Discussion:
Hemingway War Story Sees Print for First Time
Add Reply
Dingbat
2018-08-08 01:40:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hemingway War Story Sees Print for First Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/books/ernest-hemingway-short-story-published.html
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-08 06:35:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Hemingway War Story Sees Print for First Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/books/ernest-hemingway-short-story-published.html
And your English-usage point is ...? Failing that, your own opinion
about the story is ...?
--
athel
Dingbat
2018-08-08 08:26:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Dingbat
Hemingway War Story Sees Print for First Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/books/ernest-hemingway-short-story-published.html
And your English-usage point is ...?
Another of his war stories had already been printed. One wouldn't guess
that from the title. Since it isn't the first such to see print, I'd
change the title to:

Hitherto Unpublished Hemingway War Story Sees Print.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Failing that, your own opinion about the story is ...?
That readers should be made aware of the availability, in print, of this
story.
Harrison Hill
2018-08-08 15:39:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Dingbat
Hemingway War Story Sees Print for First Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/books/ernest-hemingway-short-story-published.html
And your English-usage point is ...?
Another of his war stories had already been printed. One wouldn't guess
that from the title. Since it isn't the first such to see print, I'd
Hitherto Unpublished Hemingway War Story Sees Print.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Failing that, your own opinion about the story is ...?
That readers should be made aware of the availability, in print, of this
story.
There is an English Usage angle here. For me "a war story" can
only mean WWII (I haven't followed your link). "For Whom the Bell
Tolls" (for example) is a story about The Spanish Civil War. I
cannot imagine any other war, that could simply be described as being
part of "a war story".

Haven't you posted this exact link before and athel posted the exact
same response?
charles
2018-08-08 16:02:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Dingbat
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Dingbat
Hemingway War Story Sees Print for First Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/books/ernest-hemingway-short-story-published.html
And your English-usage point is ...?
Another of his war stories had already been printed. One wouldn't guess
that from the title. Since it isn't the first such to see print, I'd
Hitherto Unpublished Hemingway War Story Sees Print.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Failing that, your own opinion about the story is ...?
That readers should be made aware of the availability, in print, of this
story.
There is an English Usage angle here. For me "a war story" can
only mean WWII (I haven't followed your link). "For Whom the Bell
Tolls" (for example) is a story about The Spanish Civil War. I
cannot imagine any other war,
The Korean War? Gulf Wars 1 & 2? Vienam? possibly WW1
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Harrison Hill
2018-08-08 16:21:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Dingbat
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Dingbat
Hemingway War Story Sees Print for First Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/books/ernest-hemingway-short-story-published.html
And your English-usage point is ...?
Another of his war stories had already been printed. One wouldn't guess
that from the title. Since it isn't the first such to see print, I'd
Hitherto Unpublished Hemingway War Story Sees Print.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Failing that, your own opinion about the story is ...?
That readers should be made aware of the availability, in print, of this
story.
There is an English Usage angle here. For me "a war story" can
only mean WWII (I haven't followed your link). "For Whom the Bell
Tolls" (for example) is a story about The Spanish Civil War. I
cannot imagine any other war,
The Korean War? Gulf Wars 1 & 2? Vienam? possibly WW1
Sit on your helmet time with Wagner:


Kerr-Mudd,John
2018-08-09 18:31:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by Harrison Hill
On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 12:05:31 PM UTC+5:30, Athel
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Dingbat
Hemingway War Story Sees Print for First Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/books/ernest-hemingway-short-
story-published.html
And your English-usage point is ...?
Another of his war stories had already been printed. One wouldn't guess
that from the title. Since it isn't the first such to see print,
Hitherto Unpublished Hemingway War Story Sees Print.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Failing that, your own opinion about the story is ...?
That readers should be made aware of the availability, in print, of this
story.
There is an English Usage angle here. For me "a war story" can
only mean WWII (I haven't followed your link). "For Whom the Bell
Tolls" (for example) is a story about The Spanish Civil War. I
cannot imagine any other war,
The Korean War? Gulf Wars 1 & 2? Vienam? possibly WW1
Sadly other wars are/were available (or are they mere local conflicts?)
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Harrison Hill
2018-08-09 18:42:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by charles
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Dingbat
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Dingbat
Hemingway War Story Sees Print for First Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/books/ernest-hemingway-short-
story-published.html
And your English-usage point is ...?
Another of his war stories had already been printed. One wouldn't guess
that from the title. Since it isn't the first such to see print,
Hitherto Unpublished Hemingway War Story Sees Print.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Failing that, your own opinion about the story is ...?
That readers should be made aware of the availability, in print, of this
story.
There is an English Usage angle here. For me "a war story" can
only mean WWII (I haven't followed your link). "For Whom the Bell
Tolls" (for example) is a story about The Spanish Civil War. I
cannot imagine any other war,
The Korean War? Gulf Wars 1 & 2? Vienam? possibly WW1
Sadly other wars are/were available (or are they mere local conflicts?)
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?

"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-08-09 21:51:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by charles
Post by Harrison Hill
On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 12:05:31 PM UTC+5:30, Athel
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Dingbat
Hemingway War Story Sees Print for First Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/books/ernest-hemingway-short-
story-published.html
And your English-usage point is ...?
Another of his war stories had already been printed. One wouldn't guess
that from the title. Since it isn't the first such to see print,
Hitherto Unpublished Hemingway War Story Sees Print.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Failing that, your own opinion about the story is ...?
That readers should be made aware of the availability, in print, of this
story.
There is an English Usage angle here. For me "a war story" can
only mean WWII (I haven't followed your link). "For Whom the Bell
Tolls" (for example) is a story about The Spanish Civil War. I
cannot imagine any other war,
The Korean War? Gulf Wars 1 & 2? Vienam? possibly WW1
Sadly other wars are/were available (or are they mere local conflicts?)
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
If you tell me it's a war story, I expect it to be a story featuring
a war. One assumes nothing beyond that, not least because there
must be a better than even chance that the war is completely
fictional if its author is a well know novelist! Terry Pratchett's
Jingo is every bit as much a 'war story' as Tolstoy's War and Peace
but I don't expect to find details of the campaign in the Times'
archives!
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-10 03:30:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-10 06:55:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
--
athel
charles
2018-08-10 08:22:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the
Vietnam War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
Agreed, the UK wsn't imvolved, but it certainly made our newspapers
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
J. J. Lodder
2018-08-10 08:56:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
But you don't think of the Falklands war either,

Jan
Sam Plusnet
2018-08-10 22:37:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
But you don't think of the Falklands war either,
Harrison is just being silly, as usual.

I believe that I'm somewhat older than Harrison, and in the years of my
childhood a "war story" would have been assumed to be about WWII - since
we lived in its shaddow.
That assumption became less valid as time went on, and had pretty much
wasted away by (say) the 1980s - or even earlier.
--
Sam Plusnet
Tony Cooper
2018-08-11 00:04:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
But you don't think of the Falklands war either,
Harrison is just being silly, as usual.
I believe that I'm somewhat older than Harrison, and in the years of my
childhood a "war story" would have been assumed to be about WWII - since
we lived in its shaddow.
That assumption became less valid as time went on, and had pretty much
wasted away by (say) the 1980s - or even earlier.
If someone says to me that "John has a lot of war stories", I don't
assume his stories are about any armed conflict. His war stories
could be about his marriages, his teenagers, or his bosses.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Sam Plusnet
2018-08-11 16:45:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
If someone says to me that "John has a lot of war stories", I don't
assume his stories are about any armed conflict. His war stories
could be about his marriages, his teenagers, or his bosses.
My BrE doesn't include that interpretation.
--
Sam Plusnet
Tony Cooper
2018-08-11 18:59:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
If someone says to me that "John has a lot of war stories", I don't
assume his stories are about any armed conflict. His war stories
could be about his marriages, his teenagers, or his bosses.
My BrE doesn't include that interpretation.
Feel free to adopt it. Most of us have worked with someone who comes
in every Monday morning with the latest updates on his or her trials
and tribulations with his or her marriage, in-laws, or children. They
often qualify as "war stories".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2018-08-11 19:32:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
If someone says to me that "John has a lot of war stories", I don't
assume his stories are about any armed conflict.  His war stories
could be about his marriages, his teenagers, or his bosses.
My BrE doesn't include that interpretation.
My AmE does, and I might even use it if the context made it totally clear.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-08-12 10:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
If someone says to me that "John has a lot of war stories", I don't
assume his stories are about any armed conflict. His war stories
could be about his marriages, his teenagers, or his bosses.
My BrE doesn't include that interpretation.
ditto
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Moylan
2018-08-12 12:22:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
If someone says to me that "John has a lot of war stories", I don't
assume his stories are about any armed conflict. His war stories
could be about his marriages, his teenagers, or his bosses.
My BrE doesn't include that interpretation.
ditto
It's also new to me (AusE).
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Richard Yates
2018-08-12 13:36:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 22:22:36 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
If someone says to me that "John has a lot of war stories", I don't
assume his stories are about any armed conflict. His war stories
could be about his marriages, his teenagers, or his bosses.
My BrE doesn't include that interpretation.
ditto
It's also new to me (AusE).
It is common in AmE among those in addiction recovery groups:

"Our alcoholic thinking loves to glorify the experiences and turn them
into war stories often. We know that what we were doing was ruining
every aspect of our lives, but despite that, we still reminisce about
the scarce good times and laughs that were provided."

https://www.ohioarc.com/harm-telling-war-stories/
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-10 12:24:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?

