Peaked Oil (was: challenging papers)
I'm afraid this news is just the tip of the iceberg. Sources say that the boasting by the Saudis that they have plenty of oil is a ruse. You see, in the 70s they almost destroyed themselves with the oil embargo. Suddenly people became aware that we were vulnerable. The people began to conserve. This had a major impact on the income of OPEC. Now, they are fighting the truth of a real shortage. Look at how far the Kuwaitis backed off production in Burgan. They have damaged their field trying to push production. The damage is greater in Arabia. There is a good reason why noone is building new refineries. -Original Message- From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:53:24 -0800 Subject: Re: challenging papers snip Now, as for what' s real at the present moment: The Burgan field situation, though seemingly unfit for the NYT, is monumental. http://newenergytimes.com/Newsmedia/2005/KuwaitsBiggestField.htm Smart people are watching news like this and their ears are perked up. The battle is no longer with opposition, it is with ignorance. And intelligent people are starting to get curious. They are starting to consider CF. Watch for this. Help them when the time is right. Steve ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
From: Stephen A. Lawrence Hi Stephen, ... I don't buy conspiracy theories, as a rule, but after seeing that tape, along with the later commentary by the White House in which they fled with no man pursuing, I really wondered. I remember the tape of Bush's reaction at the class room as well. Any kind of analysis of this sort will -always- be open to personal interoperation. It's always colored by one's own unique set of prejudices. This includes my own personal prejudices as well. My personal interpretation of Bush's reaction most closely resembled that of a deer mesmerized by approaching headlights on a lonely stretch of highway in the middle of the night. The result: One dead deer and a pissed off driver trying to remember what the collision deductible is on his car insurance. ... Here's an old family story: Long long ago, Roosevelt (bless his heart -- the only one of the allies who gave a [EMAIL PROTECTED] about China) issued an ultimatum to Japan. An uncle of mine, who was very smart but slightly cracked and who would have fitted in perfectly on Vortex, called my father, who was also a close friend of his. He said to my dad, Did you see the paper? Did you read what Roosevelt did?? Japan's got no choice -- they're going to hit us, within the next two weeks! He wasn't clairvoyant, though; he told my dad that the thought Japan would hit us in the Phillipines, while they actually hit Hawaii. But his timing was dead-on: they bombed Pearl Harbor a week later. Now, the point of this story isn't that my uncle was brilliant, nor that he had inside information. He was smart, but he didn't have inside information, and I'm sure Roosevelt had folks on his staff who were just as smart as my Uncle Jack. THEREFORE . If Jack could figure it out, so could Roosevelt. In other words, Roosevelt, who was anything but dumb, must be assumed to have also known with a high degree of certainty that Japan was about to hit us. Forget the intercepted radio broadcast, the intelligence reports that weren't acted on -- just from first principles and a knowledge of their own actions in issuing the ultimatum, the White House _must_ have known the attack was coming, and must have known, to within a few days, when it would happen. But Roosevent didn't do anything to prepare, and the fleet was a flock of sitting ducks as a result ... the President knew the attack was coming, but he ignored it. (Speculating as to why he did that, is far beyond the scope of this post.) You can not make such statements and then claim that speculating as to why [Roosevelt] did what he did ...is beyond the scope of this post. I can't let this sit here. My dad served as an officer in WWII on a sub chaser in the Pacific theatre. Fortunately for me he managed to miss most of the deadliest conflicts. He told me he occasionally heard late night radio chatter concerning Kamikaze boats that had been rigged with torpedoes attempting to ram some of their ships. Sometimes they were successful in detonating, sometimes not. While my dad is no longer with me I think he would likely say that had Roosevelt known without a doubt that there would be an eminent Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor within a certain time period he would have done everything within his power to move the fleet and personnel to safer locations - out to sea, other bases, wherever. Any implication (direct or indirect) that he deliberately let his fleet and crew languish in the harbor - basically as sitting ducks is absolutely preposterous. OTOH, I also understand Roosevelt was very much interested trying to come up with a legitimate excuse to get us in involved in the other war over in Europe despite an extremely reluctant congress that wanted to stay neutral. Roosevelt knew sooner or later we would have to deal with the global situation both over in Europe as well as in the Pacific. Roosevelt realized that despite congresses' reluctance to act he knew our nation couldn't just ride it out and hope we could stay neutral forever. Maybe the comparisons with Pearl Harbor are more apt than Bush would have us realize. Maybe so. Maybe so... Never the less I suspect I would have felt a lot more confident had Roosevelt been on watch when 9/11 occurred. At least he knew how to communicate. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: OT - Company Policy!!!
