The China US conflict

[Peterf]

It's true! In 1970 the US Government unleashed the entire might of its armed forces on the students of America! Four (4) were killed at Kent State but the target of 400,000 was not quite reached.

(It is thought that the cull fell a little short short of the intended total because of: A) poor marksmanship and B) the failure to use tactical nuclear weapons).

I hate to foul up a great hyperbolic rant with the truth, but it was the Governor of Ohio who sent the NATIONAL GUARD to Kent State. The US Government had nothing to do with it.

So, what you're saying is, if local government kills unarmed civilians, it isn't the same as national government killing unarmed civilians.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Well what I'm saying is this: that when the Gov of Ohio sent along the National Guard he had no idea that anyone would die. I do not believe that 'local government' intentionally milled anyone. You are, of course, free to believe anything you like, however implausible.

 

[Indofred]

No, you are pointlessly repeating anti-American and irrational conclusions, you impotent little nobody.

What's anti America about historical facts?

What part of "irrational conclusions" was too difficult for you to understand, stupid?

The phrase is easy to understand but I draw no conclusions, save America has used it's troops to murder unarmed American civilians too many times.
In my opinion, once is too many so several times is far too many.

That, given the history is not in dispute, seems fair and reasonable.

The regular insults at the end of each of your posts suggests you are unable to argue the point so have to resort to simple insults in a bootless effort to appear clever.

 

[Indofred]

I hate to foul up a great hyperbolic rant with the truth, but it was the Governor of Ohio who sent the NATIONAL GUARD to Kent State. The US Government had nothing to do with it.

So, what you're saying is, if local government kills unarmed civilians, it isn't the same as national government killing unarmed civilians.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Well what I'm saying is this: that when the Gov of Ohio sent along the National Guard he had no idea that anyone would die. I do not believe that 'local government' intentionally milled anyone. You are, of course, free to believe anything you like, however implausible.

In my opinion, if you send fully armed, poorly trained troops against unarmed civilians, you can expect problems.
If he wasn't expecting to shoot anyone, why did they take guns?

The facts are simple:
The students were unarmed
The armed troops were used
The troops murdered several unarmed students.

I'm amazed anyone is defending or excusing this.

 

[Indofred]

Face it freddy, you've got nothing to say - ever - on any topic aside from your irrational, predictable, block-headed anti-Americanism. Why bother? Everyone has heard your broken record by now. Find something new to say, maybe on a different topic, or stop wasting your time.

You have yet to explain why quoting undisputed American history is anti American.
You've attempted to do so with insults but have not actually explained it.

 

[Unkotare]

What's anti America about historical facts?

What part of "irrational conclusions" was too difficult for you to understand, stupid?

The phrase is easy to understand but I draw no conclusions, save America has used it's troops to murder unarmed American civilians too many times...

You are either being dishonest or do not understand the English language.

 

[Unkotare]

Face it freddy, you've got nothing to say - ever - on any topic aside from your irrational, predictable, block-headed anti-Americanism. Why bother? Everyone has heard your broken record by now. Find something new to say, maybe on a different topic, or stop wasting your time.

You have yet to explain why quoting undisputed American history is anti American....

I have explained several times that your prejudiced conclusions and false comparisons are anti-American, stupid.

 

[Indofred]

Bases that remain at the invitation of the host country, as part of mutual security agreements, do not constitute "territorial expansion." And Hawai'i is NOT "occupied" territory, it one of the great 50 states in our Union as I've explained to your ignorant, anti-American ass before.

Out of 7 foreigners who started the coup, five were Americana and American marines invaded, removed the queen and took the place over.
You then filled the place with Americans who voted to turn Hawaii into a state.

How is that not an occupied territory?

The vast majority of Hawaiians, including the vast majority of residents native to Hawaii, voted for statehood, you ignorant little bug.

That's an interesting question, no, very interesting.

I suppose I'll have to start by looking at the demographic in 1959.

So, only 17 % of the population were native and some of them were mixed race.
The rest were not Hawaiian.

Census/Plebiscite

132,773 who voted for Proposition 1—“Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State?”—7,971 voted against it. In this 17-1 mandate by those voting in Hawaii’s 1959 primary election for governor, a total of 140,744 votes were cast in this plebiscite.

Wow, high turnout and a massive yes vote. That seems to back you up ...maybe.