(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-08-10 12:37:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-10 12:50:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-08-10 13:12:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
Why should any territory be anybody's? The United Nations recognises
the UK's claim to the territory as legitimate. With no permanent
government or population on the islands until the establishment of
the UK Crown Colony in 1840 and zero interest in independence since
it is among one of the most easily justified of claims.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-10 14:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
Why should any territory be anybody's? The United Nations recognises
the UK's claim to the territory as legitimate. With no permanent
government or population on the islands until the establishment of
the UK Crown Colony in 1840 and zero interest in independence since
it is among one of the most easily justified of claims.
Why? What was the point in sticking a flagpole into uninhabited soil all
around the world in the years around 1840, and what is the point in
maintaining such claims now?

Even Gibraltar. What part does it play in the defense of the UK? Are you
expecting a massive armada to invade the Mediterranean to get at Britain,
because its maps aren't quite up to date?
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-08-10 15:16:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
Why should any territory be anybody's? The United Nations recognises
the UK's claim to the territory as legitimate. With no permanent
government or population on the islands until the establishment of
the UK Crown Colony in 1840 and zero interest in independence since
it is among one of the most easily justified of claims.
Why? What was the point in sticking a flagpole into uninhabited soil all
around the world in the years around 1840, and what is the point in
maintaining such claims now?
Shit! Bird shit specifically. How would we go about justifying the
abandonment of British citizens without their consent or desire now?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Even Gibraltar. What part does it play in the defense of the UK? Are you
expecting a massive armada to invade the Mediterranean to get at Britain,
because its maps aren't quite up to date?
Your Presidents were mightily glad of British commitments in the
Mediterranean when you dragging us into the 'war on terror' in Iraq
and Syria. It seems a little churlish to cavil at them now, unless, of
course, you support your present nutjob incumbent's wish to leave
NATO?
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-10 17:46:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
Why should any territory be anybody's? The United Nations recognises
the UK's claim to the territory as legitimate. With no permanent
government or population on the islands until the establishment of
the UK Crown Colony in 1840 and zero interest in independence since
it is among one of the most easily justified of claims.
Why? What was the point in sticking a flagpole into uninhabited soil all
around the world in the years around 1840, and what is the point in
maintaining such claims now?
Shit! Bird shit specifically. How would we go about justifying the
abandonment of British citizens without their consent or desire now?
Why were there any "British citizens" there in the first place?
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Even Gibraltar. What part does it play in the defense of the UK? Are you
expecting a massive armada to invade the Mediterranean to get at Britain,
because its maps aren't quite up to date?
Your Presidents were mightily glad of British commitments in the
Mediterranean when you dragging us into the 'war on terror' in Iraq
and Syria. It seems a little churlish to cavil at them now, unless, of
course, you support your present nutjob incumbent's wish to leave
NATO?
Was much of NATO's participation in the Iraq War or the Gulf War based in
or launched from Gibraltar?
Janet
2018-08-10 18:34:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
Why should any territory be anybody's? The United Nations recognises
the UK's claim to the territory as legitimate. With no permanent
government or population on the islands until the establishment of
the UK Crown Colony in 1840 and zero interest in independence since
it is among one of the most easily justified of claims.
Why? What was the point in sticking a flagpole into uninhabited soil all
around the world in the years around 1840, and what is the point in
maintaining such claims now?
Shit! Bird shit specifically. How would we go about justifying the
abandonment of British citizens without their consent or desire now?
Why were there any "British citizens" there in the first place?
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Even Gibraltar. What part does it play in the defense of the UK? Are you
expecting a massive armada to invade the Mediterranean to get at Britain,
because its maps aren't quite up to date?
Your Presidents were mightily glad of British commitments in the
Mediterranean when you dragging us into the 'war on terror' in Iraq
and Syria. It seems a little churlish to cavil at them now, unless, of
course, you support your present nutjob incumbent's wish to leave
NATO?
Was much of NATO's participation in the Iraq War or the Gulf War based in
or launched from Gibraltar?
You forgot Cyprus, home of the RAF's largest base outside UK, and
the largest (British) Government Communications Headquarters outside UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_out/guides/2003/countries_around_
iraq/newsid_2738000/2738407.stm

"Britain owns nearly a hundred square miles of the island of Cyprus. On
this land there are three military bases.

The bases were used as staging posts during the 1991 war against Iraq.
Casualties from the war in Iraq have been flown to Akrotiri. This is the
RAF's largest base outside the UK. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayios_Nikolaos_Station

"For satellite interception, the Ayios Nikolaos station has a number of
dish antennas of various sizes. Somewhere between 2008 and 2011, also a
torus antenna was installed, which is able to receive the signals of up
to 35 satellites simultaneously.

Declassified documents show that the station was run for the Government
Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), and documents released by Edward
Snowden suggest that in recent years half the cost of running the
station is funded by the U.S. National Security Agency. It became the
largest GCHQ site outside the UK"

Janet.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-10 19:46:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
Why should any territory be anybody's? The United Nations recognises
the UK's claim to the territory as legitimate. With no permanent
government or population on the islands until the establishment of
the UK Crown Colony in 1840 and zero interest in independence since
it is among one of the most easily justified of claims.
Why? What was the point in sticking a flagpole into uninhabited soil all
around the world in the years around 1840, and what is the point in
maintaining such claims now?
Shit! Bird shit specifically. How would we go about justifying the
abandonment of British citizens without their consent or desire now?
Why were there any "British citizens" there in the first place?
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Even Gibraltar. What part does it play in the defense of the UK? Are you
expecting a massive armada to invade the Mediterranean to get at Britain,
because its maps aren't quite up to date?
Your Presidents were mightily glad of British commitments in the
Mediterranean when you dragging us into the 'war on terror' in Iraq
and Syria. It seems a little churlish to cavil at them now, unless, of
course, you support your present nutjob incumbent's wish to leave
NATO?
Was much of NATO's participation in the Iraq War or the Gulf War based in
or launched from Gibraltar?
You forgot Cyprus, home of the RAF's largest base outside UK, and
the largest (British) Government Communications Headquarters outside UK.
What does the nation of Cyprus (independent since 1960) have to do with
the question of odd bits of leftovers from the British Empire?
Post by Janet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_out/guides/2003/countries_around_
iraq/newsid_2738000/2738407.stm
"Britain owns nearly a hundred square miles of the island of Cyprus. On
this land there are three military bases.
The way the US "owns" a small chunk of Cuba, for which the US continues to
pay $4000/yr to Cuba? (Castro never cashed the checks, and neither do his
successors.)
Post by Janet
The bases were used as staging posts during the 1991 war against Iraq.
Casualties from the war in Iraq have been flown to Akrotiri. This is the
RAF's largest base outside the UK. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayios_Nikolaos_Station
"For satellite interception, the Ayios Nikolaos station has a number of
dish antennas of various sizes. Somewhere between 2008 and 2011, also a
torus antenna was installed, which is able to receive the signals of up
to 35 satellites simultaneously.
Still don't see what that has to do with Gibraltar.
Post by Janet
Declassified documents show that the station was run for the Government
Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), and documents released by Edward
Snowden suggest that in recent years half the cost of running the
station is funded by the U.S. National Security Agency. It became the
largest GCHQ site outside the UK"
One had the impression that Turkey was the most important staging area for
operations during those times.
Tak To
2018-08-15 20:52:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
[...]
The way the US "owns" a small chunk of Cuba, for which the US continues to
pay $4000/yr to Cuba? (Castro never cashed the checks, and neither do his
successors.)
The Castro government cashed the first check in the confusion
of the revolution, and the US government has been using that
to justify its occupation ever since.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-10 14:05:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
Why are Guam, Wake, etc., and even Hawaii, national territory?
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-10 14:47:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
Why are Guam, Wake, etc., and even Hawaii, national territory?
Hawai`i, because its inhabitants were persuaded they would be better off
under US protection than independent; Wake had no inhabitants (and still
has none other than any who might be staffing a military base); Guam
because it was spoils of the Spanish-American War and turned out (with
Wake) to be so strategically important during the Late Unpleasantness
that even when the nearby territories that had been placed in Trusteeship
(Marshall I., Micronesia, Palau) achieved independence, neither it nor its
associated neighbor, Northern Marianas, did.

During the 19th century, US agents claimed a variety of dots in the
Pacific as "whaling stations," presumably where provisions could be
stockpiled. (Most of the dots on late-19th-c. maps of the Pacific
turned out not to exist anyway.) With transoceanic flights, they later
proved useful for planes that did not have the enormous range needed
to get all the way from, say, Honolulu to Tokyo. The US still has some
of them, including the northern extensions of the Hawai`ian archipelago
(which aren't part of the state), Palmyra, and a couple others. Claims
to one or two were ceded to Kiribati when it achieved independence.

