So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was determined.
On 3/4/24 8:35 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the
Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was
determined.
Might it have run against the official line in some more subtle way?
The general consensus, though, has been that something other than
government censorship was going on with the Chinese works that were >disqualified. The committee made up a rule against "slate voting" out of >whole cloth.
So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the >Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was >determined.
If her previous works were anti-Chinese, I don't know. But this seems >sufficiently against that that I would expect it would more than make up
for that.
This book, I might add, is also very well written and extremely entertaining >and was just a great read that thoroughly deserved a Hugo. If it had been--
on the ballot I would have voted for it. Is there hope for a Nebula maybe? >There were some odd technical problems which all could have been accounted >for by the differences between our universe and theirs but which did seem a >little glaring. But it was still great.
Seeing as a Chinese edition has been published, in China, I don't think
they objected to the book. Its disqualification seems to have been at
the hands of a clueless and craven committee of Westerners.
The Opium Wars and in particular, the destruction of the Summer Palace,
are a staple of current Chinese criticism of the West. The period is
known as 'The Century of Humiliation'.
I thought it was good but not great. The story and characters were engaging, >and the magic system was original. One problem was that criticizing 19th- >century colonialism and especially the Opium Wars seemed too easy and
out of date. And nothing was said about China's conquests or suppression
of dissent.
A minor criticism is that, after Kuang makes a big deal about researching >Oxford slang of the 1830s, she gives her characters a lot of 20th- and >21st-century dialogue, which I found jarring.
So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the >Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese.
It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and
the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was >determined.
If her previous works were anti-Chinese, I don't know. But this seems >sufficiently against that that I would expect it would more than make up
for that.
This book, I might add, is also very well written and extremely entertaining >and was just a great read that thoroughly deserved a Hugo. If it had been
on the ballot I would have voted for it. Is there hope for a Nebula maybe? >There were some odd technical problems which all could have been accounted >for by the differences between our universe and theirs but which did seem a >little glaring. But it was still great.
--scott
On 5 Mar 2024 01:35:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was that the >>Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely pro-Chinese. >>It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium War, and >>the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but was >>determined.
I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
she's written stuff critical of China in the past.
On 3/25/2024 11:29 PM, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
On 3/25/24 2:18 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mad Hamish <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 01:35:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was
that the
Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely
pro-Chinese.
It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium
War, and
the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but >>>>> was
determined.
I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
she's written stuff critical of China in the past.
Which would be even WORSE because it would be punishing her for
"reforming"
and finally writing something less critical.
Whatever it was, it was sure a mess.
--scott
As I noted elsewhere, the good news is that all this resulted in a lot
of publicity for the book, which could well reach a wider audience than
if it *had* won the Hugo.
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt
Cryptoengineer wrote:
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
December 1814 not count?
Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org> wrote:
Cryptoengineer wrote:
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
December 1814 not count?
I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.
Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably
just confused.
Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
Okay, how about Pancho Villa's attack on Columbus, New Mexico in
March, 1916?
This is the first time I've noticed Keith posting in this group. He
usually hangs out in r.a.sf.fandom, but that group makes this one look
busy, and its recently been taken over by Dr Who fans and AI generated
posts.
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org> wrote:
Cryptoengineer wrote:
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
December 1814 not count?
I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.
1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building anyway.
The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether
you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about
who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history teacher would not do so, however.
Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably
just confused.
Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
Okay, how about Pancho Villa's attack on Columbus, New Mexico in
March, 1916?
Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of the
Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?
I seem to recall that Villa had previously been a representaive of the Mexican government but that at some point he had gone out on his own,
and I think that was before 1916 but I cannot recall precisely.
Cryptoengineer wrote:
This is the first time I've noticed Keith posting in this group.
He usually hangs out in r.a.sf.fandom, but that group makes this
one look busy, and its recently been taken over by Dr Who fans and
AI generated posts.
If it's been taken over, I haven't noticed. I've set up filters to
block anything Dr. Who related, which may be overkill but works.
Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of
the Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?