Hang on...140,744 votes, or about 90% of the eligible population, what was the population?

we might consider that the 1950 census for the population of Hawaii was 499,769 while the 1960 census for the population of Hawaii was 632,772, the median age being 38. Not taking into account the population growth from the date of the plebiscite vote (June 27th 1959) to 1960 when the nearest census was completed, or the breakdown of age eligibility for voting, that leaves about 500,000 people (total) unaccounted for.

What, 3.5 times more people than voted were unaccounted for, thus didn't have the chance to vote?
Who were they?

Although the census does not include the military, many of whom did participate in the vote, roughly only about 35% of the total population actually voted "yes" or "no" on the plebiscite.

35% of the population were voters, many part of the American military occupation force. Yep, let's allow the occupying force to vote on the status of the island they occupy.

If we conservatively remove 250,972—a third of the population—as being ineligible to vote because of age, we are left with roughly 381,859 eligible voters. Examining the data, one could argue that out of the 474,580 who were eligible to vote in 1959, 341,800. —or roughly 65%— did not vote in favor of statehood.

The claim was 90% of eligible voters were in favour but we now see, 30% were American immigrants, an unknown number were part of the occupying American army and about 300,000 (Twice the 'yes' voters) were not even counted for some reason.

Sounds a bit dodgy.

So, does undisputed historical fact assist America?

Hawaii is not legally a state! | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

Hawaii's government was overthrown on Jan. 17, 1893, by a relatively small group of men, most of them American by birth or heritage, who seized control of the Islands with the backing of American troops sent ashore from a warship in Honolulu Harbor. To this "superior force of the United States of America," Queen Lili`uokalani yielded her throne, under protest, in order to avoid bloodshed, trusting that the United States government would right the wrong that had been done to her and the Hawaiian people.

American businessmen forced a takeover and were assisted by American troops.
That's not a good start.

Lili`uokalani was given a document of abdication to sign and was led to believe that, if she refused, several of her followers were to be shot for treason. She wrote, "For myself, I would have chosen death rather than to have signed it; but it was represented to me that by my signing this paper all the persons who had been arrested, all my people now in trouble by reason of their love and loyalty toward me, would be immediately released ... the stream of blood ready to flow unless it was stayed by my pen." It is worth noting that the Hawaiian Constitution did not provide a legal process for the Monarch's abdication and without the approval of the legislature, the document had no legal validity.

The queen was then forced to abdicate, under threat of mass murder of her subjects.
Not cricket, old chap.

In 1959 Hawaii's plebiscite vote was held, and again, the United States government bent the rules. The plebiscite ballot only had the choice between statehood and remaining a territory. No option for independence appeared on the ballot as was required under the UN charter. Cheated out of their independence yet again, Hawaiians voted for the lesser of two evils and became the 50th state.

What, the ballot paper wasn't even legal because the required third option was missing?

On November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed United States Public Law 103-150, which not only acknowledged the illegal actions committed by the United States in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Hawaii, but also that the Hawaiian people never surrendered their sovereignty. The latter is the most important part of United States Public Law 103-150 for it makes it quite clear that the Hawaiian people never legally ceased to be a sovereign separate independent nation. There is no argument that can change that fact.

Well, even if posters here don;t accept it, the American government admits Hawaii is an illegally occupied territory.

as do the United nations.

In 1999, the United Nations confirmed that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii's statehood was in violation of article 73 of the United Nations' charter. The Hawaii statehood vote, under treaty then in effect, was illegal and non-binding. (The same is true of the Alaska plebiscite).

Everyone agree, Hawaii is an occupied land ... except you.

Care to comment?

 

[Unkotare]

Bitch and moan all you want, you insignificant little bug, but the FACT remains that the vast majority of Hawaiians - INCLUDING THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE HAWAIIANS - voted for statehood. Sorry, but you're still just a little nobody squeaking in the corner.

 

[Indofred]

Bitch and moan all you want, you insignificant little bug, but the FACT remains that the vast majority of Hawaiians - INCLUDING THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE HAWAIIANS - voted for statehood. Sorry, but you're still just a little nobody squeaking in the corner.

If you read the links above instead of using insults as an argument, you'll find out they did not and, just to really bugger your version, the ballot papers were rigged anyway and the ballot should never had taken place because America forced the Queen's abdication with threats of mass murder.