You failed to inquire about the Virgin Islands and American Samoa.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-10 15:16:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
Why are Guam, Wake, etc., and even Hawaii, national territory?
Hawai`i, because its inhabitants were persuaded they would be better off
under US protection than independent; Wake had no inhabitants (and still
has none other than any who might be staffing a military base); Guam
because it was spoils of the Spanish-American War and turned out (with
Wake) to be so strategically important during the Late Unpleasantness
that even when the nearby territories that had been placed in Trusteeship
(Marshall I., Micronesia, Palau) achieved independence, neither it nor its
associated neighbor, Northern Marianas, did.
During the 19th century, US agents claimed a variety of dots in the
Pacific as "whaling stations," presumably where provisions could be
stockpiled. (Most of the dots on late-19th-c. maps of the Pacific
turned out not to exist anyway.) With transoceanic flights, they later
proved useful for planes that did not have the enormous range needed
to get all the way from, say, Honolulu to Tokyo. The US still has some
of them, including the northern extensions of the Hawai`ian archipelago
(which aren't part of the state), Palmyra, and a couple others. Claims
to one or two were ceded to Kiribati when it achieved independence.
You failed to inquire about the Virgin Islands and American Samoa.
You failed to notice "etc."
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-10 17:44:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
Why are Guam, Wake, etc., and even Hawaii, national territory?
Hawai`i, because its inhabitants were persuaded they would be better off
under US protection than independent; Wake had no inhabitants (and still
has none other than any who might be staffing a military base); Guam
because it was spoils of the Spanish-American War and turned out (with
Wake) to be so strategically important during the Late Unpleasantness
that even when the nearby territories that had been placed in Trusteeship
(Marshall I., Micronesia, Palau) achieved independence, neither it nor its
associated neighbor, Northern Marianas, did.
During the 19th century, US agents claimed a variety of dots in the
Pacific as "whaling stations," presumably where provisions could be
stockpiled. (Most of the dots on late-19th-c. maps of the Pacific
turned out not to exist anyway.) With transoceanic flights, they later
proved useful for planes that did not have the enormous range needed
to get all the way from, say, Honolulu to Tokyo. The US still has some
of them, including the northern extensions of the Hawai`ian archipelago
(which aren't part of the state), Palmyra, and a couple others. Claims
to one or two were ceded to Kiribati when it achieved independence.
You failed to inquire about the Virgin Islands and American Samoa.
You failed to notice "etc."
As in, "the important figures in the Axis were Mussolini, Hirohito, etc."?
Ross
2018-08-11 00:15:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
Why are Guam, Wake, etc., and even Hawaii, national territory?
Hawai`i, because its inhabitants were persuaded they would be better off
under US protection than independent; Wake had no inhabitants (and still
has none other than any who might be staffing a military base); Guam
because it was spoils of the Spanish-American War and turned out (with
Wake) to be so strategically important during the Late Unpleasantness
that even when the nearby territories that had been placed in Trusteeship
(Marshall I., Micronesia, Palau) achieved independence, neither it nor its
associated neighbor, Northern Marianas, did.
During the 19th century, US agents claimed a variety of dots in the
Pacific as "whaling stations," presumably where provisions could be
stockpiled.
Not "whaling stations" -- I think you'll find that bird-shit is at the
bottom of this one, too. They may have been discovered by whaling
ships (most of which were American), but the claims were made because
of guano.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act

(Most of the dots on late-19th-c. maps of the Pacific
Post by Peter T. Daniels
turned out not to exist anyway.) With transoceanic flights, they later
proved useful for planes that did not have the enormous range needed
to get all the way from, say, Honolulu to Tokyo. The US still has some
of them, including the northern extensions of the Hawai`ian archipelago
(which aren't part of the state), Palmyra, and a couple others. Claims
to one or two were ceded to Kiribati when it achieved independence.
You failed to inquire about the Virgin Islands and American Samoa.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-11 02:29:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
Why are Guam, Wake, etc., and even Hawaii, national territory?
Hawai`i, because its inhabitants were persuaded they would be better off
under US protection than independent; Wake had no inhabitants (and still
has none other than any who might be staffing a military base); Guam
because it was spoils of the Spanish-American War and turned out (with
Wake) to be so strategically important during the Late Unpleasantness
that even when the nearby territories that had been placed in Trusteeship
(Marshall I., Micronesia, Palau) achieved independence, neither it nor its
associated neighbor, Northern Marianas, did.
During the 19th century, US agents claimed a variety of dots in the
Pacific as "whaling stations," presumably where provisions could be
stockpiled.
Not "whaling stations" -- I think you'll find that bird-shit is at the
bottom of this one, too. They may have been discovered by whaling
ships (most of which were American), but the claims were made because
of guano.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act
Just today, I read in a philatelic magazine that in 1898 the US really
wasn't interested in what happened to Hawaii (as it then was). It was
offered, so they accepted it. (The article was about a group of covers
-- stamped envelopes that passed through the mail -- sent from the USS
Philadelphia franked with Hawaii stamps and US stamps indiscriminately
in those years.)
Post by Ross
(Most of the dots on late-19th-c. maps of the Pacific
Post by Peter T. Daniels
turned out not to exist anyway.) With transoceanic flights, they later
proved useful for planes that did not have the enormous range needed
to get all the way from, say, Honolulu to Tokyo. The US still has some
of them, including the northern extensions of the Hawai`ian archipelago
(which aren't part of the state), Palmyra, and a couple others. Claims
to one or two were ceded to Kiribati when it achieved independence.
You failed to inquire about the Virgin Islands and American Samoa.
Ross
2018-08-11 04:29:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ross
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you expect?
The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy?
"A war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the Vietnam
War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in that
war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story" without
qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that glorious
expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
Why are Guam, Wake, etc., and even Hawaii, national territory?
Hawai`i, because its inhabitants were persuaded they would be better off
under US protection than independent; Wake had no inhabitants (and still
has none other than any who might be staffing a military base); Guam
because it was spoils of the Spanish-American War and turned out (with
Wake) to be so strategically important during the Late Unpleasantness
that even when the nearby territories that had been placed in Trusteeship
(Marshall I., Micronesia, Palau) achieved independence, neither it nor its
associated neighbor, Northern Marianas, did.
During the 19th century, US agents claimed a variety of dots in the
Pacific as "whaling stations," presumably where provisions could be
stockpiled.
Not "whaling stations" -- I think you'll find that bird-shit is at the
bottom of this one, too. They may have been discovered by whaling
ships (most of which were American), but the claims were made because
of guano.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act
Just today, I read in a philatelic magazine that in 1898 the US really
wasn't interested in what happened to Hawaii (as it then was). It was
offered, so they accepted it. (The article was about a group of covers
-- stamped envelopes that passed through the mail -- sent from the USS
Philadelphia franked with Hawaii stamps and US stamps indiscriminately
in those years.)
After the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893 (in which Americans played a not
inconsiderable role), the new government tried to get annexed. They got
support in Washington under the outgoing Harrison administration, but this
was reversed when Cleveland took office. I guess this could be called
the "not interested" period. Hawaii continued as a Republic. By the time
McKinley came along, war with Spain was on the horizon, and the Japanese
were also showing an interest. McKinley was an expansionist, but it took
him a while to get the votes in Congress. Annexation took place in 1898.
charles
2018-08-10 15:13:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Harrison Hill
If I say to you "here is a war story", which war would you
expect? The Peloponnesian War? The Napoleonic War of Tolstoy? "A
war story", with no further exemplification, means (to me) a
"WWII story".
You must be quite old. The unmarked "war story" would be from the
Vietnam War.
Oh yes? Why? Harrison is from a country that was not involved in
that war. I would never think of Vietnam if I heard "war story"
without qualification.
So your "war story" would more likely be from the Falklands, that
glorious expedition to save a bunch of sheep from their nearest
neighbor?
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog
from whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory
occupied by an invading force and sticking your nose into an
independent nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN
condemnation as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
probably for the same reason that most of the west & mid-west of north
America is part of the US of A.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-10 17:49:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog
from whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory
occupied by an invading force and sticking your nose into an
independent nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN
condemnation as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
probably for the same reason that most of the west & mid-west of north
America is part of the US of A.
Because it comprised vast stretches of seemingly uninhabited, fertile
land suitable for burgeoning populations seeking Lebensraum and freedom
from religious persecution?
Lanarcam
2018-08-10 18:17:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog
from whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory
occupied by an invading force and sticking your nose into an
independent nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN
condemnation as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
probably for the same reason that most of the west & mid-west of north
America is part of the US of A.
Because it comprised vast stretches of seemingly uninhabited, fertile
land suitable for burgeoning populations seeking Lebensraum and freedom
from religious persecution?
*Lebensraum* is quite appropriate in that case...
Sam Plusnet
2018-08-10 22:15:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog
from whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory
occupied by an invading force and sticking your nose into an
independent nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN
condemnation as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
probably for the same reason that most of the west & mid-west of north
America is part of the US of A.
Because it comprised vast stretches of seemingly uninhabited, fertile
land suitable for burgeoning populations seeking Lebensraum and freedom
from religious persecution?
In other words, land grab?
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-11 02:25:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog
from whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory
occupied by an invading force and sticking your nose into an
independent nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN
condemnation as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
probably for the same reason that most of the west & mid-west of north
America is part of the US of A.
Because it comprised vast stretches of seemingly uninhabited, fertile
land suitable for burgeoning populations seeking Lebensraum and freedom
from religious persecution?
In other words, land grab?
More like land take. The only real "grabbing" may have been the opening
of Oklahoma Territory.

