I would like to start a Hatrack Petition for the full and immediate return of Alaska to its proper Russian soverienty since it was obviously sold under coercion, who will sign?
Slavisya Rus!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Note I shall add a customery smile to show that this is to be taken in jest.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Dude, we took a lot of land under questionable circumstances. Russia should be glad that we actually *paid* them for it.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Let's work on Hawaii first, since an actual overthrow of a monarchy was involved, k? Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Can't America just give Canada to Russia?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
*snort*
(That one made my day vonk)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Blayne: why would you even think it's funny to give alaska back to russia?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
erosomniac, are any of Liliuokalani's heirs still around to give Hawaii back to?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm kinda curious about that one myself. I thought jests were supposed to be funny.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Why is it not? Obviously you lack my sense of humor. Now if only I knew how to spell the bone by the same name then i could give a funny link but alas.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: erosomniac, are any of Liliuokalani's heirs still around to give Hawaii back to?
I'm not sure about a linear descendant, but there are definitely still relatives.
And even barring those relatives, there are still a number of pissed off Hawaiians who would be willing to settle for having all the foreigners booted out and a return to self-rule.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
We don't have to list the ways why it's not funny. The burden of proof is on you, since you're the one who started the thread.
I, for one, can't think of a single reason why it would be funny, even taking into account how much you love other countries.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I dont need a burdon of proof all I need is that its funny for me, if its not funny for you well... Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Man, you guys sure can be harsh.
It's ok Blayne, I chuckled. If those of you that didn't find it funny want to know, I could try to explain why I chuckled.
- Alaska was sold to America for a far undervalued price, so we may as well just give it away. (See how this part is a joke? I don't actually think it's a good idea to give it away, but the idea can be found amusing when looked at in a monetary light.)
- The Russians only ever had three colonies in what is now Alaska, so as far as occupation is concerned, it was the Inuit's and other indiginous people's land. There is still a large native population that has never left the land, so the idea of one gov't selling it to another gov't and then that gov't giving it back to the original gov't while the same people who are seperate from either gov't live there the entire time can be found funny, to those of us with a certain kind of sense of humor.
- When America bought Alaska from Russia, the land was almost entirely unspoiled. Now we are on the verge of destroying one of the largest national widelife reserves, have had multiple oil spills off the coast, have harvested thousands of acres of forest, have sucked up a large amount of natural oil and gas, and it's gonna start melting soon. The idea of now giving it back is amusing, to me at least. It'd be even funnier if we sold it back for way more than what we paid.
I suppose it's kind of a dark humor, but I can find it, and without too much difficulty. I guess Blayne can too.
Edit: And thusly we prove yet again that explaining the funny reduces the funny.
[ March 08, 2007, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Still plenty of oil to suck out of its soil before I'd feel comfortable giving Alaska back to the Russians. But heck if we are going down that route, we should probably open the books of Native American affairs before we worry about Russia.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Or we could give Texas back to Mexico.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Or we could just take over Mexico and give Texas the boot, they've always wanted that anyway. That would be easier...
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Mexico wants to be taken over?
And Texas has plenty of boots, thank you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Russia doesn't even need or want it. They have way more than enough land for their people, and Siberia is closer with far more natural resources remaining than Alaska has. Besides, we paid for it fair and square, just like we bought the Louisiana Purchase, which also wasn't really someone else's to sell us, but that was how Western Powers used to operate when it came to divying up land.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: Or we could just take over Mexico and give Texas the boot, they've always wanted that anyway. That would be easier...
...we're giving Italy to Texas? Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: Or we could just take over Mexico and give Texas the boot, they've always wanted that anyway. That would be easier...
...we're giving Italy to Texas?
The thought of those two cultures merging (or attempting to) fills me with a certain evil joy. It'd be *so* fun to watch!
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
This thread served it's purpose as a setup for the Canada comeback.
Well played, vonk. Well played.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I shoulda just left it at that, but I don't like seeing people get piled on.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Russia doesn't even need or want it. They have way more than enough land for their people, and Siberia is closer with far more natural resources remaining than Alaska has. Besides, we paid for it fair and square, just like we bought the Louisiana Purchase, which also wasn't really someone else's to sell us, but that was how Western Powers used to operate when it came to divying up land.
You can't claim us! We live here!
D'you have a flag?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sure we do
Just ask Texas. They've had more flags flying over them than anyone else I can think of (which is where Six Flags theme parks come from).
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Lyr, you should seriously rent that DVD. It's like two hours long, and it's hilarious.
