From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:24:50 +0800
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Japan & bombing the US
In-Reply-To: <199706250000.TAA27658@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <v0310280dafd620346b22@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 5:00 PM -0700 6/24/97, Jim Choate wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Several people have made comment on the difference between states and
>protectorates of one sort or another in reference to the comment I made
>about Oregon being the only US state to be bombed in WWII. While this is
>technicaly true if you go back and look at the original posting I replied
>too was made in the context of US involvment in the war and how isolated
>we were, so isolated, the claim went, that the Japanese were unable to
>invade or otherwise attack the US.

No, this is incorrectly paraphrasing what I wrote. What I said, very
precisely, was "as there has been no credible threat of attack or invasion
of the states in America in at least 170 years." I was careful to say
"states in America."

I did not mention territories, colonies, canals, foreign embassies, yachts
at sea, protectorates, provinces, zones of influence, allies, or tourists
on vacation.

And I also limited my comments to the events leading up to wars...my
context was clear: that had the U.S. not chosen to enter wars, no states
would have been attacked even later. That the U.S. has entered wars and had
states attacked hardly disputes my point.

Oh, and California was also attacked in WW II. I lived in a town called
Goleta, which was shelled by a Japanese sub. Again, not germane to the
point I made, as this happened after the U.S. entered the war.

(And I believe at least a couple of eastern port cities were shelled.
Certainly saboteurs came ashore in Baltimore and Boston and attempted to
sabotage facilities. Again, no relevance to the point I made.)

>
>While it is true that Oregon was the only area attacked which was a state
>under the context of US possessions being attacked it is false.
>
>The main point here is that the original proposal was incorrect due to more
>than a semantic technicality. This brings the whole issue of the US sitting
>out the war into question. A question I answer strongly in the negative. It
>is not possible that the US could have sat out the war as a neutral.

It wasn't a "semantic technicality," it was a carefully worded statement of
fact.

Half the arguments you get into, Jim, come from your apparent unwillingness
to read carefully.

(I made these points earlier today to Jim in offline mail, but he has
chosen to ignore those points and repeat his flaky readings here on the
main list. Whatever.)

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."