Is charles's equating of it with the Brits in the Falklands legitimate?
Sam Plusnet
2018-08-11 16:48:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog
from whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory
occupied by an invading force and sticking your nose into an
independent nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN
condemnation as "a flagrant violation of international law".
Why should the Falklands have been "national territory" in the first place?
probably for the same reason that most of the west & mid-west of north
America is part of the US of A.
Because it comprised vast stretches of seemingly uninhabited, fertile
land suitable for burgeoning populations seeking Lebensraum and freedom
from religious persecution?
In other words, land grab?
More like land take. The only real "grabbing" may have been the opening
of Oklahoma Territory.
Is charles's equating of it with the Brits in the Falklands legitimate?
There must be a hundred and one differences, but I imagine the basic
impulse to be the same.
--
Sam Plusnet
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-10 14:17:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-08-10 14:37:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
[ ... ]
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
I remember at the time that the invasion of Grenada was "justified" on
the grounds that it was in "their back yard". If that argument had any
validity the USSR could have justified sending troops to Belfast to
quell the troubles there.

2464 km from Miami to Grenada (as the crow flies)
2163 km from Minsk to Belfast (as the crow flies)

(Minsk being in the USSR at that time).

I suspect that neither Ronald Reagan nor the overwhelming majority of
people in the USA had any idea how far away Grenada was (or indeed
where it was).
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-10 17:43:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-08-10 14:37:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
I remember at the time that the invasion of Grenada was "justified" on
the grounds that it was in "their back yard". If that argument had any
validity the USSR could have justified sending troops to Belfast to
quell the troubles there.
The Monroe Doctrine was quite venerable by then, and had generally been
respected.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
2464 km from Miami to Grenada (as the crow flies)
2163 km from Minsk to Belfast (as the crow flies)
(Minsk being in the USSR at that time).
I suspect that neither Ronald Reagan nor the overwhelming majority of
people in the USA had any idea how far away Grenada was (or indeed
where it was).
There were more stamp collectors in those days.

Are you suggesting that the Falklands occupied a larger place in British
consciousness? Philatelists, again, knew about something called "Falklands
Islands Dependencies," about as specious a unit as could be described.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-11 20:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-08-10 14:37:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
I remember at the time that the invasion of Grenada was "justified" on
the grounds that it was in "their back yard". If that argument had any
validity the USSR could have justified sending troops to Belfast to
quell the troubles there.
The Monroe Doctrine was quite venerable by then, and had generally been
respected.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
2464 km from Miami to Grenada (as the crow flies)
2163 km from Minsk to Belfast (as the crow flies)
(Minsk being in the USSR at that time).
I suspect that neither Ronald Reagan nor the overwhelming majority of
people in the USA had any idea how far away Grenada was (or indeed
where it was).
There were more stamp collectors in those days.
Was Ronald Reagan a stamp collector? Otherwise, how is that relevant?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Are you suggesting that the Falklands occupied a larger place in British
consciousness? Philatelists, again, knew about something called "Falklands
Islands Dependencies," about as specious a unit as could be described.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-12 00:06:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-08-10 14:37:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
I remember at the time that the invasion of Grenada was "justified" on
the grounds that it was in "their back yard". If that argument had any
validity the USSR could have justified sending troops to Belfast to
quell the troubles there.
The Monroe Doctrine was quite venerable by then, and had generally been
respected.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
2464 km from Miami to Grenada (as the crow flies)
2163 km from Minsk to Belfast (as the crow flies)
(Minsk being in the USSR at that time).
I suspect that neither Ronald Reagan nor the overwhelming majority of
people in the USA had any idea how far away Grenada was (or indeed
where it was).
There were more stamp collectors in those days.
Was Ronald Reagan a stamp collector?
Not that I know of. FDR and GVR were, though. The party for the 150th
anniversary of the Royal Philatelic Society is in Stockholm, however,
though Her Gracious Majesty is lending some of the royal collection
for the exhibits.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Otherwise, how is that relevant?
"[Many] people in the USA had any idea ... (where [Grenada] was).
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Are you suggesting that the Falklands occupied a larger place in British
consciousness? Philatelists, again, knew about something called "Falklands
Islands Dependencies," about as specious a unit as could be described.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-12 13:00:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-08-10 14:37:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
I remember at the time that the invasion of Grenada was "justified" on
the grounds that it was in "their back yard". If that argument had any
validity the USSR could have justified sending troops to Belfast to
quell the troubles there.
The Monroe Doctrine was quite venerable by then, and had generally been
respected.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
2464 km from Miami to Grenada (as the crow flies)
2163 km from Minsk to Belfast (as the crow flies)
(Minsk being in the USSR at that time).
I suspect that neither Ronald Reagan nor the overwhelming majority of
people in the USA had any idea how far away Grenada was (or indeed
where it was).
There were more stamp collectors in those days.
Was Ronald Reagan a stamp collector?
Not that I know of. FDR and GVR were, though. The party for the 150th
anniversary of the Royal Philatelic Society is in Stockholm, however,
though Her Gracious Majesty is lending some of the royal collection
for the exhibits.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Otherwise, how is that relevant?
"[Many] people in the USA had any idea ... (where [Grenada] was).
OK, there were no doubt plenty of people who knew that "Grenada" was a
place that had stamps, but did they all know where the stamps came
from? Even if they knew that Grenada was in the Caribbean did they know
that it was almost as far from the Bahamas as from Miami? Was it the
sort of island where people went for their holidays, or did it just
attract people who couldn't get into prestigious medical schools?
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-12 13:22:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-08-10 14:37:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
I remember at the time that the invasion of Grenada was "justified" on
the grounds that it was in "their back yard". If that argument had any
validity the USSR could have justified sending troops to Belfast to
quell the troubles there.
The Monroe Doctrine was quite venerable by then, and had generally been
respected.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
2464 km from Miami to Grenada (as the crow flies)
2163 km from Minsk to Belfast (as the crow flies)
(Minsk being in the USSR at that time).
I suspect that neither Ronald Reagan nor the overwhelming majority of
people in the USA had any idea how far away Grenada was (or indeed
where it was).
There were more stamp collectors in those days.
Was Ronald Reagan a stamp collector?
Not that I know of. FDR and GVR were, though. The party for the 150th
anniversary of the Royal Philatelic Society is in Stockholm, however,
though Her Gracious Majesty is lending some of the royal collection
for the exhibits.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Otherwise, how is that relevant?
"[Many] people in the USA had any idea ... (where [Grenada] was).
OK, there were no doubt plenty of people who knew that "Grenada" was a
place that had stamps, but did they all know where the stamps came
from? Even if they knew that Grenada was in the Caribbean did they know
that it was almost as far from the Bahamas as from Miami?
Not much of a stretch if you know where the Bahamas are ...

Unfortunately, when the Leeward Islands had stamps for the whole group,
the Windwards never did. They kept moving islands in and out of both
groups, including times when they ceded them to France and then got
them back.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Was it the
sort of island where people went for their holidays, or did it just
attract people who couldn't get into prestigious medical schools?
No idea. USans probably didn't know about the weird pronunciation until
Reagan's little adventure, though.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-12 14:39:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ … ]
Was it the
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
sort of island where people went for their holidays, or did it just
attract people who couldn't get into prestigious medical schools?
No idea. USans probably didn't know about the weird pronunciation
Back to navigation terms!
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
until
Reagan's little adventure, though.
--
athel
Tony Cooper
2018-08-12 14:41:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 15:00:49 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-08-10 14:37:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Which came first, Grenada or Falklands? Who learned to Wag the Dog from
whom?)
I think there's a not inconsiderable difference between an expedition
with the backing of a UN Resolution to regain national territory occupied
by an invading force and sticking your nose into an independent
nation's affairs with no obvious justification and with UN condemnation
as "a flagrant violation of international law".
I remember at the time that the invasion of Grenada was "justified" on
the grounds that it was in "their back yard". If that argument had any
validity the USSR could have justified sending troops to Belfast to
quell the troubles there.
The Monroe Doctrine was quite venerable by then, and had generally been
respected.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
2464 km from Miami to Grenada (as the crow flies)
2163 km from Minsk to Belfast (as the crow flies)
(Minsk being in the USSR at that time).
I suspect that neither Ronald Reagan nor the overwhelming majority of
people in the USA had any idea how far away Grenada was (or indeed
where it was).
There were more stamp collectors in those days.
Was Ronald Reagan a stamp collector?
Not that I know of. FDR and GVR were, though. The party for the 150th
anniversary of the Royal Philatelic Society is in Stockholm, however,
though Her Gracious Majesty is lending some of the royal collection
for the exhibits.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Otherwise, how is that relevant?
"[Many] people in the USA had any idea ... (where [Grenada] was).
OK, there were no doubt plenty of people who knew that "Grenada" was a
place that had stamps, but did they all know where the stamps came
from? Even if they knew that Grenada was in the Caribbean did they know
that it was almost as far from the Bahamas as from Miami? Was it the
sort of island where people went for their holidays, or did it just
attract people who couldn't get into prestigious medical schools?
When the invasion took place, all of the media reports included a map
view showing us the location of Grenada. Prior to the invasion, I
doubt if more than a small number of ordinary citizens of the US had
ever heard of Grenada.