I think you would really enjoy Eddie Izzard.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: erosomniac, are any of Liliuokalani's heirs still around to give Hawaii back to?
In fact, yes. I am good friends with one; he was a coworker of mine and currently works with my wife.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think America needs to work on TAKING more sweet stuff. Forget about giving Hawaii and Alaska back; I say we start by annexing Baja California.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Blayne, are you even Russian?
Being from a hard-core Russian family, I must object to any unsenistive treatment of a proud and noble people. We have provided the world with amazing mathemticians, ballet and other fine things. Now excuse me while I drink some vodk--milk....
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
To be Russian is a cultural heritage which I lack but nonetheless I very much wish I was a part of, whether I wished I was born Chinese or Russian I cannot say with certainty which one to choose but assuming that out of any caucasian nation I would choose Russia hands down. Russian along with Chinese I am trying to learn.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I think America needs to work on TAKING more sweet stuff. Forget about giving Hawaii and Alaska back; I say we start by annexing Baja California.
I agree.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Scotch whiskey was invented by a little old lady in Leningrad!
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Mexico wants to be taken over?
And Texas has plenty of boots, thank you.
-I don't think Mexico would mind, after all we keep coming over, right? It would also lessen the negative views we, stereotypically, have of Puerto Ricans who get their shiny citizenship without having to pay taxes or the like and who seem to enjoy slapping that in our face every time they feel like it. Disclaimer: I don't believe that I feel that way about Puerto Ricans, but I have witnessed a few things, and heard a few others to make this statement.
-Texas, that I know of, keeps petitioning to the federal government to secede from the nation every time they can.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I think America needs to work on TAKING more sweet stuff. Forget about giving Hawaii and Alaska back; I say we start by annexing Baja California.
I agree.
In an ideal world, that would be super sweet. However, the thought of tearing down the fence that separates T.J. from San Diego is very scary.
Besides, underage drinkers wouldn't have a place to do it legally anymore which would certainly piss people off, mostly because they'd do it anywhere now instead of just T.J.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Given the purchase was referred to as "Seward's Folly" at the time, I don't think the general thinking of the time was that the U.S. got such a great deal.
Now, of course, it has oil.
And Ted "series of tubes" Stevens.
Eughhh.
Even trade.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Scotch viskey was invented by a little old lady in Leningrad!
Fixed that for you.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Speaking as a life-long Alaskan, I can tell you that Russia will never get this land back. I am in the process of forming a Triumvirate that will take control of the state government and, eventually, leave me as Emperor. Then I will build up Alaska's power by annexing Canada province by province. Then the real expansion can begin.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"America needs to work on TAKING more...start by annexing Baja California."
Y'd just wreck Baja's coastline to develop it into more SouthernCalifornia.
[ March 09, 2007, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nice map Sean
We can also thank the Russians for our superiority in stealth technology. Had they not persecuted and forced the scientist who invented it to escape to America, we'd never be as far ahead as we are.
Good work guys!
And I wouldn't have a problem with slowly working Mexico into the USA, but not all at once. I actually look forward to someday being able to turn North America into a more cohesive unit.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: erosomniac, are any of Liliuokalani's heirs still around to give Hawaii back to?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Russia doesn't even need or want it. They have way more than enough land for their people, and Siberia is closer with far more natural resources remaining than Alaska has. Besides, we paid for it fair and square, just like we bought the Louisiana Purchase, which also wasn't really someone else's to sell us, but that was how Western Powers used to operate when it came to divying up land.
Actually, the Louisiana Purchase was kind of illegal, because the government hadn't been empowered to do it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: Or we could just take over Mexico and give Texas the boot, they've always wanted that anyway. That would be easier...
...we're giving Italy to Texas?
The thought of those two cultures merging (or attempting to) fills me with a certain evil joy. It'd be *so* fun to watch!
There's a pizza place in Manhattan called "Two Boots". It's Italian/Cajun.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: -Texas, that I know of, keeps petitioning to the federal government to secede from the nation every time they can.
Really? Like officially?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Getting back to the main subject, with Global Warming an increasing threat, I am afraid that the US can not afford to give up millions of acres of what will soon be prized farmland.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Heh.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Russia doesn't even need or want it. They have way more than enough land for their people, and Siberia is closer with far more natural resources remaining than Alaska has. Besides, we paid for it fair and square, just like we bought the Louisiana Purchase, which also wasn't really someone else's to sell us, but that was how Western Powers used to operate when it came to divying up land.
