Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

supporting hawaiian sovereignty?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: supporting hawaiian sovereignty?

    Ahhh but all of you forget one strategic importance of Hawaii and it's geographic location. Yes it does provide a convienent staging point for Pacific Rim issues however we're also isolated (the most isolated port of call on Earth) indicating if someone wanted to nuke our Pacific Fleet, or Military Airlift Command, Hawaii is so far removed from the the mainland that any nuclear or collateral damage will be limited to JUST THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS and it's inhabitants.

    So let's look at the conspiracy theory whacko ultra paranoid view on this scenerio: North Korea is building it's long-range nuclear capeability to a point where it's ICBM's can reach Hawaii. Why? Our military bases and strategic location that's why.

    Before NK is allowed to get to that point, the United States stations aircraft carriers to remove any marine and navy personnel and weapons on short notice. The U.S. Air Force deploys it's C-17 cargo planes in Hawaii to quickly relocate it's Army troops to the West coast. The Air Force along with the Army is gone with it's planes and personnel, the Navy is gone along with the Marines on it's large flotilla. The Coast Guard is on active duty under the Navy so they ditch Hawaii's coastal waters and head northeast to the West coast.

    Suddenly Hawaii's skies and shorelines (thousands of miles of it) is suddenly unprotected leaving the former 50th state open for the taking by any nation.

    Okay, which nation does Hawaii want to ally itself with? Remember this state is dependent on open ocean shipping lanes much like Cuba. An embargo by any large foreign navy could literally bring Hawaii to it's knees.

    So who wants Hawaii's stratetic location? Well North Korea comes to mind as they could do a rear flank invasion on Japan or even hold the entire West Coast of the United States hostage. China is another country that could appreciate Hawaii's location. Virtually every country capeable of overtaking Hawaii's state militia that hates us (and the list keeps growing) would want these islands.

    Does Hawaii want to be under an islamic nation? Or how about a Greek Orthodox nation (any of the former Soviet bloc republics), hmmm how about an atheist nation! I'm sure the ACLU would love that. But then again the ACLU would be all corralled and hung because countries like China despise civil liberties for any of it's country men and women.

    Bottom line is that Hawaii couldn't defend itself to the point of independance by any nation bent on wanting or destroying us. Remember even countries like Iraq could wreak havoc on us with terrorism since we wouldn't be under the protective cover of the U.S. Homeland security, the CIA, FBI, or even our Federal Air marshals.

    Our physical location is more important to nations who hate the United States of America than our political/international business relations to the world. The Hawaiian Islands is an important stepping stone to virtually any Pacific Rim country and that's why the U.S. is so bent on keeping Hawaii within it's republic. The West Coast represents a very big and open border of this country. Hawaii is the border patrol that keeps hostile nations from reaching the mainland. The East coast at least has Great Britain to buffer it's coastline before any attack. Canada and Mexico are our North and South buffer zones. But the West coast is wide open to attack from North Korea and China with the exception of Hawaii, Guam and Japan. We lost Subic Bay to the gain of Hawaii. If the U.S. loses Hawaii, Guam will reap the gains. You cannot put too much credance in Japan because it is a foreign nation much like Hawaii would become.

    My feelings are that if we see a major build up of military bases on Guam, better consider selling your real estate in Hawaii and moving to the East Coast because the West coast will be soon losing another strategic location to protect itself. Hawaii right now has no way of protecting itself from incoming long range missle attacks other than it's strategic and tactical forces offered by the USA. Basically we're sitting ducks open for attack and easy pickings once the United States of America relenquishes it's governing authority over Hawaii.

    If I had to pick a nation for security, I'd pick the biggest, baddest, and most powerful buggah on the planet. Unfortunately they picked Hawaii first but then if the United States hadn't overtaken Hawaii when it did, I'm fairly sure the fate of WWII would have been remarkably different and those plastic Tiki gods that Longs Drugs sells at it's Ala Moana Center store location would have true meaning with it's "made in Japan" sticker on the base.

    I support the Hawaiian's plight but realistically I cannot see a long term favorable outcome for Native Hawaiians other than monetary reparations. That's sad but with the state of the world as we see it today, we are much safer under the governance of the United States of America than any other country or independance.
    Life is what you make of it...so please read the instructions carefully.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: supporting hawaiian sovereignty?

      Originally posted by craigwatanabe
      ...if the United States hadn't overtaken Hawaii when it did, I'm fairly sure the fate of WWII would have been remarkably different and those plastic Tiki gods that Longs Drugs sells at it's Ala Moana Center store location would have true meaning with it's "made in Japan" sticker on the base.
      (
      I'd bet that if Hawaii had not been under U.S. "protection" that a full scale landing by the forces of the Japanese empire would have been carried out instead of an aerial bombardment. Hawaii might be another Okinawa today.
      “First we fought the preliminary round for the k***s and now we’re gonna fight the main event for the n*****s."
      http://hollywoodbitchslap.com/review...=416&printer=1

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: supporting hawaiian sovereignty?

