December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Further costs of war (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:12:02 -0700 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Further costs of war > > At 1:43 PM -0700 11/23/97, Jim Choate wrote: > ... > >Any particular methodology you might care to share on stopping WWII? > >Being an avid amateur historian concerning WWII I am very much interested in > >any insight you might have. > > Not entering the war. Do you have a particular method in mind? > There's ample evidence that the U.S. provoked the > Japanese in various ways. Such as? > (I'm not saying the Japanese were blameless, or > lily-white, or"nice," etc., only that most historians agree--and Japanese > archives support--that the Japanese were motivated to attack Pearl Harbor > in the hope that a devastating first blow would sink enough ships, etc., to > cause America to back off in its actions in the ironically named Pacific.) So how does Tojo and his out of control Kwantung Army figure into this? Do you feel that Japans Co-prosperity Sphere was a benign goal? How do you consign your position that we provoked Japan with their behaviour in such situations as Nanking? > Had the U.S. concentrated on its own affairs, on just trade, it is unlikely > that what the Japanese were doing in Malaysia, Manchuria, Korea, Indochina, > and the Phillipines would have had any major interest for us. The Phillipines at the time were a US protectorate, is your position that we should have simply turned them over without a fight? Korea was ceeded to Japan as a result of the 1903 defeat of Russia, how is this relevant to your position? Let's assume for a moment that the US hadn't gotten involved. The Japanese would have eventualy gotten to Australia. Once there what would have kept them from expanding their co-prosperity sphere eastward in order to better stabalize their resources. When they knocked on Guam or Midway's door should we have let them go like the Phillipines? How about the Japanese's eventual expansion into the Allutians? Should we have simply given Alaska to them as well? Is your position that once they had the western half of the pacific rim they would have no pretentions on the eastern half? What do you base this on? > As for Europe, this was even less our war than the Pacific war. Really? How so? Is your position that Germany would have benignly left the US alone once they had defeated Britian (I am assuming of course the US hadn't shipped resources such as oil and fuel to them)? Had the US not gotten into the war the resources available to Germany and Japan were such they could realisticaly have beaten the Russian. One of the reasons that Russia had the resources to reinforce the eastern front was their ability to remove troops from the Chinese border based on Richard Sorge's intelligence. > In a sense, so _what_ if some army from some nation was rolling over other > armies? That depends on where they stop their rolling. Is your position that if we had refused to support conflicts against Japan and Germany all would have been well? Are you proposing that Germany would not have advanced with their atomic research? Completed development on their jet-based New York Bomber? > Those who wanted to liberate the death camps, or to push Hitler back into > Gerrmany, or to kick the Emperor's butt could, of course, simply go over > and volunteer. In a free society, mercenaries are legal. Volunteer to who? > The last justifiable war the American states were involved in was, > arguably, the War of 1812. Every war since then has been unjustified. Justifiable war? How is the invasion of the US by British troops significantly different than the invasion by German or Japanese troops? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

3 2

Re: (No Subject)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Benjamin Chad Wienke" <woodwose(a)mailexcite.com> sez: >>Onan is commonly (albeit incorrectly) credited with the invention of >>masturbation. (See Genesis 38:6-10 in the Bible) I wonder what sort of >>thoughts the Onan-o-graph induces? [snicker, snicker] > >get your demonized molesting mind out of the gutter Yep, that's definitely Second Dynamic out-ethics to the Scienos. Of course, they'd be glad to sell you some auditing to bring you up on the tone scale. Got a few thousand extra dollars sitting around? I didn't make up any of this stuff -- if you care enough to learn about it, do an Altavista search on "Operation Clambake." See L. Ron Hubbard's mind in action! Read about the Galactic Confederation! Thrill to the Xenu legend! Enjoy NOT spending your money to learn this stuff! "I mock up my reactive mind." -- A great $cientology $ecret, their Clear Cognition. I just saved you a few grand. Tip your waitress.

