. This is, of course, wholly inaccurate. The standard US DD torp, the 21" Mk.15, had three speed settings: 15,000 yds/26.5 kts, 10,000 yds/33.5 kts; 6,000 yds/45 kts, the speed chosen depending on the circumstances. Night attacks would normally be at short range (pre-radar), so the highest speed was used then. Daytime attacks on a battle line would normally be at the longest possible range, although the speed was considered a bit low, so the intermediate speed was provided to allow a better chance of hitting if conditions allowed so close an approach. Use of oxygen would have allowed an increase in range and/or speed, but safety concerns, lack of funds and inertia on the part of BuOrd delayed development of such torps for the US. The US eventually went with hydrogen peroxide, but development wasn't in time to get them into service during the war. The Mk. 16 for subs was rated at 11,000 yds/46 kts, while the Mk. 17 for DDs was rated at 18,000/46 kts. The 21" Mk. 14 submarine torp also had a choice of speeds: 9,000 yd/31.1 kts; 4,500 yds/46 kts. Aimed shots were only considered likely to have a reasonable probability of hitting when fired under 2,000 yds. The extra range gave a cushion and allowed 'cross your fingers and hope' shots to be fired. I'm unaware of any warshots being taken at the lower speed setting. The deadliness of the u-boats was due to their aiming computer which could compute 5 simultaneous firing solutions on seperate targets. Hit rates of around 80% were common. Was this the figure in '40 or in '44? Can you cite a reference for these numbers? Seems highly unlikely, since high hit rates (of the U-boat aces) were based on them closing to very short range on the surface at night (ca.600-800m) and taking single shots. At that range it was almost impossible to miss. Unfortunately for them the allies got centimetric radar, and that approach no longer worked. US torpedoes tended to be less accurate perhaps due to the use aiming by sonar due to the visibility of the subs at periscope depth. No, not really. U.S. tactics (as I understand them) required a visual approach and shot. Prewar, the US planned to make pure sonar approaches and shots, owing to the overrated effectiveness of sonar. This tended to breed very conservative, risk averse commanders (indeed, those who weren't and tried periscope or even night surface attacks in practice were slapped down), so in addition to problems with the Mk.14 torpedo, it took a year or so of the war to weed out many of the pre-war commanders who lacked the aggressiveness for combat. Sonar (and, later, radar) was (were) used to facilitate that approach. This does not mean that "sound" shots were not used; but, given the cost and limited number of weapons, there were not favored. Also, the problem with early U.S. torpedoes was the exploder, not the guidance system. They did tend to run a sinusoidal path, and typically about 10 feet deeper than set. That was a separate problem from the exploders, and the one found and fixed first. The German Type XXI u-boat had the an array sonar that was unusually accurate and capable of ranging (and thereby plotting and evading attacking ships) german hydrophones were based on passive arrays electronicaly processed and distributed around the hull and were far more accurate and sensitive than allied ones. Sonar ranging both active and passive allowed the Type XXI to attack without use of periscope. I have never heard this claim, before. Can you cite a source for it? GHG was a good unit, operating at subsonic frequencies, and copies/updates based on it were used by both the British and US (and probably the Soviets). The BQR-4 bow array for the postwar SSKs was the American equivalent. I very much doubt passive ranging capability for fire control in WW2; that takes far too long and is too inexact. Single-ping range would be more likely. Guy |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Denyav
writes Another reply from the selective snipmeister, I see. Why 20%? Is that an arbitrary figure? Where are we talking about? 18th century France? 20th century USSR? Whats about 21st century US? Answer the question. I don't want hints, I want a sentence that is structured and comprehensible. English is my primary language, and I find it helps comprehension if it's written sensibly. As far as I know English was also Rhodes' primary language ,so there is apparently a comprehension problem among native English speakers. Its interesting because I am pretty sure that the individuals who use English as second or even third language could immediately understand what Rhodes meant. It's not interesting. The quote you provided was incomplete, ungrammatical and incomprehensible. You obviously don't understand what "Incomprehensible" means. Write it again exactly the way Rhodes said it and we might get somewhere. Or ,is it only a loudspeaker placed inside US and connected to the music source located inside Great Britain? More obscure thinking. No Sir,famous and for some dreaded CFR is nothing but the American Branch or loudspeaker of not so famous British roundtable group. What? No. The Empire educated the people, so they learnt English as they grew up. Empire educated them to be their servants,and education was not in their native language but in English,in empires language, a perfect example of empire building using "cultural assertiveness". What's wrong with that method? Most people had no education at all before that. India had, and still has, so many languages that a common tongue was needed to unify the country. The tactic of Empire was the destruction of existing social structures and the elimination of the elite class in colonized countries as the elites of the colonies,as it happened in colonies in America,could form the nucleus of resistance aganist colonial masters. Existing social structures in India were repressive and exploitative. Foe all its faults, the British ||Empire did improve the lot of the people there. For example in India,Empire tried to terminate elite Brahmin caste all methods. Untrue. Nazis tried to imitatate british tactics in Poland,they tried to liquidate whole Polish elite while they tried pretty hard to be friendly with the peasants,even though polish elite was much closer to the Nazis "Superhuman" picture than peasants. Hardly a valid comparison. Empires do NOT educate the people of colonized countries.Its aganist their nature. Soerry to disappoint you, but look at the number of people around the world who received an education courtesy of Pax Britannica. What you called "education" is a brainwashing program designed de-root colonized people and to make them the obedient servants of their colonial masters. Rubbish. The cultural appeal can't have been that great then. You are wilfully ignoring the question of education. See above Hardly relevant, even if it's true, which I doubt. Your prejudices are showing again. Thats a fact,life for them was very hard in puritan Britain,they could live more freely in colonies . So the only reason people gave up their lives in their homeland was to exercise their perversions overseas? Great reasoning, and untrue. Victorian Britain was not at all puritan behind closed doors. Let's look at that again: the Allies (even before they were the Allies) conspired to put the NSDAP into power in Germany, forced Germany to make war on the rest of Europe, and then spent six years undoing that work? Gotta get some of what you're smoking, it's powerful stuff. Great Nations and their leaderships usualy make projections and plans for 50 years or more,so if you could prevent Germans from becoming worlds dominant power for next centuries with only six years of blood and tears,its pretty good investment. Typical Anglo pragmatism. But you said that the Nazis were set up by tne future Allies in the first place. A war with Germany,armed with nuclear tipped ICBMs and other exotic stuff,would be much more bloodier and even harder,if not impossible,to win What? Well if war started in late 40s ,Anglos had to deal with it. Then why didn't the war start in 1938 at the time of the Munich Agreement? And you do know what's happening? How? If I lived in Anglo homeland ,I would not want to learn that. What? You might do us the courtesy of letting everyone know exactly who they're up against. -- In spite of 1500 years of "dilution" process,they are apparently still in a very good condition. I wonder how good the "less diluted" Anglos are. But WHO ARE THEY??? Despite my attempts at finding out what is behind your bigotry and hatred of these "Anglos" and their alleged world domination, you still refuse to justify your ravings or to tell us what the purpose of this conspiracy is. I see no purpose in my pursuing this topic with you. You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye. -- Peter Ying tong iddle-i po! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Remember Pearl Harbor: Special Program Tonight at EAA | Fitzair4 | Home Built | 0 | December 7th 04 07:40 PM |
For Keith Willshaw... | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 253 | July 6th 04 05:18 AM |