The idea that a stamp would familiarize us with Grenada is ridiculous.
Those who collect stamps are interested in a stamp as one they don't
have, but that didn't necessarily result in determining where Grenada
is located. Stamp designs infrequently provide geographical
information.

Of the "ordinary citizens" who could roughly place their finger on a
map and be close to the location, most were scuba divers, students
looking for a medical school that would accept them, and people
interested in a vacation destination off the beaten track.

On January 21st, the USPS issued a new stamp featuring the Byodo-In
Temple in Kahaluu, O'ahu, Hawaii. Some will buy a pane of them, but
the stamp itself does not indicate where the Byodo-In Temple is
located. Some will assume it's in China or some other Asian place.

On January 19th, the USPS issued the "Meyer Lemons" stamp. If you
look them up you will find Meyer Lemons originated in China but are
now "widely grown" in California. It's a pretty stamp, but I don't
why anyone but a philatelist would buy a 2 cent stamp for mailing
purposes. I suspect the primary market will be people buying a pane
for framing as a decorative item.

Perhaps PTD can explain this, but the Byodo-In Temple stamp was issued
in Kansas City, Missouri and the Meyer Lemons stamp was issued in
Keaener, Louisiana. I fail to see the connections.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-12 16:14:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 15:00:49 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I suspect that neither Ronald Reagan nor the overwhelming majority of
people in the USA had any idea how far away Grenada was (or indeed
where it was).
There were more stamp collectors in those days.
Was Ronald Reagan a stamp collector?
Not that I know of. FDR and GVR were, though. The party for the 150th
anniversary of the Royal Philatelic Society is in Stockholm, however,
though Her Gracious Majesty is lending some of the royal collection
for the exhibits.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Otherwise, how is that relevant?
"[Many] people in the USA had any idea ... (where [Grenada] was).
OK, there were no doubt plenty of people who knew that "Grenada" was a
place that had stamps, but did they all know where the stamps came
from? Even if they knew that Grenada was in the Caribbean did they know
that it was almost as far from the Bahamas as from Miami? Was it the
sort of island where people went for their holidays, or did it just
attract people who couldn't get into prestigious medical schools?
When the invasion took place, all of the media reports included a map
view showing us the location of Grenada. Prior to the invasion, I
doubt if more than a small number of ordinary citizens of the US had
ever heard of Grenada.
The idea that a stamp would familiarize us with Grenada is ridiculous.
Those who collect stamps are interested in a stamp as one they don't
have,
Please stop flaunting your ignorance. Philately is not about hoarding.
Post by Tony Cooper
but that didn't necessarily result in determining where Grenada
is located. Stamp designs infrequently provide geographical
information.
Please stop flaunting your ignorance. Virtually every British colony did
in fact include maps among their issues, and beginners' albums for children
typically included maps locating all the countries represented.
Post by Tony Cooper
Of the "ordinary citizens" who could roughly place their finger on a
map and be close to the location, most were scuba divers, students
looking for a medical school that would accept them, and people
interested in a vacation destination off the beaten track.
I guess they didn't bother having Geography classes in Indianoplace.
Post by Tony Cooper
On January 21st, the USPS issued a new stamp featuring the Byodo-In
Temple in Kahaluu, O'ahu, Hawaii. Some will buy a pane of them, but
No, very few people are likely to buy a "pane" (do you even know what that
means in philatelic terms?) of $6.70 stamps. Mass mailers of Priority Flat
Rate elements are more likely to use meters, and the occasional user of a
Priority Flat Rate cardboard sleeve (or stamped envelope -- every heard of
those?) is going to buy one once to use.
Post by Tony Cooper
the stamp itself does not indicate where the Byodo-In Temple is
located. Some will assume it's in China or some other Asian place.
No, no one will assume that, because they are familiar with the (very long)
series it's in; new ones, on the same pattern, are issued with each rate
increase, along with a Priority Mail Express Rate stamp (the current one
is $24.70, depicting Sleeping Bear Dunes). Previous entries in the set have
included Mount Rushmore, the St. Louis Arch, and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge.
Post by Tony Cooper
On January 19th, the USPS issued the "Meyer Lemons" stamp. If you
look them up you will find Meyer Lemons originated in China but are
now "widely grown" in California. It's a pretty stamp, but I don't
why anyone but a philatelist would buy a 2 cent stamp for mailing
purposes. I suspect the primary market will be people buying a pane
for framing as a decorative item.
Please stop flaunting your ignorance. Odd values of stamps are perpetually
required both to make up the rates on stamps purchased previously, and to
add up to odd rates that happen not to have specific stamps for them at the
moment. The 2c Lemon coil stamp (that should be a clue right there) is one
of several in that design series, in odd values.
Post by Tony Cooper
Perhaps PTD can explain this, but the Byodo-In Temple stamp was issued
in Kansas City, Missouri and the Meyer Lemons stamp was issued in
Keaener, Louisiana. I fail to see the connections.
Obviously you did some tiny bit of what you call "research" to come up with
what you thought were mock-worthy statements (remember William Proxmire?),
but you obviously didn't read the paragraphs that go along with them.

Both of the Priority stamps were issued in Kansas City, because when First
Day of Issue ceremonies are held, they are generally tied to some local
celebration relevant to the topic. They require some amount of time,
expense, and local interest. It would be hard to drum up local interest in
a $6.70 or $24.70 stamp.

As for the Lemon stamp, did you bother to check where the Meyer Lemon
variety is grown? such as, Kenner (not Keaener), LA?

For instance: the Bicentennial of the Flag Act stamp was issued, not on
Flag Day (June 14), but on June 9, in Appleton, Wisconsin, in connection
with the traditional "largest parade in the country celebrating Flag Day";
it was, of course, the Saturday before Flag Day.

The "O Beautiful" sheet of 20 different designs -- four photographs
representing each of the five locations mentioned in the first stanza of
"America the Beautiful" (spacious skies, amber waves of grain, etc.);
unfortunately they didn't bother to move on to "alabaster cities" -- was
issued on July 4 in Colorado Springs, about as close as they could get to
Pike's Peak.

Don't ask me to defend Frozen Treats, Scooby-Doo, The Art of Magic, or Here
There Be Dragons. I pretty much abandoned US stamps when they started doing
sheets of fifty different designs for state flags, state birds and flowers,
state sightseeing sites, ....
Peter Moylan
2018-08-12 14:45:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I remember at the time that the invasion of Grenada was "justified" on
the grounds that it was in "their back yard". If that argument had any
validity the USSR could have justified sending troops to Belfast to
quell the troubles there.
That was in the days when US foreign policy said that the US should
oppose any country in central or south America that did not support the
US. Which, at the time, meant almost all of them. In most such cases,
though, the CIA ensured that an invasion was not required.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Mack A. Damia
2018-08-12 14:59:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 00:45:26 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I remember at the time that the invasion of Grenada was "justified" on
the grounds that it was in "their back yard". If that argument had any
validity the USSR could have justified sending troops to Belfast to
quell the troubles there.
That was in the days when US foreign policy said that the US should
oppose any country in central or south America that did not support the
US. Which, at the time, meant almost all of them. In most such cases,
though, the CIA ensured that an invasion was not required.
The invasion of Grenada and the U.S. attitude and conduct towards Cuba
and Venezuela have their roots in the Monroe Doctrine.

Most recently, President Donald Trump implied potential use of the
doctrine in August 2017 when he mentioned the possibility of military
intervention in Venezuela.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-12 15:23:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 00:45:26 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I remember at the time that the invasion of Grenada was "justified" on
the grounds that it was in "their back yard". If that argument had any
validity the USSR could have justified sending troops to Belfast to
quell the troubles there.
That was in the days when US foreign policy said that the US should
oppose any country in central or south America that did not support the
US. Which, at the time, meant almost all of them. In most such cases,
though, the CIA ensured that an invasion was not required.
The invasion of Grenada and the U.S. attitude and conduct towards Cuba
and Venezuela have their roots in the Monroe Doctrine.
Most recently, President Donald Trump implied potential use of the
doctrine in August 2017 when he mentioned the possibility of military
intervention in Venezuela.
American politicians -- even J. F. Kennedy at the time of the Missiles
Crisis -- seem to regard the Monroe Doctrine as a pillar of
international law, or, at least some sort of agreement, but it was, and
is, nothing of the kind: it's just a statement from a bully country
that it's going to do what it damn well pleases in Latin America.