On 3/27/2024 5:46 PM, Tim Illingworth wrote:
On 3/27/2024 7:47 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
December 1814 not count?
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt
It was certainly an invasion, but 'one' is not 'many'.
The point is, Russia has the notion of 'we're
going to get invaded again, unless we push out
the borders'. The US doesn't - its last mainland
invasion was over 200 years ago.
Putin, and other Russian propagandists, are fond
of saying things like 'Russia has no border', meaning
that neighboring states independence is an unfortunate
circumstance which needs fixing.
Once again, learn about 'Russki Mir' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
The only solution I can see is the breakup of Russia.
I listened to a youtube lecture of someone from the finnish military who studieds russia all his life, and he agreed with the deeply rooted
paranoia of russia, and that it explains a lot about why they act the
way they do.
I think that in order to get long lasting peace in europe, the russian
people need to go through some kind of public shaming like germany in
WW2 in order to create a longing for peace and democracy.
It has to come from within, based on a collective, cultural realization
that Tsars won't build a happy country. If it is pushed from above and outside, like after the soviet union fell, the system will fall again,
since the people haven't internalized democracy.
Another way for peace, as you say, is to break up russia and confiscate
all major weapons. Moscow and the west will probably be a european
oriented country, the rest will be factured between various small
warlords and revert to their "*stan" names.
The risk will still be though, that the moscow + west will again fall
into tyranny after a decade or two.
In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
on behalf of the French government?
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 3/27/2024 5:46 PM, Tim Illingworth wrote:
On 3/27/2024 7:47 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
December 1814 not count?
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt
It was certainly an invasion, but 'one' is not 'many'.
The point is, Russia has the notion of 'we're
going to get invaded again, unless we push out
the borders'. The US doesn't - its last mainland
invasion was over 200 years ago.
Putin, and other Russian propagandists, are fond
of saying things like 'Russia has no border', meaning
that neighboring states independence is an unfortunate
circumstance which needs fixing.
Once again, learn about 'Russki Mir'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
The only solution I can see is the breakup of Russia.
I listened to a youtube lecture of someone from the finnish military who studieds russia all his life, and he agreed with the deeply rooted
paranoia of russia, and that it explains a lot about why they act the way they do.
On 2024-03-28, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 3/27/2024 5:46 PM, Tim Illingworth wrote:
On 3/27/2024 7:47 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
December 1814 not count?
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt
It was certainly an invasion, but 'one' is not 'many'.
The point is, Russia has the notion of 'we're
going to get invaded again, unless we push out
the borders'. The US doesn't - its last mainland
invasion was over 200 years ago.
Putin, and other Russian propagandists, are fond
of saying things like 'Russia has no border', meaning
that neighboring states independence is an unfortunate
circumstance which needs fixing.
Once again, learn about 'Russki Mir'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
The only solution I can see is the breakup of Russia.
I listened to a youtube lecture of someone from the finnish military who
studieds russia all his life, and he agreed with the deeply rooted
paranoia of russia, and that it explains a lot about why they act the way
they do.
obSF: _The Moon Goddess and the Sun_, Kingsbury was a 1986 novel that
as one thread had an immersive virtual reality "game" used for
Americans to understand this "deeply rooted paranoia of Russia" and
the related addiction to strong-man dictatorships.
The novel was actually a very good collection of ideas for the time, a >Favorite bookcase book, that failed as a novel, IMO, due to its
lack of coherence. It was an expansion of an earlier Hugo nominated
novella and added more neat ideas but lost its plot focus.
Kingsbury didn't write much but he had nice fresh ideas.
Chris
In article <l6l7vlFn3uoU1@mid.individual.net>,
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-28, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 3/27/2024 5:46 PM, Tim Illingworth wrote:
On 3/27/2024 7:47 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
December 1814 not count?
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not. >>>>>>
pt
It was certainly an invasion, but 'one' is not 'many'.
The point is, Russia has the notion of 'we're
going to get invaded again, unless we push out
the borders'. The US doesn't - its last mainland
invasion was over 200 years ago.