1 0

Re: Further costs of war (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:12:31 -0500 > From: Fabrice Planchon <fabrice(a)math.Princeton.EDU> > Subject: Re: Further costs of war (fwd) > I guess what Tim means is at some point a equilibrium is reached, such > as in this case 2 dominant players (Japan and USA) face each other and > rather coexist than fight, because trading is more beneficial to them > than war. The problem with such a theory is that it supposes both actors > are intelligent enough to figure out when war isn't the best > solution. In that particular case, I have little to no faith in the > japanese side... Considering the relationship between the Kwantung Army and the Emporer faith and the Japanese are a clearly mis-matched combination. > > Really? How so? Is your position that Germany would have benignly left the > > US alone once they had defeated Britian (I am assuming of course the US > > hadn't shipped resources such as oil and fuel to them)? Had the US not > > gotten into the war the resources available to Germany and Japan were such > > they could realisticaly have beaten the Russian. One of the reasons that > > Hum hum. I frankly doubt that. Japan beat the shit out of Russia in 1903. Had it not been for Richard Sorge's intelligence of the situation in 1938 around Chankufeng Hill at Vladivostok indicating the Japanese governments committment to keep the situation from becoming a declared war and Georgi Zukhov at Khalkin Gol in 1939 the Japs would have beaten them then as well. In both situations Stalin was up against the wall. In 1938 there are clear indications that instead of counter-attacking he might very well have sued for peace and in the process lost the port at Vladivostok. Had the Japanese re-inforced their army they could have beaten the Russian troops available. Considering the lack of roads and rail in that part of Russia it is unrealistic to expect reinforcements to have arrived from Russia in a meaningful time frame without recognizing the contribution Japans hesitancy in getting into a conflict with Russia and Richard Sorge's clandestine intelligence contributed. Had either one of those not been present then Russia would have been eaten in little gobbles from the east and west. > Somehow your ability to expand durably > depends on your ability to keep your new possessions. While occupying > France, using a satellite gouvernment, isn't that hard, occupying Russia > (for the germans) and China (for the japanese) is another, quite > impossible, task if you don't get the population support (or, at least, > indifference). So, if Hitler had known better, he would have stuck to > western europe... Had it not been for the oil, food, and weapons we shipped Britian he would have owned Europe in toto. It is clear from Hitlers earliest writings that he had full intention of taking Russia. Had Stalin not had Sorge's intelligence regarding the Japanese's intent not to attack Russia at that time he would not have been able to pull troops from that front. Had those troops not been pulled then both Moscow and Stalingrad *would* have fallen. If Moscow fell Stalin fell. The Japanese also had intentions of taking Russia but only if they could consolidate their hold in the western Pacific Rim *and* keep America out of the conflict. China was beaten at the time. The only thing keeping the Japanese from taking over the entire country was two things. Their interest in expanding southward and eastward in the Pacific to gain more oil and resource reserves (Manchuria's oil was critical but no sufficient) and the fact that they simply didn't have enough men to do both, expand north/west and south/east. The Japanese chose to go south/east because they figured that with no chance of Russia attacking with the Germans on their doorstep they could flesh out their co-prosperity sphere and then come back once they had sufficient troops and resources *and* by doing this in concert with the Germans there is little chance of Russia surviving. It was also clear to many in Japan that there was no way America could afford to stand by and watch the Pacific be taken by force. At the time America was involved in its own expansion (ala Philipines & Guam) and it is clear that both American and Japanese expansion in that area would not work. The only clear path was to eliminate the American naval threat in the Pacific. Should such a situation be