From: John.Rudiger snip Very good read, btw! And that, my friends, is how company policy begins. You must have a Masters in Business Administration, don't you.;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
RE: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Pearl Harbor = WMD = W2K = Bird Flu Stampeding the herd is sometimes the only way to move them in a direction they don't want to go. Rarely is the threat real and 95% will never know why they are going that way. All leaders are guilty of it. Roosevelt knew, that's why one battle group wasn't there... If no ships were lost, we would have not entered the pacific theater. Public apathy would have prevented action. -j -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:19 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC From: Stephen A. Lawrence Hi Stephen, ... I don't buy conspiracy theories, as a rule, but after seeing that tape, along with the later commentary by the White House in which they fled with no man pursuing, I really wondered. I remember the tape of Bush's reaction at the class room as well. Any kind of analysis of this sort will -always- be open to personal interoperation. It's always colored by one's own unique set of prejudices. This includes my own personal prejudices as well. My personal interpretation of Bush's reaction most closely resembled that of a deer mesmerized by approaching headlights on a lonely stretch of highway in the middle of the night. The result: One dead deer and a pissed off driver trying to remember what the collision deductible is on his car insurance. ... Here's an old family story: Long long ago, Roosevelt (bless his heart -- the only one of the allies who gave a [EMAIL PROTECTED] about China) issued an ultimatum to Japan. An uncle of mine, who was very smart but slightly cracked and who would have fitted in perfectly on Vortex, called my father, who was also a close friend of his. He said to my dad, Did you see the paper? Did you read what Roosevelt did?? Japan's got no choice -- they're going to hit us, within the next two weeks! He wasn't clairvoyant, though; he told my dad that the thought Japan would hit us in the Phillipines, while they actually hit Hawaii. But his timing was dead-on: they bombed Pearl Harbor a week later. Now, the point of this story isn't that my uncle was brilliant, nor that he had inside information. He was smart, but he didn't have inside information, and I'm sure Roosevelt had folks on his staff who were just as smart as my Uncle Jack. THEREFORE . If Jack could figure it out, so could Roosevelt. In other words, Roosevelt, who was anything but dumb, must be assumed to have also known with a high degree of certainty that Japan was about to hit us. Forget the intercepted radio broadcast, the intelligence reports that weren't acted on -- just from first principles and a knowledge of their own actions in issuing the ultimatum, the White House _must_ have known the attack was coming, and must have known, to within a few days, when it would happen. But Roosevent didn't do anything to prepare, and the fleet was a flock of sitting ducks as a result ... the President knew the attack was coming, but he ignored it. (Speculating as to why he did that, is far beyond the scope of this post.) You can not make such statements and then claim that speculating as to why [Roosevelt] did what he did ...is beyond the scope of this post. I can't let this sit here. My dad served as an officer in WWII on a sub chaser in the Pacific theatre. Fortunately for me he managed to miss most of the deadliest conflicts. He told me he occasionally heard late night radio chatter concerning Kamikaze boats that had been rigged with torpedoes attempting to ram some of their ships. Sometimes they were successful in detonating, sometimes not. While my dad is no longer with me I think he would likely say that had Roosevelt known without a doubt that there would be an eminent Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor within a certain time period he would have done everything within his power to move the fleet and personnel to safer locations - out to sea, other bases, wherever. Any implication (direct or indirect) that he deliberately let his fleet and crew languish in the harbor - basically as sitting ducks is absolutely preposterous. OTOH, I also understand Roosevelt was very much interested trying to come up with a legitimate excuse to get us in involved in the other war over in Europe despite an extremely reluctant congress that wanted to stay neutral. Roosevelt knew sooner or later we would have to deal with the global situation both over in Europe as well as in the Pacific. Roosevelt realized that despite congresses' reluctance to act he knew our nation couldn't just ride it out and hope we could stay neutral forever. Maybe the comparisons with Pearl Harbor are more apt than Bush would have us realize. Maybe so. Maybe so... Never the less I suspect I would have felt a lot more confident had Roosevelt been on watch when 9/11 occurred. At least he knew how to communicate. Regards