I'm so sorry history, the truth, American law, international law and I are all anti American.
I also feel rather sorry for you; instead of looking at history, you prefer to use half baked insults in an attempt to carry your argument.
Perhaps you could open your mind a little, or even return to collage to improve your education.
Being brainwashed by nationalism is easily done to the weak of mind.
Real freedom is the ability to think for yourself; not be told what to think by your government and press.

cogito ergo sum

 

[Unkotare]

Bitch and moan all you want, you insignificant little bug, but the FACT remains that the vast majority of Hawaiians - INCLUDING THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE HAWAIIANS - voted for statehood. Sorry, but you're still just a little nobody squeaking in the corner.

If you read the links above instead of using insults as an argument, you'll find out they did not and, just to really bugger your version, the ballot papers were rigged anyway ...

Aaaaaaaaannnnnddddd.........you're now ready for the Conspiracy Forum. I'm sure they'll welcome a bitter little headcase like you with open arms. Have fun, bye.

 

[Indofred]

Bitch and moan all you want, you insignificant little bug, but the FACT remains that the vast majority of Hawaiians - INCLUDING THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE HAWAIIANS - voted for statehood. Sorry, but you're still just a little nobody squeaking in the corner.

If you read the links above instead of using insults as an argument, you'll find out they did not and, just to really bugger your version, the ballot papers were rigged anyway ...

Aaaaaaaaannnnnddddd.........you're now ready for the Conspiracy Forum. I'm sure they'll welcome a bitter little headcase like you with open arms. Have fun, bye.

What conspiracy?
This is a matter of historical record, again, as I have already linked to.

Sometimes, you have to face up to the truth, even if it's anti American in your mind.

Once again, I'm not anti American, just anti much of America's foreign policy.
There's a big difference.

 

[Unkotare]

If you read the links above instead of using insults as an argument, you'll find out they did not and, just to really bugger your version, the ballot papers were rigged anyway ...

Aaaaaaaaannnnnddddd.........you're now ready for the Conspiracy Forum. I'm sure they'll welcome a bitter little headcase like you with open arms. Have fun, bye.

What conspiracy?
This is a matter of historical record, again, as I have already linked to...

That's what all your friends over on the Conspiracy Forum say about their wacky little theories. You'll like it over there.

 

[Indofred]

Aaaaaaaaannnnnddddd.........you're now ready for the Conspiracy Forum. I'm sure they'll welcome a bitter little headcase like you with open arms. Have fun, bye.

What conspiracy?
This is a matter of historical record, again, as I have already linked to...

That's what all your friends over on the Conspiracy Forum say about their wacky little theories. You'll like it over there.

Try reading up.
You'll find you are refusing to accept even what is officially accepted by the American government.
That's very foolish.

 

[Unkotare]

What conspiracy?
This is a matter of historical record, again, as I have already linked to...

That's what all your friends over on the Conspiracy Forum say about their wacky little theories. You'll like it over there.

Try reading up.
You'll find you are refusing to accept even what is officially accepted by the American government.
That's very foolish.

Your peers are all there waiting for you. Don't keep them waiting.

 

[Indofred]

The tin foil hat forum works for unprovable ideas.
History, as accepted by all, doesn't fit that.

Sadly, even though this history is accepted by the White house and not disputed by any reasonable people, you are being less than reasonable.

There is no one quite so blind as the person who does not want to see.

Debate is interesting; talking to a fool is not.

 

[Unkotare]

The tin foil hat forum works for unprovable [sic] ideas.

They'll love you there.

 

[Indofred]

The tin foil hat forum works for unprovable [sic] ideas.

They'll love you there.

I'm sorry, you're too stupid to bother with.

unprovable, why sic erat scriptum?
Sorry if you're too thick to understand English.

 

[Unkotare]

The tin foil hat forum works for unprovable [sic] ideas.

They'll love you there.

I'm sorry, you're too stupid to bother with.

unprovable, why sic erat scriptum?.

What you are offering is biased opinion and nothing more. Go have fun with your peers on the Conspiracy Forum.

 

[SalaamAkir]

Sometimes I wonder whether history would be different had Macarthur done what he'd wanted...at least North Korea wouldn't exist today

 

[Meathead]

Sometimes I wonder whether history would be different had Macarthur done what he'd wanted...at least North Korea wouldn't exist today

Not to mention Patton or McArthur.