achieved there was no way American could afford to reduce the naval strength in the Atlantic by much, the Germans were waging unrestricted submarine warfare sinking even American ships. > > That depends on where they stop their rolling. Is your position that if we > > had refused to support conflicts against Japan and Germany all would have > > been well? Are you proposing that Germany would not have advanced with their > > atomic research? Completed development on their jet-based New York Bomber? > > This is a better argument than the domino theory you were suggesting for > the Pacific front. But this is a domino theory as well...there is one thing that studying history and playing wargames teaches...all conflicts are a domino theory. > If countries like France, England (and Italy, as Mussolini wasn't particulary fond of Hitler in the beginning of the > 30's) had been smarter, Mussolini may not have been fond of Hitler but he certainly admired and respected the man, or at least that is what Ciano's diaries indicate. Mussolini's explorations in Africa were a result of an attempt on his part to gain respect in Hitlers eyes. Mussolini's attack on France was a gambit to buy a seat at the surrender equal to Hitler. Mussolini's invasion of Greece over Hitlers protests were a measure of his equality. Unfortunately for the Italians the French & Greeks were more than capable of beating the Italian forces. Note that the Italians were not poor forces (examine the history of the Ariete Division in N. Africa) but rather very poorly led and supplied. It's further of some interest to note that Japan was very diligantly trying to get Italy to declare war on the US as late as Dec. 3, 1941. > > > The last justifiable war the American states were involved in was, > > > arguably, the War of 1812. Every war since then has been unjustified. > > Justifiable as "we (the states of the Union) were invaded by the British > ?". Actually, don't you think you deserved that one as the same states > tried to invade (then british) Canada, hoping GB was to busy dealing > with Napoleon ? Or correct me if I am wrong ? if you take that path, the > last justifiable war is the independence one. > > > Justifiable war? How is the invasion of the US by British troops > > significantly different than the invasion by German or Japanese troops? > > Once again, if 1812 the invasion actually occured, when during WWII it > was merely a possibility. The Japanese were certainly not bashful about taking Guam, Philipines, Midway, the Aleutian Islands; all in their original plans. The Germans were sinking ships as close as 20 miles off the easter seaboard. Bodies were washing up on the beach on a regular basis all along the eastern US coast. Keep in mind that from the tip of Siberia to the tip of Alaska is only something like 90 miles. Now with that in mind and considering the state of mind of Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, etc. how realistic is it to expect them to have passed on such a plum? > You see it as certain, Absolutely, every indication is that Hitler and the Japanese had full intention of involving the US. Neither could afford to let the resources and peoples of north and south America sit untouched even if they hadn't planned to get the US involved. Consider where the only two locations for platinum are located and the impact of that metal on high-technology.* Further consider, had Germany and Japan worked in concert a little closer they could have had 90% of all the oil on the planet. You think the oil shortages of the 70's were a bitch. In such a world the US would not have been the first on the moon (I suspect we wouldn't even be in the running). We would not in all probability have developed the atom bomb in time; Germany would have inhereted all the work the British did and considering that at the time they had all the heavy water on the planet they would have had a definite advantage. Take that and put things such as the ME-262, the New York Blitz Bomber, the V2, the Tri-partite signatories expansionistic dreams, the picture becomes quite nasty. And if you think for one minute that the US could have stood against Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia combined under some sort of combined assault with the technological edge going to the tri-partites you are sorely misinformed. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| * Russia & S. Africa