        Originally posted by sinjin
        I'd bet that if Hawaii had not been under U.S. "protection" that a full scale landing by the forces of the Japanese empire would have been carried out instead of an aerial bombardment. Hawaii might be another Okinawa today.
        A few years ago, a couple of local history professors decided to write a what-if book about that, called Red Sun: The Invasion of Hawaii After Pearl Harbor. It was pretty horrific: death camps in Diamond Head crater, Waikīkī comfort women, a puppet Hawaiian monarchy controlled by Tokyo, the works. A worthwhile read.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: supporting hawaiian sovereignty?

          Originally posted by Glen Miyashiro
          A few years ago, a couple of local history professors decided to write a what-if book about that, called Red Sun: The Invasion of Hawaii After Pearl Harbor. It was pretty horrific: death camps in Diamond Head crater, Waik?k? comfort women, a puppet Hawaiian monarchy controlled by Tokyo, the works. A worthwhile read.
          Much appreciated.
          “First we fought the preliminary round for the k***s and now we’re gonna fight the main event for the n*****s."
          http://hollywoodbitchslap.com/review...=416&printer=1

          Comment


          • #35
            more hawai'i sovereignty?
            dogbuckey: "My partner and I are traveling to Maui and Molokai on a low-impact vacation (mostly camping)."
            Low budget, too, one might surmise. Regardless, be wary of indigenous "tax" collections.
            - - - - - - - - -
            : "We support indigenous liberation struggles, such as the American Indian Movement. While we're in Maui and Molokai, we'd like to pay our respects to local Hawaiian social and political organizations seeking freedom. Any recommendations?"
            If you get any e-mail responses, I recommend you first suspect you may be stung by some "eager to serve" US Homeland Security wanna-be director not much older than yourself.

            As for "local Hawaiian social and political organizations seeking freedom": to say "local Hawaiian" to a Hawaiian is something of an insult. In Hawai'i, to be Hawaiian is necessarily to be local. A Hawai'ian can ask another Hawai'ian if is he is "local" Hawaiian, but, it is usually out of place (in fact rude) for a haole (a foreigner) to ask a Hawai'ian, 'Are you local Hawai'ian?'
            - - - - - - - - -
            : "Seeking freedom", "indigenous liberation struggles" ? 'Secessionists from corporatUSt$, capitalUSt$. militarUSt$ US of the United States?'
            U.S. citizens conspiring to secede, plotting to secede from the United States is right up there at the top of US paranoiUS of State's "To Prevent List". Or is it, To Pre-empt List
            Last edited by waioli kai; April 5, 2005, 05:54 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: supporting hawaiian sovereignty?

              It's even ruder to use the word, "Hawaiian" as a means of asking of one's ancestry. The word Hawaiian was adopted by early missionaries as a way of describing those indigenent to those islands. And for that reason you don't put that okina in the word Hawaiian because it's not in it's vocabulary.

              The correct term is Kanaka Maoli which is the true 100% Native Hawaiian so when asked you're Hawaiian you shake your head and tell them you're Kanaka Maoli.


              And there are non-local Hawaiians...those born away from the islands who have never been to Hawaii much less know anything of it's culture. I wouldn't exactly give them the honor of being called "local" by any means. I have a friend who is just that and I refer to him (jokingly) as Katonka Ma Haole (as in the Japanese term for U.S. Mainland born Japanese called Katonks and Haole in general).
              Life is what you make of it...so please read the instructions carefully.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: supporting hawaiian sovereignty?

                Originally posted by craigwatanabe
                It's even ruder to use the word, "Hawaiian" as a means of asking of one's ancestry. The word Hawaiian was adopted by early missionaries as a way of describing those indigenent to those islands. And for that reason you don't put that okina in the word Hawaiian because it's not in it's vocabulary.

                The correct term is Kanaka Maoli which is the true 100% Native Hawaiian so when asked you're Hawaiian you shake your head and tell them you're Kanaka Maoli.
                Really? You must travel in very different circles from me. The kanaka maoli I know have never made a point of insisting to be called that. "Hawaiian" was always the term that they used, so it's the term I use, too.

                But yeah, "Hawaiian" is the English term, and therefore is without 'okina and kahakō; and "kanaka maoli" is the term in 'Ōlelo Hawai'i.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: supporting hawaiian sovereignty?

                  we must have been watching different programming on OC16 because that's where I heard this too, on Olelo. My wife says the same thing after taking Hawaiian Studies at UH Manoa.

                  Bottom line though is that the word "Hawaiian" is foreign to native speakers as it is an english derivative to describe being of that particular ancestry.

                  On Olelo I heard that the term Kanaka Maoli meant 100% and not part-Hawaiian.
                  Life is what you make of it...so please read the instructions carefully.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X