Actually, the Louisiana Purchase was kind of illegal, because the government hadn't been empowered to do it.
No kind of about it, it was totally illegal. But as I remember it, not because the 'government' couldn't do it, specifically because the Executive Branch didn't have the power to do it unilaterally. Jefferson did it without approval from the Congress. The Congress was allowed, and they did so with the Gadsden Purchase a couple decades later.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Impeach Jefferson!
(He stole the election from Burr anyway.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know if that would count as an impeachable offense or not, you'd have to ask Dag. These days it would probably be legal, as the Executive Brance has access to a lot more discretionary funding than they did back then, when lean really meant lean when it came to government. The rise of the "imperial presidency" changed all that at the onset of the 20th century.
I'm not sure what the legal definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is, but theoretically, Congress should have been able to stop the funds from going to Napoleon.
Besides, Burr MURDERED someone.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
He did not. It was a duel.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't know if that would count as an impeachable offense or not, you'd have to ask Dag.
Anything the House says is an impeachable offense is an impeachable offense. Although there are many hypothetical impeachments that I think would violate the Constitution, there's no remedy for such a bad decision by the House.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually I have the military Channel and from what I can tell developing stealth technology had nothing to do with Russian emmigres there was so much that needed to be devveloped and heck so much stuff that needed to be INVENTED that I highly doubt one russian scientest is the cause of it. I think were passed the stage of human progress where 1 man makes a difference in anything except anything abstractely math related.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hamilton didn't fire at Burr in the duel. And he really didn't think Burr would either. That's what I read in a biography on him. I call it murder.
Dag - Really? What would hypothetically be protected by the constitution? I had no idea they had such broad powers of impeachment.
Blayne - The military channel notwithstanding (which I also have, and love), the foundations of stealth technology were born of a single man (and really, I think you can trace a LOT of technologies back a single person). He was a Russian, who was forced to leave the country for a reason I can't remember, political differences I think. He fled to America, where he helped with early stealth designs that led to the development of the F-117. Pyotr Ufimstsev was his name, I just looked it up. He wrote a paper on angles being used on the surface of a jet to break up the radar signal as it passes over the ship, which is where you get all the jagged edges on the surface of the Nighthawk. A guy at Lockheed read his paper and stealth was revolutionized from the Blackbird.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Or at least AFAIK my post is mostly inregards to the B-2 bomber, although its a pitiful failure shot down by Iraqi flak of all things.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Stealth was around for two generations of aircraft before the B-2 Blayne. The SR-71 Blackbird and the F-117 Nighthawk were forerunners.
Last I checked a B-2 has never been shot down before. And no one I can recall has ever called it a failure.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It has been shot down in the Iraq war, several times in fact, by Iraqis macguivering microwave radar and shooting it down with FLAK, something understandably the Pentagon would not officially advertise since these things cost how many billions again?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If that many of them had been shot down during the Iraq War (which one are we talking about? Gulf War I or II?), there wouldn't be any of them left.
Sources?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It has been shot down in the Iraq war, several times in fact, by Iraqis macguivering microwave radar and shooting it down with FLAK, something understandably the Pentagon would not officially advertise since these things cost how many billions again?
If the Pentagon has not advertised it, how on Earth do you know about it?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh I forgot to add, a B-2, if one were built today, would probably cost $150 million or so to build.
The reason the 20 that were built cost $2 billion per unit is because you have to spread the $40 billion R&D bill over the price of the unit, that's how the military looks at the price of a unit. If the 135 that were originally planned had been built, each unit would have been considerably cheaper.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Because there are other souces aside from the Pentagon, im seeing if i can google up a link though my cat is sleeping on me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: He did not. It was a duel.
Pfft. After the mid-1700s, duels were illegal -- even back in good ol' England. The "winner" of a duel usually had to flee the country to avoid being jailed for murder.
I'm with Lyr on this one.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Hamilton didn't fire at Burr in the duel. And he really didn't think Burr would either. That's what I read in a biography on him. I call it murder.
That's cute. All Hamilton had to do was not show up. You show up at a duel, legal or not, with you and another person holding guns, you can't complain if you get dead.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: Because there are other souces [sic] aside from the Pentagon,[sic] im [sic] seeing if i [sic] can google up a link[sic] though my cat is sleeping on me.
Ah, and so you know things we don't because you have random website links.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Hamilton didn't fire at Burr in the duel. And he really didn't think Burr would either. That's what I read in a biography on him. I call it murder.