3 2

Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism
by Mikhael Frieden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:38 PM 11/23/97 -0500, Jon Galt wrote: >On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Mikhael Frieden wrote: > >> At 08:12 PM 11/18/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >(May) >> >And what would be wrong with this? >(Frieden) >> Not a damned thing. While in this country they are in the act of >> committing a crime. >And who is it that gets to decide what is a "crime" and what is not? It would appear to me that an illegal in the country is as much in the act of committing a crime as a burglar is while in a place other than his own. >The >politicos, the bureaucrats, the hoodlums in DC and elsewhere who think >they have the right to run the lives of everybody else. The politicians are responding to voters. The voters who are pressuring them are siding with foreign nationals against the interests of the United States which is presumed to be their new country of loyalty. That siding should be sufficient justification remove citizenship and return them to the land of dysentary and mui Ninos. >Again I ask the question: >What gives the hoodlums in Washington DC the right to draw a line on a >map and control people's travel across that line? The people who made handgun ownership a felony gave them that right. Lawmakers are resonsible for all foreseeable consequences not just the intended consequences. -=-=- The 2nd guarantees all the rest.

2 1

Re: Copyrights and Wrongs, from The Netly News
by Mikhael Frieden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:46 AM 11/23/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >At 5:32 AM -0700 11/23/97, Mikhael Frieden wrote: > >> It is interesting that while almost the entire body of copyright >>law deals with materials other then what is to be covered, the industry has >>enough clout to get their's singled out for the first criminal penalties >>for violation. >> >> This leaves the bulk of copyrighted material, printed material, >>photographs and the like open to being stolen as does nizkor for example. > >I mentioned this point back when I was on the Cyberia-l list a few years ago. > >Some of the law professors on the list were complaining that their >copyright rights were being violated by the quoting or forwarding of >articles. > >And the major newspapers were sending out threatening letters, which were >generally heeded by the "offenders." > >Well, what about _my_ stuff? (More generally, anybody's stuff.) > >Why does Professor Joe Shmoe or "The New Attleboro Times" have a greater >claim to "copyright violations" than Fred Nobody? > >This is a semi-rhetorical question, as it mostly involves who is willing to >hire a lawyer to enforce such property claims. But, as M. Frieden notes, >the deck is stacked in favor of large newspapers, publishers, and even >professional authors, and is stacked against private individuals and lesser >authors gaining access to the courts. >"Some copyrights are more equal than others." >(Personally, I don't really believe in copyrights.) Perhaps but there is something particularly obnoxious to the rule of law when scum like McVay being able to say to the effect, 'I know I am stealing from you. Sue me.' It is most clearly a mockery of the law to find his pack of drooling toadies such as McC using the theft as a juvenile taunt, that some may set themselves above the law solely upon the grounds of the cost of civil action. That is something simply not done in civilized society. -=-=- The 2nd guarantees all the rest.

3 2

No Subject
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fellow Kryptophiles, I submit, for your reading pleasure, this link: http://guru.cosc.georgetown.edu/~denning/crypto/cases.html Discuss... Socraticus

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/TWA/CIAVIDEO/ciavideo.html " Aircraft with natural stability, whether a toy glider, a Cessna, or a 747, achieve that stability by designing the aircraft so that the center of gravity is slightly foreward of the center of lift. The plane is balanced by the pressure of the tail downward, called the "tail drag". By keeping the aerodymic center (the wings) aft of the center of gravity, the plane is kept naturally stable. It will fly with the nose foreward. The same with the flights of a dart or the fletching on an arrow. The stable configuration is with the aerodynamic center to the rear of the center of gravity. With the exception of modern combat CCV aircraft, which require computer control to maintain stability, all aircraft, from the Wright Flyer to the Space Shuttle, follow these same principles. Without the nose, the center of gravity of the aircraft would move aft of the aerodynamic center. Continued level flight in that configuration is an impossability. Trying to fly a 747 without it's nose would be like trying to throw a dart backwards. Both would tumble, trying to swap ends. In the case of the 747, the wings, even if they did not tear off while flat on to the 340 knot airstream, would lose all lift, and gravity would take over. "

1 0

No Subject
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy Maypole studied yoga back-streching exercises for five years so he could blow himself (nobody else will). _ {~} ( V-) Timmy Maypole '|Y|' _|||_