Re: Peaked Oil (was: challenging papers)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a good reason why noone is building new refineries. This is exactly right. See K. Deffey's new book, Beyond Oil. No new refineries, supertankers or pipelines are on order because the oil companies know they will have no use for them. One of the reasons OPEC members overstated their reserves is because their quota was based on their reserves, not their actual production at the moment. - Jed
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
OrionWorks wrote: Here's an old family story: Long long ago, Roosevelt (bless his heart -- the only one of the allies who gave a [EMAIL PROTECTED] about China) issued an ultimatum to Japan. An uncle of mine, who was very smart but slightly cracked and who would have fitted in perfectly on Vortex, called my father, who was also a close friend of his. He said to my dad, Did you see the paper? Did you read what Roosevelt did?? Japan's got no choice -- they're going to hit us, within the next two weeks! He wasn't clairvoyant, though; he told my dad that the thought Japan would hit us in the Phillipines, while they actually hit Hawaii. But his timing was dead-on: they bombed Pearl Harbor a week later. Now, the point of this story isn't that my uncle was brilliant, nor that he had inside information. He was smart, but he didn't have inside information, and I'm sure Roosevelt had folks on his staff who were just as smart as my Uncle Jack. THEREFORE . If Jack could figure it out, so could Roosevelt. In other words, Roosevelt, who was anything but dumb, must be assumed to have also known with a high degree of certainty that Japan was about to hit us. Forget the intercepted radio broadcast, the intelligence reports that weren't acted on -- just from first principles and a knowledge of their own actions in issuing the ultimatum, the White House _must_ have known the attack was coming, and must have known, to within a few days, when it would happen. But Roosevent didn't do anything to prepare, and the fleet was a flock of sitting ducks as a result ... the President knew the attack was coming, but he ignored it. (Speculating as to why he did that, is far beyond the scope of this post.) You can not make such statements and then claim that speculating as to why [Roosevelt] did what he did ...is beyond the scope of this post. Sure I can, because my knowledge of the facts, such as they are, ends at that point. The tale of my Uncle Jack _apparently_ knowing better than the President what the Japanese were going to do is pure fact. Conclusions drawn from such an anecdote are, of course, guesswork, but none the less the story is something I know. On the other hand, since I wasn't even born yet and I certainly wasn't following current events, I don't know enough about what was going on to have more than the vaguest notion as to _why_ the President might have done such a thing. Certainly, the notion that a big disaster was needed to get us into the war seems silly on the face of it -- if the fleet had been at sea when the Japanese attacked it would have gotten us into the war just the same. Bombing a major port is an act of war whether or not there's a fleet in the harbor. And, for that matter, if the Japanese government had simply folded up in the face of the ultimatum, it would have accomplished Roosevelt's most likely objective, which was to get Japan out of China and keep them away from the oil fields they were supposedly hoping to capture. One rather bizarre bit of speculation I've read is that Roosevelt had already decided that the Pacific fleet was obsolete, and that the Navy administration was stuck in the mud, and that faced with an inevitable war the only way to assure our ultimate victory was to sink the fleet and start over from scratch. No half-measures would do because the old guard in the Navy was married to WWI technology and would resist attempts at replacing it wholesale. But I don't know nearly enough about the technology of the time, let alone the politics, to assess this scenario, beyond saying it seems too contorted and diabolical to believe it could have been part of the plan of any reasonably sane person. I can't let this sit here. My dad served as an officer in WWII on a sub chaser in the Pacific theatre. Fortunately for me he managed to miss most of the deadliest conflicts. He told me he occasionally heard late night radio chatter concerning Kamikaze boats that had been rigged with torpedoes attempting to ram some of their ships. Sometimes they were successful in detonating, sometimes not. While my dad is no longer with me I think he would likely say that had Roosevelt known without a doubt that there would be an eminent Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor within a certain time period he would have done everything within his power to move the fleet and personnel to safer locations - out to sea, other bases, wherever. Well, if Roosevelt didn't know, why didn't he? Other people with poorer access to current military intelligence figured it out; why didn't the White House? Actually a quick Google of burma oil japan roosevelt turns up a number of capsule histories of the time which make it clear that they _DID_ know that an attack was iminent, but that, for whatever reason, the possibility that Hawaii might be the target was not taken seriously enough. Perhaps it was just overconfidence in the results of