Putin, and other Russian propagandists, are fond
of saying things like 'Russia has no border', meaning
that neighboring states independence is an unfortunate
circumstance which needs fixing.
Once again, learn about 'Russki Mir'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
The only solution I can see is the breakup of Russia.
I listened to a youtube lecture of someone from the finnish military who >>> studieds russia all his life, and he agreed with the deeply rooted
paranoia of russia, and that it explains a lot about why they act the way >>> they do.
obSF: _The Moon Goddess and the Sun_, Kingsbury was a 1986 novel that
as one thread had an immersive virtual reality "game" used for
Americans to understand this "deeply rooted paranoia of Russia" and
the related addiction to strong-man dictatorships.
The novel was actually a very good collection of ideas for the time, a
Favorite bookcase book, that failed as a novel, IMO, due to its
lack of coherence. It was an expansion of an earlier Hugo nominated
novella and added more neat ideas but lost its plot focus.
Kingsbury didn't write much but he had nice fresh ideas.
Chris
This might be the Finnish briefing from above; I found it very interesting:
https://ricochet.com/1214468/finnish-intelligence-officer-explains-the-russian-mindset/
I think Kingsbury's _Courtship Rite_ is a great book, but it seems to be almost forgotten now.
On 3/27/2024 7:47 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
December 1814 not count?
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt
On 3/27/2024 4:03 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org> wrote:
Cryptoengineer wrote:
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
December 1814 not count?
I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.
1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building
anyway.
The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether
you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about
who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define >> them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history >> teacher would not do so, however.
Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably
just confused.
Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
Agreed, insurrection is not invasion.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:46:50 -0400, Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org>
wrote:
On 3/27/2024 7:47 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
December 1814 not count?
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt
As a "nigglened edge case", it would. If it had happened and was not
part of the War of 1812 which, in a time when communications were far
from instantaneous, dragged on for a bit.
And thanks for illustrating that even a clear point can be ignored by
people fanatically insistent on refuting it.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:44:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 3/27/2024 4:03 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org> wrote:
Cryptoengineer wrote:
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has >>>>>> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
December 1814 not count?
I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.
1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building >>> anyway.
The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether >>> you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about
who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define >>> them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history >>> teacher would not do so, however.
Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably
just confused.
Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
Agreed, insurrection is not invasion.
I find it amazing how many people are still niggling about this.
Why is it so hard to believe that Russia, given its situation, has
been invaded more often than the USA? Is there a contest on to see
which country has been invaded most often? Is there a prize at stake?
As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
pure and simple.
The interesting question is whether States can use their newly granted authority to bar candidates from local office (but not for
President/VP) can bar candidates from Senate and House races? Although
they are part of the Federal gummint, they /do/ represent the State,
after all.
As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
pure and simple.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:46:50 -0400, Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org>
wrote:
On 3/27/2024 7:47 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
December 1814 not count?
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt
As a "nigglened edge case", it would. If it had happened and was not
part of the War of 1812 which, in a time when communications were far
from instantaneous, dragged on for a bit.
And thanks for illustrating that even a clear point can be ignored by
people fanatically insistent on refuting it.
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of
the Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?
Does it matter? If a bunch of armed foreigners working together cross
the US border to use force against Americans, that's an invasion.
In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
on behalf of the French government?
On 3/28/24 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
pure and simple.
So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that
line too often before. "Love it or leave it."
On 3/28/2024 9:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:44:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 3/27/2024 4:03 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org> wrote:
Cryptoengineer wrote:
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has >>>>>>> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not. >>>>>December 1814 not count?
I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.
1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building >>>> anyway.
The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether >>>> you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about >>>> who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define
them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history
teacher would not do so, however.
Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably >>>>> just confused.
Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
Agreed, insurrection is not invasion.
I find it amazing how many people are still niggling about this.
Why is it so hard to believe that Russia, given its situation, has
been invaded more often than the USA? Is there a contest on to see
which country has been invaded most often? Is there a prize at stake?
As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
pure and simple.