2 1

Choate Doesn't Do His Homework
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim Choate wrote: >Make up your own mind on the validity of the claims. I prefer facts when it comes to making up my mind instead of baseless claims. For the others on this list who prefer the same, let me set the record straight... Jim Choate wrote: >It has been claimed that the original claim by Bob and anonymous was that >the first Great Awakening ended by the late 18'th century. This is a >complete fabrication. Yes, and you are the fabricator. Bob claimed it happened in the 19th century (see Fact 1 below). I claimed it happened in the early 18th century (see Fact 3 below). > The original claim put forth clearly references dates >in the 1800's as the date of the first instance, clearly 50-100 years in >error from the original Great Awakening that occurred between 1700-1750. For the umpteenth time, that was Bob's original claim, not mine. See above. > In >my original posting I (thought) made it clear that I didn't quite know when >the original event occurred but was certain it ended prior to the late >1700's which would clearly pre-date the original claim. I subsequently took >the time to provide references for those citation and clearly indicated >where my memory was in error, and even took the time to explain my confusion >regarding the 'Beacon on the Hill' movement. In responce Bob and apparently >anonymous made it clear that they saw no reason to do 'homework' >irrespective of the impact of historical accuracy on their claims. Bullshit! I did my homework. You (and Bob) didn't. But because I am a nice guy, I share it with you here. The bottomline is that you screwed up, Jim. You misread my original post (confusing the 18th century for the 1800's) and started this whole chain of events. The facts (not the claims) clearly bear this out. Nerthus _________________ T H E F A C T S [note: I have edited the attribution lines for clarity, but all posts are referenced to the Cypherpunk Archive] F A C T 1: <http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0556.html> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:10:17 -0500 Robert Hettinga wrote: >Jim Choate wrote: >> Um, I believe that went from the late 1500's to the early 1700's at best. > >Nope. Check it out. As defined in any decent book of American history, >well, maybe one that hasn't been too "revised" :-), the "Great Awakening", >which gave us most of our American-flavored religions, happened in the >early part of the 19th century, though rumblings started shortly after the >revolution. F A C T 2: <http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/0036.html> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:54:37 -0600 (CST) Jim Choate wrote: > X-within-URL: http://www.gnbvoc.mec.edu/webquest/PPERRY3.htm > > 2ND GREAT AWAKENING & WESTWARD EXPANSION > > 1815-1850 F A C T 3: <http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/0055.html> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 02:25:01 -0000 Nerthus wrote: >Jim Choate wrote [in response to Bob]: >>After thinking about this I am certain that you are speaking of a movement >>other than the Great Awakening. I can't remember or find a convenient name >>for the religous/ethical awakening that occured prior to the Civil War. > >"THE GREAT AWAKENING > >"A conservative reaction against the world view of the new science was >bound to follow, and the first half of the eighteenth century witnessed a >number of religious revivals in both England and America. They were >sometimes desperate efforts to reassert the old values in the face of the >new and, oddly enough, were themselves the direct product of the new cult of >feeling, a philosophy which argued that man's greatest pleasure was derived >from the good he did for others and that his sympathetic emotions (his joy as >well as his tears) should not be contained." > > -- The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Third Edition, Volume 1 F A C T 4: <http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/0056.html> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:38:10 -0600 (CST) Jim Choate wrote: >Nerthus wrote: >> "THE GREAT AWAKENING > >No, "The Second Great Awakening" which happened to be followed by "The Third >Great Awakening". > >You didn't read the various posts that I sent out earlier on this did you... [Once again, yes I did. 1815-1850 does not equal early 18th century!] F A C T 5: <http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/0143.html> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:54:09 -0600 (CST) Jim Choate wrote: >Nerthus Wrote: >> Uh, Hello? Your post entitled "1st Great Awakening" describes the exact >> same thing that I called simply, "The Great Awakening." It was not, as you >> say above, the 2nd one. > >They are they same if we ignore the fact that there is 50+ years between >the 1st (1700-1750) and the 2nd (1800-1850). >I did some looking around as well and other then Norton, yourself, and >whoever it was that made the original claim all references I can find to >the Great Awakening refer to the 1700-1750 event(s) as the first one to >occur in the America's. If I can find my Norton Anthology I'll take a >look at it, though it is 15+ years old. [Once again, Norton and myself referenced the Great Awakening to the early 1700's/18th century: see Fact 3] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNHj40+FWwZe05jcJAQE1owf/d9ihdJarbBBEJFL5xMaEoIn+L9BdZIgZ zybreEvcfSpXpQUOcv0n0Ze9QyFz12z6iuv+rEeOhFSawR1MgIUyWK4Q314rnVdl e9vuZ1gGI1VFr3NIFksGiVODS5OprFqT59gDKhcl4NLnrQL7z29+pHA8PNfEKJ8B 3I0cuuJWvOeAZ775xMnU7Z7sTJ51S1R6qNmjYKsbAkyGACzR4cjmUT/5+Y6IwW3N 1nJJPKgq4tQbpUUNSVw5Xn3p++nBzMjvdXcqWy7zGAa/vZGSnGMTLRWNYjHtcOE+ l440LoHzVk3B+hSC7P8GB5S/qAj23vTufv2sOd7QDfNDXqLhwMj0hg== =/wWH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

DIANA : The Unrevealed Pics (NEW URL)
by paparazzi＠www.kornet.nm.kr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#000000"><FONT COLOR="#00FFFF" SIZE=3> Note : If you want your name permanently REMOVED from this list, please e-mail : removelist(a)mlweb.com For the first time on the internet, here are the UNREVEALED pics of DIANA ! Given the sensitive nature of the materials involved, only adults will access the site. Go to http://151.196.201.51/diana/ </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3>

1 0