RE: Peaked Oil (was: challenging papers)
It's hard for me to ignore these assumptions. Refineries don't get built because of NIMBYism and , to some extent, regulatory expense. Arianna Huffington even pointed out that some oil companies have pushed to get each others refineries shut down by regulators, to keep the price of refined products high. There's also a high degree of NIMBYism and regulatory obstruction in pipelines and supertankers as well. I HAVE invested in refinery and tanker stocks - and I can affirm that they can be extremely volatile, with long periods in which valuations sit at the bottom of the market. Pipelines and tankers still would be needed if synthetic/alternative fuels are developed - and there's lots of possibility in that field. The Wall Street Journal has pointed out more than once that disinvestment in the oil industry and alternative energy is because of the Saudis, dominately. No business wants to invest in anything that could be wiped out over night by sheiks who could simply turn a spigot and pump oil for the cost of running the machinery. You have to be very motivated or crazy to invest in such an atmosphere. This fact is also why oil has remained relatively cheap in real dollars until recently - the Saudis aren't complete fools and have maintained prices that inhibit alternative development. With China and India in the mix, we now may be able to get beyond the Saudi economic veto that has afflicted alternatives. There also may be a long gap in oil well development, after so many years of neglect, based on volatile prices that inhibited the process. In upstate NY, Fortuna is on a well drilling binge BECAUSE of the price of natural gas. Since such is the case in an area as unlikely as upstate NY, I can safely assume that the rest of the world will see a similar explosion of development. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 2:58 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Peaked Oil (was: challenging papers) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a good reason why noone is building new refineries. This is exactly right. See K. Deffey's new book, Beyond Oil. No new refineries, supertankers or pipelines are on order because the oil companies know they will have no use for them. One of the reasons OPEC members overstated their reserves is because their quota was based on their reserves, not their actual production at the moment. - Jed
OFF TOPIC Pearl Harbor etc.
John Steck wrote: Here's an old family story: Long long ago, Roosevelt (bless his heart -- the only one of the allies who gave a [EMAIL PROTECTED] about China) issued an ultimatum to Japan. An uncle of mine, who was very smart but slightly cracked and who would have fitted in perfectly on Vortex, called my father, who was also a close friend of his. He said to my dad, Did you see the paper? Did you read what Roosevelt did?? Japan's got no choice -- they're going to hit us, within the next two weeks! He wasn't clairvoyant, though; he told my dad that the thought Japan would hit us in the Phillipines, while they actually hit Hawaii. But his timing was dead-on: they bombed Pearl Harbor a week later. I learned Japanese language and history from World War II vets on both sides. (I mean Japanese vets as well as Americans). My professors and the people I knew were in the intelligence business, translating from Japanese into English. So I am quite familiar with the history of these events. Many absurd myths have grown up but the facts are quite clear: 1. OF COURSE Roosevelt knew an attack was coming. He told his Cabinet that, and he ordered the military to be prepared. Anyone reading the newspapers in the US or Japan in November 1941 knew that an attack was inevitable. 2. The commanding officers in Hawaii and the Philippines did prepare for an attack, but they did a lousy job. The commanders in Hawaii were vilified sacked, while the guy in charge in the Philippines (what WAS his name?) went on to become the most celebrated commander of the Pacific war and the only American-born Shogun/demigod in Japanese history. Life isn't fair. 3. Nobody in the administration or the US military had the slightest idea the target was Pearl Harbor. If they had suspected an attack was coming, they would have sortied the fleet and met the Japanese on the high seas. That would have been a disaster. They would have lost 6,000 men or more, and every ship that sank would have been lost for good. (Most of the ships that sank in the harbor were salvaged.) As one admiral put it, it was God's mercy that they were surprised. The movie Tora, Tora, Tora is a remarkably accurate portrayal of the attack and the events leading up to it. Much of the dialog in the movie is taken verbatim from eyewitness written accounts, testimony at the congressional investigations and other original sources. - Jed
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