The interesting question is whether States can use their newly granted
authority to bar candidates from local office (but not for
President/VP) can bar candidates from Senate and House races? Although
they are part of the Federal gummint, they /do/ represent the State,
after all.
With the current SC they will try to rule such that MAGA people cannot
be barred but everyone else can be. :P
On 3/28/24 12:14 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:46:50 -0400, Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org>
wrote:
On 3/27/2024 7:47 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
December 1814 not count?
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
pt
As a "nigglened edge case", it would. If it had happened and was not
part of the War of 1812 which, in a time when communications were far
from instantaneous, dragged on for a bit.
And thanks for illustrating that even a clear point can be ignored by
people fanatically insistent on refuting it.
And now you're treating getting the month wrong as being "fanatically >insistent."
*plonk*
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of
the Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?
Does it matter? If a bunch of armed foreigners working together cross
the US border to use force against Americans, that's an invasion.
What if it's only one armed foreigner?
In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
on behalf of the French government?
He was the French government. L'etat, c'etait lui.
--scott
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:44:57 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 3/28/2024 9:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:44:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 3/27/2024 4:03 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:Agreed, insurrection is not invasion.
Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org> wrote:
Cryptoengineer wrote:
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has >>>>>>>> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not. >>>>>>December 1814 not count?
I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.
1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building >>>>> anyway.
The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether >>>>> you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about >>>>> who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define
them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history
teacher would not do so, however.
Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably >>>>>> just confused.
Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't. >>>>
I find it amazing how many people are still niggling about this.
Why is it so hard to believe that Russia, given its situation, has
been invaded more often than the USA? Is there a contest on to see
which country has been invaded most often? Is there a prize at stake?
As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
pure and simple.
The interesting question is whether States can use their newly granted
authority to bar candidates from local office (but not for
President/VP) can bar candidates from Senate and House races? Although
they are part of the Federal gummint, they /do/ represent the State,
after all.
With the current SC they will try to rule such that MAGA people cannot
be barred but everyone else can be. :P
That's not what they ruled so far -- for purely local offices, at
least.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:04:27 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com>
wrote:
On 3/28/24 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
pure and simple.
So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that
line too often before. "Love it or leave it."
No -- but acting as an agent of a foreign power when you have sworn an
oath to the USA (not just pledged allegiance, sworn an oath as part of
taking an office, such as, oh, Reprentative or Senator or President,
among many others) can be, depending on what the foreign power is up
to and if you allow your allegiance to that power to influence your
official performance.
On 28 Mar 2024 22:40:08 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of
the Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?
Does it matter? If a bunch of armed foreigners working together cross >>>the US border to use force against Americans, that's an invasion.
What if it's only one armed foreigner?
In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
on behalf of the French government?
He was the French government. L'etat, c'etait lui.
He was the Norman government, Philip I was the French government.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:04:27 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com>
wrote:
On 3/28/24 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
pure and simple.
So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that=20 >>line too often before. "Love it or leave it."
No -- but acting as an agent of a foreign power when you have sworn an
oath to the USA (not just pledged allegiance, sworn an oath as part of
taking an office, such as, oh, Reprentative or Senator or President,
among many others) can be, depending on what the foreign power is up
to and if you allow your allegiance to that power to influence your
official performance.
Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
I really doubt that Trump actually takes orders from Moscow, but
he does seem to admire Putin, and its possible that Putin has
kompromat on him, which bends his actions even if not given
explicit instructions.
I distinctly remember the line "You know the
'rockets' red glare? the bombs bursting in air? Well those were OUR
rockets and OUR bombs - but we don't advertise that much to our
American friends these days!"
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
Confiscating the major weapons is the real problem. Picking up
nuclear weapons and carrying them off would cause all kinds of
international and logistical issues, and someone might decide to
launch them rather than give them up. They're probably already
poorly maintained and unreliable, but that could just mean that
instead of blowing up their intended target, they'll blow up
somebody else.
In all the history of the Thing, only Bilbo -- I mean, Ukraine --
has voluntarily given it up, and that took all our help...