That's cute. All Hamilton had to do was not show up. You show up at a duel, legal or not, with you and another person holding guns, you can't complain if you get dead.
Perhaps. But it's still murder.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
alot of know things from random website links but unfortunately this is not something i read off the internet but elsewhere and I cant seem to find a reputable website link to back it up *shrug*.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... you can't complain if you get dead.
I suspect thats generally true, regardless of the circumstances Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, I don't know.
"But you know the real reason they're giving it to me. They don't want me to come back as a ghost and haunt them. And trust me, I wouldn't be like Casper. Oh, no! I'd have the furniture moving, I'd have walls bleeding, I'd show up in their family photos. Ooo-wooo-hooo! I'm scaring myself!"
-- Murphy Brown, From Here to Jerusalem Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:alot of know things from random website links but unfortunately this is not something i read off the internet but elsewhere and I cant seem to find a reputable website link to back it up *shrug*.
Shocking!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Hey! No mocking me, I do give sources when they are availiable thats one thing about me you cannot deny.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Hamilton didn't fire at Burr in the duel. And he really didn't think Burr would either. That's what I read in a biography on him. I call it murder.
That's cute. All Hamilton had to do was not show up. You show up at a duel, legal or not, with you and another person holding guns, you can't complain if you get dead.
Perhaps. But it's still murder.
For once, I agree with Lisa. Though I think what we're really quibbling over is the definition of "murder."
From a dictionary standpoint, you're right: any premeditated illegal killing is murder. All that matters is whether the government finds it acceptable or not. If duels are legal, it's not murder; if they aren't, it is.
At least in my mind, this is an unsatisfactory, arbitrary distinction. In my mind, a better criterion would be whether the person killed assented to the circumstances and accepted the risk involved. Under that definition, a duel, Russian roulette, and killing on the battlefield wouldn't be murder, while poisoning your annoying coworker, bombing civilians, and most capital punishment would be.
...granted, I think all of the above are about equally immoral, but that's not the semantic issue at hand here.
(I'll also grant that arguing with the dictionary and popular and historical usage is silly and that I'm wrong. I find that I'm okay with that.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Even were I to agree, Lyr's point about Hamilton's expectations still make it murder. He did not expect to actually be risking death. And that was not uncommon among duelists of the time. Actually shooting to kill was at the very least poor form.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To clarify:
I just reread the end of Alexander Hamilton, American. by Richard Brookhiser, which is the book I was referencing before.
Hamilton met Burr at the same place, and using the same pistols that had killed Hamilton's eldest son in a duel a couple years prior. Hamilton had told his son that the honorable thing to do in a duel was to fire his shot into the air, as killing in a duel was considered exceptionally bad form, especially in New England, the one place in America at the time where dueling was despised.
Hamilton had made it known publicly before the duel that he had no intention of shooting Burr, and wasn't entirely sure what Burr was going to do, though it seems Burr told many that his intention was to shoot to kill. He intended to follow the same advice he had given his son, which in the words of Brookhiser were: "He would follow the advice he had given his son Phillip. If it were innocent advice then it would be innocent still; if guilty, it would be doubly so, though he would pay the penalty."
There's a myriad array of explanations as to why Hamilton would go to a duel that he thought he might die in, and from the actions he took beforehand in setting up his will, it's clear he knew it was a distinct possibility, and I won't go into them, but no matter how you slice it, I think it was murder. Just because he probably knew the outcome and chose to go anyway in no way excuses the fact that Burr still pulled the trigger, knowing he was about to kill a man who had no intention of fighting back.
Apologies for saying that Hamilton didn't think Burr would fire. He knew it was possible, maybe even likely, but it was public knowledge that Hamilton would not shoot back. He got off because of a legal loophole regarding dueling, which at that time and place was apparently not illegal, but intent, and action, I think show this act to not only be murder, but pre-meditated murder.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Hey! No mocking me, I do give sources when they are availiable thats one thing about me you cannot deny.
I think conceivably you might find several people around here to deny it. Anyway, when a source is requested, "I give them when available" is not a good answer. If they are not available, that casts considerable doubt on the accuracy of the information; that's why a source was requested in the first place.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Look if Hamilton had wanted to kill Burr he certainly would have, of this I am certain!
*loves Alexander Hamilton, mourns his death constantly*
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Being a new resident of Alaska, I must say. I'd kinda like to be Russian. I already have the Soviet military "Holy crap it's cold out here" hat.
<He said, then realized that his screen name is Boris, which added just a little more humor to the above statement>
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
to show that this is to be taken in jest.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)