From: Stephen A. Lawrence A lot of interesting stuff to ponder here, especially the scenario about how best to modernize an antiquated navy. ... Maybe so. Maybe so... Never the less I suspect I would have felt a lot more confident had Roosevelt been on watch when 9/11 occurred. At least he knew how to communicate. Yeah, and he had a brain in his head, too, and had never suffered from spending too much time with a glass in his hand. And he knew how to negotiate, and he knew the value of maintaining foreign contacts; in short he knew that Americans aren't the only people on Earth. Maybe there would have been no 9/11 if Roosevelt had been Pres. Possibly. Never in a million billion gazillion years could I ever conceive of Roosevelt uttering before congress at what he would hope would be noted in the history books as his finest hour: Either you're with us or you're with the Japs. Bush, on the other hand... Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
OFF TOPIC History's might-have-been's - Pacific war almost averted
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: And he knew how to negotiate, and he knew the value of maintaining foreign contacts; in short he knew that Americans aren't the only people on Earth. Maybe there would have been no 9/11 if Roosevelt had been Pres. He was good at negotiation. So good, I think he almost averted war with Japan, although he himself did not realize it at the time. One of the reasons Japan attacked in 1941 was because they thought Russia would soon lose the war and be taken over by Germany. Japan feared the Soviet Union more than they feared the US, but they thought it would soon be defunct. There were sane people in Japan who understood that war with the US would be a disaster. Especially Yamamoto, the head of the Navy, They were trying to stop the confrontation. They almost succeeded in delaying the attack on Pearl Harbor. If they had delayed, the attack could not have gone forward until March or April 1942, and by that time the Japanese government would have realized that Russia was not going to lose to Germany, and the European balance of power would not change. They also might have realized that some of their own hard-line diplomats were lying about the US position. In secret memos within the Japanese government, the hard-liners misrepresented the US negotiating position. They claimed the US was trying to push them out of all their Asian colonies, including China, Manchuria, Taiwan and Korea. That was not true. The US negotiators only wanted a settlement in China; they never made any demands about the other colonies. By March 1942, cooler heads might have prevailed, an accurate translation of the US negotiating position might have reached the prime minister, and war might have been averted. That would have been good . . . except that in that scenario the US would never have gone to war in Europe; England alone would never have invaded the continent; and the Nazis would still be running things in Western Europe. - Jed
Re: OFF TOPIC History's might-have-been's - Pacific war almost averted
Speaking of"History's might-have-been's" during this period - how many realize how "fortunate: (i.e. downright lucky) we were at Midway? This "failed-trap", and our good-fortune,plus a rare Yamamoto slip-up -essentially lost the war for Japan during this one battle. We might have succeeded anyway, at far greater cost, butfor this battle, as they definitely had the upper hand in maritime strength prior. Jones BTW my stepfather was on the ill-fated Yorktown (both the first and second versions), and surviving that sinking (by torpedo) requiredits ownbit of luck.
Re: OFF TOPIC History's might-have-been's - Pacific war almost averted
Nov. 22, 2005 Vortex, Military documents obtained through "Freedom of Information Act" invoked by Stinnetshows that United States had broken both diplomatic and military codes used byJapan by 1939-1940. Roosevelt knew every move Japan was making. He knew that their navy was on the way. There was no radio silence as asserted. "God Bless" the Army and Navy code breakers. Pearl Harbor was not a surprise,the Midway tactic was known, and Yamamoto was later killed by knowing his inspection route. The sad thing on Japan's side was that they never caught on that their codes were broken. It is also safe to assume that United States knew about Japan scrambling to come to surrender negotiations through then neutral Russia much prior to dropping of the Atomic Bomb. Those commanders caught by surprise at Pearl were kept out of the crucial information loop. MacAurthur was not one of those. He just didn't get enough supplies in time. You see, Europe was the priority. By the way, Stinnet's book is "Day of Deceit, The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor". -ak- - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: 11/22/2005 11:27:58 PM Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC History's might-have-been's - Pacific war almost averted Speaking of"History's might-have-been's" during this period - how many realize how "fortunate: (i.e. downright lucky) we were at Midway? This "failed-trap", and our good-fortune,plus a rare Yamamoto slip-up -essentially lost the war for Japan during this one battle. We might have succeeded anyway, at far greater cost, butfor this battle, as they definitely had the upper hand in maritime strength prior. Jones BTW my stepfather was on the ill-fated Yorktown (both the first and second versions), and surviving that sinking (by torpedo) requiredits ownbit of luck.