Jeff Urs <jeff.urs@gmail.com> wrote:
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
Confiscating the major weapons is the real problem. Picking up
nuclear weapons and carrying them off would cause all kinds of
international and logistical issues, and someone might decide to
launch them rather than give them up. They're probably already
poorly maintained and unreliable, but that could just mean that
instead of blowing up their intended target, they'll blow up
somebody else.
In all the history of the Thing, only Bilbo -- I mean, Ukraine --
has voluntarily given it up, and that took all our help...
And I'll bet they regret giving them up. What a great lesson for
other nuclear powers who are being urged to give them up.
Also, if I was Bilbo I would have kept the One Ring. But then I've
always been a packrat. And a ring takes up much less space than a
bunch of nuclear weapons and their launchers.
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 00:51:47 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Jeff Urs <jeff.urs@gmail.com> wrote:
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
Confiscating the major weapons is the real problem. Picking up
nuclear weapons and carrying them off would cause all kinds of
international and logistical issues, and someone might decide to
launch them rather than give them up. They're probably already
poorly maintained and unreliable, but that could just mean that
instead of blowing up their intended target, they'll blow up
somebody else.
In all the history of the Thing, only Bilbo -- I mean, Ukraine --
has voluntarily given it up, and that took all our help...
And I'll bet they regret giving them up. What a great lesson for
other nuclear powers who are being urged to give them up.
Also, if I was Bilbo I would have kept the One Ring. But then I've
always been a packrat. And a ring takes up much less space than a
bunch of nuclear weapons and their launchers.
Bilbo, left to himself, would have kept the One Ring. Or died trying.
It took Gandalf partially unmasking himself and cowing Bilbo to get
Bilbo to give it up.
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
Confiscating the major weapons is the real problem. Picking up
nuclear weapons and carrying them off would cause all kinds of international and logistical issues, and someone might decide to
launch them rather than give them up. They're probably already
poorly maintained and unreliable, but that could just mean that
instead of blowing up their intended target, they'll blow up
somebody else.
In all the history of the Thing, only Bilbo -- I mean, Ukraine --
has voluntarily given it up, and that took all our help...
In article <uukslj$80pc$1@dont-email.me>, jeff.urs@gmail.com (Jeff Urs) wrote:
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
Confiscating the major weapons is the real problem. Picking up
nuclear weapons and carrying them off would cause all kinds of
international and logistical issues, and someone might decide to
launch them rather than give them up. They're probably already
poorly maintained and unreliable, but that could just mean that
instead of blowing up their intended target, they'll blow up
somebody else.
In all the history of the Thing, only Bilbo -- I mean, Ukraine --
has voluntarily given it up, and that took all our help...
More than just Ukraine.
Kazakhstan and Belarus also inherited nuclear weapons from the USSR and returned them to Russia.
Apartheid South Africa developed nuclear weapons, but dismantled them
before the transition to the majority-elected African National
Congress?led government.
There have also been states capable of building nuclear weapons that
decided not to do so, at lest so far. They include Sweden, Japan, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands.
In article <mcko0jlcbol6djm4mtvdgtsqldb3rpkea7@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
I distinctly remember the line "You know the
'rockets' red glare? the bombs bursting in air? Well those were OUR
rockets and OUR bombs - but we don't advertise that much to our
American friends these days!"
[Hal Heydt]
Congreve rockets and mortar rounds with the fuse cut too short,
repsectively.
In article <mcko0jlcbol6djm4mtvdgtsqldb3rpkea7@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
I distinctly remember the line "You know the
'rockets' red glare? the bombs bursting in air? Well those were OUR
rockets and OUR bombs - but we don't advertise that much to our
American friends these days!"
[Hal Heydt]
Congreve rockets and mortar rounds with the fuse cut too short,
repsectively.
Would the fuses have been too short if they were trying for air bursts
to kill the guys on the walls?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 381 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 54:49:26 |
| Calls: | 8,146 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,098 |
| Messages: | 5,858,967 |