I doubt whether Trump had ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine before he
thought it might be fun to invade Venezuela.
--
athel
Mack A. Damia
2018-08-12 15:51:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 17:23:24 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 00:45:26 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I remember at the time that the invasion of Grenada was "justified" on
the grounds that it was in "their back yard". If that argument had any
validity the USSR could have justified sending troops to Belfast to
quell the troubles there.
That was in the days when US foreign policy said that the US should
oppose any country in central or south America that did not support the
US. Which, at the time, meant almost all of them. In most such cases,
though, the CIA ensured that an invasion was not required.
The invasion of Grenada and the U.S. attitude and conduct towards Cuba
and Venezuela have their roots in the Monroe Doctrine.
Most recently, President Donald Trump implied potential use of the
doctrine in August 2017 when he mentioned the possibility of military
intervention in Venezuela.
American politicians -- even J. F. Kennedy at the time of the Missiles
Crisis -- seem to regard the Monroe Doctrine as a pillar of
international law, or, at least some sort of agreement, but it was, and
is, nothing of the kind: it's just a statement from a bully country
that it's going to do what it damn well pleases in Latin America.
I doubt whether Trump had ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine before he
thought it might be fun to invade Venezuela.
He knew about it. Manifest Destiny: the White Man's Burden.
Mark Brader
2018-08-12 16:23:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
American politicians -- even J. F. Kennedy at the time of the Missiles
Crisis -- seem to regard the Monroe Doctrine as a pillar of
international law, or, at least some sort of agreement, but it was, and
is, nothing of the kind: it's just a statement from a bully country
that it's going to do what it damn well pleases in Latin America.
Bull.

http://www.britannica.com/event/Monroe-Doctrine

# Monroe made four basic points: (1) the United States would not
# interfere in the internal affairs of or the wars between European
# powers; (2) the United States recognized and would not interfere
# with existing colonies and dependencies in the Western Hemisphere;
# (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization;
# and (4) any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any
# nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act
# against the United States.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | Do not meddle in the affairs of undefined behavior,
***@vex.net | for it is subtle and quick to anger.
Mack A. Damia
2018-08-12 17:48:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
American politicians -- even J. F. Kennedy at the time of the Missiles
Crisis -- seem to regard the Monroe Doctrine as a pillar of
international law, or, at least some sort of agreement, but it was, and
is, nothing of the kind: it's just a statement from a bully country
that it's going to do what it damn well pleases in Latin America.
Bull.
http://www.britannica.com/event/Monroe-Doctrine
# Monroe made four basic points: (1) the United States would not
# interfere in the internal affairs of or the wars between European
# powers; (2) the United States recognized and would not interfere
# with existing colonies and dependencies in the Western Hemisphere;
# (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization;
# and (4) any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any
# nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act
# against the United States.
Athel has a point. The Roosevelt Corollary (1904) to the Monroe
Doctrine stated that in keeping with the Monroe Doctrine, the United
States was justified in exercising "international police power" to put
an end to chronic unrest or wrongdoing in the Western Hemisphere.

While the Monroe Doctrine had sought to prevent European intervention,
the Roosevelt Corollary was used to justify US intervention throughout
the hemisphere.

"Is Trump resurrecting the Monroe Doctrine?"

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monitor/2017/0205/Is-Trump-resurrecting-the-Monroe-Doctrine
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-12 19:01:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
American politicians -- even J. F. Kennedy at the time of the Missiles
Crisis -- seem to regard the Monroe Doctrine as a pillar of
international law, or, at least some sort of agreement, but it was, and
is, nothing of the kind: it's just a statement from a bully country
that it's going to do what it damn well pleases in Latin America.
Bull.
http://www.britannica.com/event/Monroe-Doctrine
# Monroe made four basic points: (1) the United States would not
# interfere in the internal affairs of or the wars between European
# powers; (2) the United States recognized and would not interfere
# with existing colonies and dependencies in the Western Hemisphere;
# (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization;
# and (4) any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any
# nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act
# against the United States.
Which bit are you calling bull? Are you seriously claiming that the
Monroe Doctrine has some basis in international law? That it was part
of a formal agreement between the USA and European powers? That has not
been used as an excuse for interfering in the affairs of independent
countries in Latin America? Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1962), Chile (1973)
spring to mind, but there are plenty of others. Nothing in what you
quote contradicts that.
--
athel
Mark Brader
2018-08-13 02:20:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Which bit are you calling bull?
Your conversion of a promise of *defense against* bullies into an policy
*permitting* bullying. Go back and read it again, please.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "This is what customers do: they invent everything
***@vex.net | you haven't thought of." -- David Slocombe
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-13 02:45:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Which bit are you calling bull?
Your conversion of a promise of *defense against* bullies into an policy
*permitting* bullying. Go back and read it again, please.
He seems to still be sore about the drubbing he took in the War of 1812.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-13 07:59:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Which bit are you calling bull?
Your conversion of a promise of *defense against* bullies into an policy
*permitting* bullying. Go back and read it again, please.
He seems to still be sore about the drubbing he took in the War of 1812.
Don't be silly. I had never heard of the War of 1812 until I was first
in Canada in 1961, and I suspect that the number of British people
today who've heard of it is similar to the number of America who had
heard of Grenada before St Ronald the Magnificent decided to invade it.

Anyway, what are you calling a "drubbing"? Not the burning of the White
House, I suppose.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-13 11:22:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Which bit are you calling bull?
Your conversion of a promise of *defense against* bullies into an policy
*permitting* bullying. Go back and read it again, please.
He seems to still be sore about the drubbing he took in the War of 1812.
Don't be silly. I had never heard of the War of 1812 until I was first
in Canada in 1961, and I suspect that the number of British people
today who've heard of it is similar to the number of America who had
heard of Grenada before St Ronald the Magnificent decided to invade it.
You made the mistake of thinking it was a minor appendage to the Napoleonic
Wars.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Anyway, what are you calling a "drubbing"? Not the burning of the White
House, I suppose.
You didn't dare attack again afterward, including in 1861-5 when you
desperately wanted to support the Confederacy because of your insatiable
lust for cotton (and perhaps tobacco), never mind slavery, but you were
pretty happy to see us in 1917 and 1942.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-13 08:02:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Which bit are you calling bull?
Your conversion of a promise of *defense against* bullies into an policy
*permitting* bullying. Go back and read it again, please.
I have, and I still see nothing to support your claim. Whatever Monroe
may have intended, no rational person could argue that it has not been
used as an excuse for bullying in the 20th and 21st centuries.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-13 11:24:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Which bit are you calling bull?
Your conversion of a promise of *defense against* bullies into an policy
*permitting* bullying. Go back and read it again, please.
I have, and I still see nothing to support your claim. Whatever Monroe
may have intended, no rational person could argue that it has not been
used as an excuse for bullying in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Cites?

Remember, you are claiming not that bullying existed, but that bullying
was justified by invoking the Monroe Doctrine.
Mark Brader
2018-08-13 13:49:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Which bit are you calling bull?
Your conversion of a promise of *defense against* bullies into an policy
*permitting* bullying. Go back and read it again, please.
I have, and I still see nothing to support your claim. Whatever Monroe
may have intended, no rational person could argue that it has not been
used as an excuse for bullying in the 20th and 21st centuries.
In other words, your claim is *not*, as you said, what the Monroe Doctrine
is a statement of, but about what actions have been taken in its name.
--
Mark Brader "If Benjamin Franklin was alive today, he'd be
Toronto arrested for sailing a kite without a license."
***@vex.net -- Tucker: The Man and his Dream
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-13 14:01:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Which bit are you calling bull?
Your conversion of a promise of *defense against* bullies into an policy
*permitting* bullying. Go back and read it again, please.
I have, and I still see nothing to support your claim. Whatever Monroe
may have intended, no rational person could argue that it has not been
used as an excuse for bullying in the 20th and 21st centuries.
In other words, your claim is *not*, as you said, what the Monroe Doctrine
is a statement of, but about what actions have been taken in its name.
Well of course. I thought that was obvious.
--
athel
Mark Brader
2018-08-13 14:05:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
In other words, your claim is *not*, as you said, what the Monroe Doctrine
is a statement of, but about what actions have been taken in its name.
Well of course. I thought that was obvious.
Excuse me, I thought it was obvious that you meant what you said, and
therefore, that you didn't know what the Monroe Doctrine actually stated.
--
Mark Brader | "What students seem to really need are on-demand signs
Toronto | that show up at the point of need exactly when they
***@vex.net | need them, but..." --Michelle Eichelberger et al.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-13 16:27:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
In other words, your claim is *not*, as you said, what the Monroe Doctrine
is a statement of, but about what actions have been taken in its name.
Well of course. I thought that was obvious.
Excuse me, I thought it was obvious that you meant what you said, and
therefore, that you didn't know what the Monroe Doctrine actually stated.
I think it's probably you that needs to read again. In the post that
Post by Mark Brader
American politicians -- even J. F. Kennedy at the time of the Missiles
Crisis -- seem to regard the Monroe Doctrine as a pillar of
international law, or, at least some sort of agreement, but it was, and
is, nothing of the kind: it's just a statement from a bully country
that it's going to do what it damn well pleases in Latin America.
I doubt whether Trump had ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine before he
thought it might be fun to invade Venezuela.
Where in that do you see any indication of what I thought Monroe meant
by his doctrine? It is perfectly obvious, both from the mention of
Kennedy and from the present tense of "seem" that I was referring to
the way it is regarded by present-day politicians. As I'm sure you
know, Monroe had no significant navy and had no way of enforcing his
ideas without British help (which was provided, of course, because it
suited British objectives).

