Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is possible to both agree with fighting back and trying to keep the peace such as it exists, and at the same time realize it’s obviously absurd to try to undo all the aggressions stretching back through history.
Of course it’s impossible to undo evils of the past. I’m talking about the present though. The islanders shouldn’t be invaded for “power projection” because they are human beings too. It’s pretty much the same thing Russia is doing.
Guam: The America that Americans forget
541–550 of 555 posts
Re: Guam: The America that Americans forget
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
> those who feel limited by the island and its infrastructure (no Target, no Starbucks, etc.) I hate those people. I live in a city of 1.5 million (there's everything here), and it's a constant background radiation talking point for a significant number of my highschool friends: how unfortunate they are that they don't live in the nearby city of 15 million. IME this constant moping has everything to do with the amoun…
It is an interesting idea to explore: Why do humans predominantly want to live in bigger and bigger groups. Sure, there are a few people that want to live out in the country, but cities are big because people want to be there. Humans like groups.
Re: Guam: The America that Americans forget
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure? If the Chinese government (or more realistically Qatar or UAE etc) wants to subsidize US business and tourism by making it cheaper to fly within the US it seems like a good thing for the US. As we've seen, anytime an airline raises prices it is pretty easy for another carrier (or even a brand new carrier) to come in and replace them. So it isn't like a hypothetical foreign government owned carrier could somehow…
We don’t want to be in a situation where Beijing can turn off American flights because someone said mean things about Xi.
Re: Guam: The America that Americans forget
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's price dumping or heavily government subsidized I suppose not, but if they're just more competitive then I don't see the issue. Realistically I just don't think that's gonna happen, if they have to abide by local labor laws.
I mean, in principle I agree with you. If Qantas or Lufthansa can come in and run things cheaper and better, I have no problem with letting them try to compete on the open market. But just like I wouldn’t want a US government owned airline to operate in competition with private carriers, I think it would be unfair competition to allow foreign governments to come in and operate any sort of ostensibly private company i…
Why not? Ironically, that is the ultimate solution to the problem you're describing - if we consider this market so critical and so easily disrupted, then having a government-owned service provider that focuses on long-term availability of basic services over profits is a sensible precaution. Private airlines can still compete by offering more/better service for more money, or cheaper service due to less overhead.
Re: Guam: The America that Americans forget
#545Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could they join onto another state (Alaska? Hawaii?), Guam's population is very low to have a full 2 senators
Maybe add a third house to the US system for the territories?
"Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on union, ought readily to renounce a pretension which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration."
Re: Guam: The America that Americans forget
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did they ever want to keep it? It was my understanding that, as with Mexico following the Mexican American War, many in the US didn't want permanent integration due to racial sentiments; the thought of giving tens of millions of Filipinos US citizenship horrified them.
[flagged]
Also, could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait generally? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Re: Guam: The America that Americans forget
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know. Most of it is still classified, but whatever it was, it was enough to assure Swedish governments of the time. (70s - early 90s)
Interesting that Sweden sees modern Russia as a bigger threat than the USSR. Whatever there was before is not enough now and they want a full NATO membership instead.
One big reason Sweden jumped into NATO now is that the Swedish military is, not exactly a shadow of its former self, but very small.
If Sweden would have had an equivalent of the military power it had in say, 1991, I doubt a NATO application would have been made, or at least not as hastily.
Re: Guam: The America that Americans forget
#548Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
We ban accounts that post slurs. Please don't do it again. Also, could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait generally? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Re: Guam: The America that Americans forget
#549Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure? If the Chinese government (or more realistically Qatar or UAE etc) wants to subsidize US business and tourism by making it cheaper to fly within the US it seems like a good thing for the US. As we've seen, anytime an airline raises prices it is pretty easy for another carrier (or even a brand new carrier) to come in and replace them. So it isn't like a hypothetical foreign government owned carrier could somehow…
I guess I just don’t get it then. What’s wrong with the following scenario: 1) China comes in and undercuts US prices. 2) US carriers are unable to compete with a business subsidized by one of the largest economies in the world, and China Air forms a monopoly as it drives competitors out of business. 3) China Air folds, leaving the US with no means of air travel at all. I’m pretty sure China could outlast any airline…
And if China Air suddenly folds then the US nationalizes their fleet or some similar intervention. Similar has been done during crises in the banking sector, and similar has been done in other countries when an airline went bust.
Re: Guam: The America that Americans forget
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure? If the Chinese government (or more realistically Qatar or UAE etc) wants to subsidize US business and tourism by making it cheaper to fly within the US it seems like a good thing for the US. As we've seen, anytime an airline raises prices it is pretty easy for another carrier (or even a brand new carrier) to come in and replace them. So it isn't like a hypothetical foreign government owned carrier could somehow…
We don’t want to be in a situation where Beijing can turn off American flights because someone said mean things about Xi.
If the Chinese state intervenes in US domestic travel affairs then the US has the option to nationalize their fleet. All their assets and operational staff are in the US and the staff aren't going to oppose keeping their jobs...