Re: OFF TOPIC Pearl Harbor etc.
Jed Rothwell wrote: 3. Nobody in the administration or the US military had the slightest idea the target was Pearl Harbor. If they had suspected an attack was coming, they would have sortied the fleet and met the Japanese on the high seas. That would have been a disaster. They would have lost 6,000 men or more, and every ship that sank would have been lost for good. (Most of the ships that sank in the harbor were salvaged.) As one admiral put it, it was God's mercy that they were surprised. That is a fascinating point, which I had never encountered before. The Japanese had naval superiority at the time, and had superiority in the air, and of course that conclusion would tend to follow. But then, until I googled the topic during the course of this thread, I also never realized that nearly all the ships which were sunk in the harbor were raised and returned to service, and used in the war. According to a capsule history of the war which I ran across, only one ship was put permanently out of commission (the Arizona).
RE: OT - Company Policy!!!
From: John.Rudiger snip Very good read, btw! And that, my friends, is how company policy begins. You must have a Masters in Business Administration, don't you.;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com Hi Steven, No Degree at all, but I am observant and I do get plenty of inspiration from the upper management of the company I work for. It's amazing the gems that get forwarded around by email, this was one of them. It is so unfortunate that the entire human species seems to get stuck in this type of Pavlos Dog behaviour routine, some of us can see it and are branded rebels, non conformists etc. John Rudiger
Re: OFF TOPIC Pearl Harbor etc.
Akira Kawasaki wrote: November 22, 2005 Vortex, Interesting OT. I will not go into the long historical events between Japan, the U.S., and international interacting scenes of empires that lead up to WWII. It is too involved to write about here. But the history of the period from the time Japan opened up and to the current day is interesting because my family moved back and forth between the two nations and became deeply affected by the war, as were countless millions on earth. And I did have some trauma about it. In 2000 and 2001 a Touchstone publication by Robert B. Stinnet came out which documents Roosevelt leading events in diplomacy and strategies which lead to entry into the European war through the back door shenanigans with Japan. Stinnet sees Roosevelt acting in a patriotic manner. Everybody will have their own take on Roosevelt and on the war. Even many of us in America can see him from more than one side at the same time, and I was taught to see WWII from two points of view when I was growing up. My parents were America Firsters, and there was a strong feeling in my family that it might have been better had we not entered the war. The optimistic scenario which was imagined was that Germany and Russia would have fought each other to a standstill. The result of that seems a bit hazy, but it certainly would have led to a weaker Russia after the war, which seemed like a Really Great Idea back during the peak of the Cold War. And they certainly didn't feel there had been any reason to jump into the mess in the Orient. America First, for those who are not aware of it, was an anti-war organization whose best-known spokesman was Charles Lindberg. Interestingly, I understand that the leaders of the organization actually destroyed the membership records shortly after the United States declared war, on the assumption that it was going to be bad news for anyone to be associated with such an organization in the hyper-patriotic hawk-like atmosphere which would inevitably prevail during the war. In other words, they did it to protect the members. My father viewed Roosevelt as a war-mongering Spendocrat who prolonged the depression for an extra 6 years or so with his terrible financial policies. (I can still hear my father saying, Roosevelt _never_ ended the depression -- the depression was ended by Adolf Hitler!) My viewpoint is rather different; my reading has included a description of the goings-on at Nanking, which makes Roosevelt's apparent eagerness to mix it up with Japan seem a little less outrageous, and my take on such diabolical inventions of Roosevelt as Social Security is that this country is better for having them. Like the war with Germany, the war with Japan was a war with the Japanese government which was in power at that time, not a war with the Japanese people (wartime propaganda aside). Is that a meaningful distinction? You betcha -- look at the Balkans, look at the Middle East, look at Rwanda, look at Hitler's lopsided war against the Jews, and you'll see what I mean. Like nearly everyone (except George W. Bush) Roosevelt was a mixed bag. He had some good points, but he made some mistakes too, and when you're President your mistakes tend to carry a high cost for everybody.