In any case, the USA dropped any pretence of staying out of European
conflicts in 1917. A good thing too, of course, from a British point of
view, but that's beside the point, as it made nonsense of the Monroe
doctrine, however you like to interpret it today. If 1917 is too early
for you, 1941 is perhaps a better example, when the USA declared war on
Germany without any warlike act by Germany against the USA. (Again a
good thing, of course.)

Are you seriously contesting the description of the USA as a bully
country (today, not in Monroe's time)? Have you so easily forgotten
Colombia (remember how Panama was invented as a supposedly independent
country?) Guatemala, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Chile, Grenada,
Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, Palestine (though there most of the
bullying is done by the USA's protégé) ...? I might expect that from
PTD, but I'm surprised to see it from you.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-13 16:47:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
In other words, your claim is *not*, as you said, what the Monroe Doctrine
is a statement of, but about what actions have been taken in its name.
Well of course. I thought that was obvious.
Excuse me, I thought it was obvious that you meant what you said, and
therefore, that you didn't know what the Monroe Doctrine actually stated.
I think it's probably you that needs to read again. In the post that
Post by Mark Brader
American politicians -- even J. F. Kennedy at the time of the Missiles
Crisis -- seem to regard the Monroe Doctrine as a pillar of
international law, or, at least some sort of agreement, but it was, and
is, nothing of the kind: it's just a statement from a bully country
that it's going to do what it damn well pleases in Latin America.
I doubt whether Trump had ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine before he
thought it might be fun to invade Venezuela.
Where in that do you see any indication of what I thought Monroe meant
by his doctrine? It is perfectly obvious, both from the mention of
Kennedy and from the present tense of "seem" that I was referring to
the way it is regarded by present-day politicians. As I'm sure you
know, Monroe had no significant navy and had no way of enforcing his
ideas without British help (which was provided, of course, because it
suited British objectives).
In any case, the USA dropped any pretence of staying out of European
conflicts in 1917.
What does that have to do with the Monroe Doctrine?
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A good thing too, of course, from a British point of
view, but that's beside the point, as it made nonsense of the Monroe
doctrine, however you like to interpret it today. If 1917 is too early
for you, 1941 is perhaps a better example, when the USA declared war on
Germany without any warlike act by Germany against the USA. (Again a
good thing, of course.)
Are you seriously contesting the description of the USA as a bully
country (today, not in Monroe's time)? Have you so easily forgotten
Colombia (remember how Panama was invented as a supposedly independent
country?) Guatemala, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Chile, Grenada,
Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, Palestine (though there most of the
bullying is done by the USA's protégé) ...? I might expect that from
PTD, but I'm surprised to see it from you.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-13 17:06:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
[ … ]
In any case, the USA dropped any pretence of staying out of European>
conflicts in 1917.
What does that have to do with the Monroe Doctrine?
Monroe made four basic points: (1) the United States would not
# interfere in the internal affairs of or the wars between European
# powers; (2) the United States recognized and would not interfere
# with existing colonies and dependencies in the Western Hemisphere;
# (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization;
# and (4) any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any
# nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act
# against the United States.
If you read as far as the first basic point you'll have seen that
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the United States would not interfere in the internal affairs of or the
wars between European powers;
That became a dead letter in 1917.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-13 21:13:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
In any case, the USA dropped any pretence of staying out of European>
conflicts in 1917.
What does that have to do with the Monroe Doctrine?
Monroe made four basic points: (1) the United States would not
# interfere in the internal affairs of or the wars between European
# powers; (2) the United States recognized and would not interfere
# with existing colonies and dependencies in the Western Hemisphere;
# (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization;
# and (4) any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any
# nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act
# against the United States.
If you read as far as the first basic point you'll have seen that
Post by Peter T. Daniels
the United States would not interfere in the internal affairs of or the
wars between European powers;
That became a dead letter in 1917.
Are you under the impression that Woodrow Wilson just woke up one day and
said, "I think I'll join in that little war against the Kaiser"? He was
in fact reelected on a promise not to get involved in the Great War.
However,

"In early 1917, Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare against
American merchant ships, and in the Zimmermann Telegram proposed that
Mexico join a war against the U.S. In April, Wilson asked Congress to
declare war in order to make "the world safe for democracy." The United
States provided food, raw materials, and loans, and by mid-1918 was
sending a newly raised army to Europe at the rate of 10,000 soldiers per
day. Wilson focused on diplomacy and financial considerations, leaving
military strategy to the generals, especially General John J. Pershing."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson

You might find enlightening

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Events_leading_to_U.S._entry_into_World_War_I_(1914–16)

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Entry_into_World_War_I

(which links, for details, to other articles).
Mark Brader
2018-08-13 17:52:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Where in that do you see any indication of what I thought Monroe meant
by his doctrine?
This part, as I indicated by quoting it immediately before my response.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
...the Monroe Doctrine... it's just a statement from a bully country
that it's going to do what it damn well pleases in Latin America.
I'm done with this.
--
Mark Brader | There is no rule that relates [these behaviors]...
Toronto | In general, they do what you want, unless you want
***@vex.net | consistency. -- Wall, Christiansen, and Orwant
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-13 18:33:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Where in that do you see any indication of what I thought Monroe meant
by his doctrine?
This part, as I indicated by quoting it immediately before my response.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
...the Monroe Doctrine... it's just a statement from a bully country
that it's going to do what it damn well pleases in Latin America.
I'm done with this.
That makes two of us.
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2018-08-14 07:35:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
In other words, your claim is *not*, as you said, what the Monroe Doctrine
is a statement of, but about what actions have been taken in its name.
Well of course. I thought that was obvious.
Excuse me, I thought it was obvious that you meant what you said, and
therefore, that you didn't know what the Monroe Doctrine actually stated.
I think it's probably you that needs to read again. In the post that
Post by Mark Brader
American politicians -- even J. F. Kennedy at the time of the Missiles
Crisis -- seem to regard the Monroe Doctrine as a pillar of
international law, or, at least some sort of agreement, but it was, and
is, nothing of the kind: it's just a statement from a bully country
that it's going to do what it damn well pleases in Latin America.
I doubt whether Trump had ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine before he
thought it might be fun to invade Venezuela.
Where in that do you see any indication of what I thought Monroe meant
by his doctrine? It is perfectly obvious, both from the mention of
Kennedy and from the present tense of "seem" that I was referring to
the way it is regarded by present-day politicians. As I'm sure you
know, Monroe had no significant navy and had no way of enforcing his
ideas without British help (which was provided, of course, because it
suited British objectives).
To such an extent that it was a English doctrine to begin with,
by Foreign Secretary George Canning, with Monroe accepting it.
The idea was to keep Spain out to allow British trade in. [1]

Of course the historical origin has no bearing
on what it evolved into later,

Jan

[1] The Canning/Monroe doctrine had an immediate practical effect.
The Royal Navy felt that the newly opened regions had to be mapped,
which allowed a certain Darwin to travel round the world.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-14 07:39:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
In other words, your claim is *not*, as you said, what the Monroe Doctrine
is a statement of, but about what actions have been taken in its name.
Well of course. I thought that was obvious.
Excuse me, I thought it was obvious that you meant what you said, and
therefore, that you didn't know what the Monroe Doctrine actually stated.
I think it's probably you that needs to read again. In the post that
Post by Mark Brader
American politicians -- even J. F. Kennedy at the time of the Missiles
Crisis -- seem to regard the Monroe Doctrine as a pillar of
international law, or, at least some sort of agreement, but it was, and
is, nothing of the kind: it's just a statement from a bully country
that it's going to do what it damn well pleases in Latin America.
I doubt whether Trump had ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine before he
thought it might be fun to invade Venezuela.
Where in that do you see any indication of what I thought Monroe meant
by his doctrine? It is perfectly obvious, both from the mention of
Kennedy and from the present tense of "seem" that I was referring to
the way it is regarded by present-day politicians. As I'm sure you
know, Monroe had no significant navy and had no way of enforcing his
ideas without British help (which was provided, of course, because it
suited British objectives).
To such an extent that it was a English doctrine to begin with,
by Foreign Secretary George Canning, with Monroe accepting it.
The idea was to keep Spain out to allow British trade in. [1]
Of course the historical origin has no bearing
on what it evolved into later,
That's what I thought was obvious, but Mark thinks otherwise.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Jan
[1] The Canning/Monroe doctrine had an immediate practical effect.
The Royal Navy felt that the newly opened regions had to be mapped,
which allowed a certain Darwin to travel round the world.
--
athel
Mack A. Damia
2018-08-14 14:09:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
In other words, your claim is *not*, as you said, what the Monroe Doctrine
is a statement of, but about what actions have been taken in its name.
Well of course. I thought that was obvious.
Excuse me, I thought it was obvious that you meant what you said, and
therefore, that you didn't know what the Monroe Doctrine actually stated.
I think it's probably you that needs to read again. In the post that
Post by Mark Brader
American politicians -- even J. F. Kennedy at the time of the Missiles
Crisis -- seem to regard the Monroe Doctrine as a pillar of
international law, or, at least some sort of agreement, but it was, and
is, nothing of the kind: it's just a statement from a bully country
that it's going to do what it damn well pleases in Latin America.
I doubt whether Trump had ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine before he
thought it might be fun to invade Venezuela.
Where in that do you see any indication of what I thought Monroe meant
by his doctrine? It is perfectly obvious, both from the mention of
Kennedy and from the present tense of "seem" that I was referring to
the way it is regarded by present-day politicians. As I'm sure you
know, Monroe had no significant navy and had no way of enforcing his
ideas without British help (which was provided, of course, because it
suited British objectives).
To such an extent that it was a English doctrine to begin with,
by Foreign Secretary George Canning, with Monroe accepting it.
The idea was to keep Spain out to allow British trade in. [1]
And the British navy enforced the doctrine as there was not much of a
U.S. navy at the time.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Of course the historical origin has no bearing
on what it evolved into later,
Jan
[1] The Canning/Monroe doctrine had an immediate practical effect.
The Royal Navy felt that the newly opened regions had to be mapped,
which allowed a certain Darwin to travel round the world.
Sam Plusnet
2018-08-12 18:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I doubt whether Trump had ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine before he
thought it might be fun to invade Venezuela.
Sure he had.

Monroe Doctrine - paying off an inconvenient blonde before she can sell
her story (about JFK) to the papers.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-12 18:55:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I doubt whether Trump had ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine before he
thought it might be fun to invade Venezuela.
Sure he had.
Monroe Doctrine - paying off an inconvenient blonde before she can sell
her story (about JFK) to the papers.
ITYM knocking off rather than paying off.
Sam Plusnet
2018-08-13 19:40:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I doubt whether Trump had ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine before he
thought it might be fun to invade Venezuela.
Sure he had.
Monroe Doctrine - paying off an inconvenient blonde before she can sell
her story (about JFK) to the papers.
ITYM knocking off rather than paying off.
"Knocking off" has a different meaning in BrE.

That JFK was assumed to be knocking off Ms Monroe was the start of the
problem.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-13 21:16:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I doubt whether Trump had ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine before he
thought it might be fun to invade Venezuela.
Sure he had.
Monroe Doctrine - paying off an inconvenient blonde before she can sell
her story (about JFK) to the papers.
ITYM knocking off rather than paying off.
"Knocking off" has a different meaning in BrE.
That JFK was assumed to be knocking off Ms Monroe was the start of the
problem.
That could get confused with knocking up.

How can you watch either gangster movies (above sense) or teen movies
('quit it!' sense) without giggling?

And it's Miss Monroe, or Mrs. Miller (formerly Mrs. DiMaggio).
RHDraney
2018-08-13 23:37:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
"Knocking off" has a different meaning in BrE.
That JFK was assumed to be knocking off Ms Monroe was the start of the
problem.
That could get confused with knocking up.
How can you watch either gangster movies (above sense) or teen movies
('quit it!' sense) without giggling?
Same way you can watch gangsters in movies speak of "rubbing out" a
victim...(or Thelma Todd asking Groucho "are you making love to me?")....
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And it's Miss Monroe, or Mrs. Miller (formerly Mrs. DiMaggio).
Or Miss Baker....r
Sam Plusnet
2018-08-13 23:46:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RHDraney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
"Knocking off" has a different meaning in BrE.
That JFK was assumed to be knocking off Ms Monroe was the start of the
problem.
That could get confused with knocking up.
How can you watch either gangster movies (above sense) or teen movies
('quit it!' sense) without giggling?
Same way you can watch gangsters in movies speak of "rubbing out" a
victim...(or Thelma Todd asking Groucho "are you making love to me?")....
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And it's Miss Monroe, or Mrs. Miller (formerly Mrs. DiMaggio).
Or Miss Baker....r
Quite. I used "Ms" to avoid the issue of marital status.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-14 02:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RHDraney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
"Knocking off" has a different meaning in BrE.
That JFK was assumed to be knocking off Ms Monroe was the start of the
problem.
That could get confused with knocking up.
How can you watch either gangster movies (above sense) or teen movies
('quit it!' sense) without giggling?
Same way you can watch gangsters in movies speak of "rubbing out" a
victim...
? I suppose that's a reference to "rub one out" = 'masturbate', which,
however, requires "one" and isn't exactly common.
Post by RHDraney
(or Thelma Todd asking Groucho "are you making love to me?")....
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And it's Miss Monroe, or Mrs. Miller (formerly Mrs. DiMaggio).
Or Miss Baker....r
I wonder what JFK and Ol' Blue-Eyes called her.
Sam Plusnet
2018-08-14 19:54:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I doubt whether Trump had ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine before he
thought it might be fun to invade Venezuela.
Sure he had.
Monroe Doctrine - paying off an inconvenient blonde before she can sell
her story (about JFK) to the papers.
ITYM knocking off rather than paying off.
"Knocking off" has a different meaning in BrE.
That JFK was assumed to be knocking off Ms Monroe was the start of the
problem.
That could get confused with knocking up.
The former is necessary to achieve the latter.
--
Sam Plusnet
Madhu
2018-08-10 03:53:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
.oO~ John Donne Donne Donne Donne Donne Donne
Dr. Jai Maharaj
2018-08-09 00:09:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Dingbat
Hemingway War Story Sees Print for First Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/books/ernest-hemingway-short-story-published.html
Author: Hemingway watched Che's firing squad massacres
'while sipping Daiquiris'

By Jamie Weinstein, Senior Writer
The Daily Caller, dailycaller.com
September 5, 2013

[Video]

Humberto Fontova says you don't know squat about Cuba.

"[A]lmost everything most people (except Cuban exiles)
think they know about Cuba isn't just wrong -- it's almost
the exact opposite of the truth," Fontova, a refugee from
Castro's Cuba and the author of numerous books about the
country, told The Daily Caller in an interview about his
new book, "The Longest Romance: The Mainstream and Fidel
Castro."

"You really get tired of people citing 'The Godfather II'
to make intellectual points about Cuba," Fontova added,
explaining why he decided to write his new tome. "If this
sounds hyperbolic, here's the man widely hailed as the top
news source for Americans under 40 nowadays: 'All I know
about pre-Castro Cuba I learned from the Godfather II!'"

The quote comes from Daily Show host Jon Stewart.

While Fontova writes about influential Cuban agents in the
United States and how the mainstream media continues to
suck up to the Castro brothers in his new book, perhaps his
most shockingly lurid anecdote is of writer Ernest
Hemingway, who lived in Cuba at the time of the Cuban
Revolution.

"Hemingway hailed Castro's revolution as 'very pure and
beautiful,'" Fontova said. "He was also a guest of honor at
many of Che Guevara's firing squad massacres. Hemingway
loved to watch Che's firing squads murder hundreds of
Cubans. Hemingway would watch the massacres from a picnic
chair while sipping Daiquiris."

Fontova's source for this troubling detail of Hemingway's
life is a former employee of late Paris Review editor
George Plimpton who says his traumatized boss once told him
how Hemingway took him to one such fire squad social
gathering.

Despite pushback, Fontova insists that Castro belongs on
the same level as Hitler and Stalin in history's catalogue
of demonic dictators.

"Proportionately, he was right up there with the big boys,"
Fontova said. "Cuba's population in 1960 was only 6.5
million. Castro and Che simply couldn't get their hands on
as many victims as Hitler or Stalin."

See below TheDC's extended interview with Fontova about his
new book, what he thinks of Obama's policy toward Cuba and
much more.

Continues at:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/04/author-hemingway-watched-ches-firing-squad-massacres-while-sipping-daiquiris

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj
Peter Percival
2018-08-10 20:24:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Hemingway War Story Sees Print for First Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/books/ernest-hemingway-short-story-published.html
Sees? Why not in?
Jerry Friedman
2018-08-10 20:41:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Dingbat
Hemingway War Story Sees Print for First Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/books/ernest-hemingway-short-story-published.html
Sees? Why not in?
Our time has seen a lot of overuse of that sense of "see". (Or I'm a
victim of the recency illusion.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Loading...