Re: OFF TOPIC History's might-have-been's - Pacific war almost averted
Akira Kawasaki wrote: Nov. 22, 2005 Vortex, Military documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act invoked by Stinnet shows that United States had broken both diplomatic and military codes used by Japan by 1939-1940. Roosevelt knew every move Japan was making. He knew that their navy was on the way. There was no radio silence as asserted. God Bless the Army and Navy code breakers. Pearl Harbor was not a surprise, the Midway tactic was known, and Yamamoto was later killed by knowing his inspection route. The sad thing on Japan's side was that they never caught on that their codes were broken. Like Germany The German high command was so convinced of German intellectual superiority that they refused to consider the possibility that anyone could have broken their unbreakable code. It is also safe to assume that United States knew about Japan scrambling to come to surrender negotiations through then neutral Russia much prior to dropping of the Atomic Bomb. It was Truman, not Roosevelt, who decided to go through with that. We shouldn't blame Eisenhower, either, who later said something to the effect of, They didn't have to use that thing! FWIW I was taught in school that Japan had indeed offered a conditional surrender before the second bomb fell, but Truman would not settle for any such offer, he wanted the surrender to be unconditional, dictated and not negotiated. After the second bomb he got his unconditional surrender. Those commanders caught by surprise at Pearl were kept out of the crucial information loop. MacAurthur was not one of those. He just didn't get enough supplies in time. You see, Europe was the priority. By the way, Stinnet's book is Day of Deceit, The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. So, if it's true, why _did_ FDR _not_ send the fleet to sea? Is there any kind of conclusive answer to that question? -ak-
Re: OFF TOPIC History's might-have-been's - Pacific war almost averted
Akira Kawasaki wrote: Military documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act invoked by Stinnet shows that United States had broken both diplomatic and military codes used by Japan by 1939-1940. That was not released from the F.O.I.A. It was common knowledge decades before that act was passed. It was described in books published in the 1960s. Roosevelt knew every move Japan was making. He knew that their navy was on the way. No, he did not. First, they never broadcast their intentions in any code -- no navy does. Second, the I.J.N. code was not broken completely. Note that it was a code, with thousands of random numbers substituting for words, and there were several different versions. whereas the diplomatic code was a cypher. When you crack a cypher, you can read the entire message. In 1941 and 1942, U.S. intelligence could read 10 or 15% of the I.J.N. codes, but every time the code books changed (such as just before Midway) they were back to square zero. Most of their analysis was based on frequency, direction, identifying operators, and cracking some key words. (Later in the war, they used IBM punch card equipment to read more.) There was no radio silence as asserted. There was radio silence before Pearl Harbor! The radios were mechanically disabled to prevent an accidental transmission. The regular operators were back in Tokyo sending fake messages or none at all. The U.S. listeners could identify the individual operators by their touch, and they know which operator was assigned to which ship, so they had every reason to think the fleet was at home. Pearl Harbor was not a surprise . . . It was the biggest surprise in U.S. military history. It is also safe to assume that United States knew about Japan scrambling to come to surrender negotiations through then neutral Russia much prior to dropping of the Atomic Bomb. Sure they did. Heck, Time magazine published articles about it. There was a huge debate in the U.S. for a month as to whether to accept a surrender with only the Emperor's role preserved. The Japanese also sent messages via Russia and neutral third parties. The Japanese tried to keep the negotiations secret, but the U.S. broadcast the exchanges, printed millions of copies of the letters and air dropped them on Japan. It stirred up a hornet's nest of opposition from the hard-core militarists. - Jed
Re: Scientists in a spin over curling clues
- Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:42 pm Subject: Re: Scientists in a spin over curling clues In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:42:05 -0500: Hi, [snip] Marmo argues that the lubricating effect of the water under the stone increases as its velocity increases. The velocity of the right-hand side of a curling stone spinning clockwise is higher than its left No it isn't. The right hand side of a clockwise spinning stone is coming toward the person casting it, and hence is going slower than the left hand side which is going away.causing it to curve right, the path of least resistance. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk ! It depends on one's point of view which the author did not specify. However, it is common to assume the caster's point of view, rather thana point of view from the opposite end of the rink. Harry
