I noticed "things" in your postings, but I don't think it's all due to spellcheck mistakes or lack of spellcheck. To me, it seems like you hear nuggets of what others drop as knowledge that you agree/like and try to parrot in an attempt to try to contribute to conversations where you clearly are swimming, as in not on solid ground. 

Personally, I find that amusing.  I have been trying to give you benefit of the doubt (not that you need it from anyone) in that are you just trying to get a rise out of some members, genuinely believe the things you are stating, or something else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could you imagine if Hawaii was still a kingdom during WW2 ? Japan would of rolled in here and taken it over for the exzact same reason America stages its military here. Its a jump of point in the pacific.

The only reason that japan or another country is not in control of Hawaii is because the Unites states is here. 

Your statement is purely speculative.  Yes, if we were in the 20th century or before, it was customary for the major powers of the planet to colonize and/or vassal state smaller sovereign nations.  However, in the 21st century, other than the American regime change debacles in the Middle East, there has been no such activity to date.


Japan controlled a shit ton of the islands in the pacific and america had to recapture them 1 by 1, The only reason they could do so is because they held Hawaii.  If Japan held Hawaii first then it would of been America making the 4k mile trip with a strung out supply chain. It would of totally changed the war in the pacific.

It was impossible for Japan to mount an adequate invasion of Hawaii and think it could hold it long enough to make it to the continental US.  In 1941, Japan was fighting China, had forces spread out all over Southeast Asia, and still had to keep in reserve forces to counter the USSR should Stalin decide on an Asian campaign.


Kuleana

I don't always give my 100% to my arguments here, my level of caring is probably too low to form perfect arguments for everything.

So true. I always wonder what people think would have happened. If it weren't the Americans, it would have been the Russians or British almost immediately after. The weak are always conquered by the strong. Always have been, always will be.

I don't always give my 100% to my arguments here, my level of caring is probably too low to form perfect arguments for everything.  I have sort of given up hope.  My English is indeed not that great i'll admit that was one of my harder classes in school.  Hell I only finished up to 300 level courses in college.

But who doesn't gather knowledge from others and pass it on?  I find this statement to be ridiculous.  We all learn from others.  The reason why it might appear I'm "swimming"  is because on this forum people tend to have the same mentality.  Thus ganging up and echo cambering themselves to know they are right.  When someone outside comes in they are ridiculed and thought of wrong.  Same thing would happen if anyone here went to some liberal gun control forum and started to speak.

Your statement is purely speculative.  Yes, if we were in the 20th century or before, it was customary for the major powers of the planet to colonize and/or vassal state smaller sovereign nations.  However, in the 21st century, other than the American regime change debacles in the Middle East, there has been no such activity to date.

As is your statement that Hawaii is on the top 5 list of targets,
that Japan would not have attacked Hawaii had the US not had its fleet here,
and that removing the military presence in Hawaii would no longer make Hawaii a high priority target.

The link is basically what you want.  It  has all the information you need and all the sources.  I won't go and do the reading for you. Hell there are even easy graphs on the site...not sure what you want me to do.  Do a brief summary?

As is your statement that Hawaii is on the top 5 list of targets,
that Japan would not have attacked Hawaii had the US not had its fleet here,
and that removing the military presence in Hawaii would no longer make Hawaii a high priority target.

Militarily or not, you have no supporting information to explain why your speculative statements hold any water.  It's all part of a product of your imagination. 

Hawaii is important to the US in many ways.  Military is only one facet.  You have no idea what the future WWIII opponents will see as their highest priority objectives.  The US has global reach via a dozen or more weapons systems.  Yet you think the next conflict will be fought just like WWII.

In all of your tirades in trying to disprove my position, you also have not provided any credible sources or documents to substantiate your own counter views.  How do you know Hawaii is not a prime target in the event of WWIII or how WWIII would be fought?  Did President Trump or the JCS give you a briefing or did you receive government assessment documents that disprove my contentions?  If not, you only offered your own opinions, obviously supported by other forum members' opinions in this post.


Amazing.

Your are totally right.  Very amazing indeed.


Kuleana

and that there are/were ICBMs in hawaii...

No one has yet provided any official government documentation to the contrary.

Kuleana

and that there are/were ICBMs in hawaii...

No one has yet provided any official government documentation to the contrary.

The Kingdom of Hawaii was an internationally recognized sovereign and neutral state.  Russia, Great Britain, France, as well as the US to name a few had formal treaties with Hawaii.  Prior to the US, there were incidences where Hawaii had been temporarily taken over, but in each case was able to regain her sovereignty.  For the record, it was only the US who illegally annexed Hawaii in 1898.  Would some other power occupy Hawaii, if the US returned control of Hawaii to its rightful populace, would be pure speculation.

Your statement is purely speculative.  Yes, if we were in the 20th century or before, it was customary for the major powers of the planet to colonize and/or vassal state smaller sovereign nations.  However, in the 21st century, other than the American regime change debacles in the Middle East, there has been no such activity to date.
Kuleana

lol, you made the claim, and then backtracked
and your only documentation was a 30+ year old magazine with uncited sources

No one has yet provided any official government documentation to the contrary.

1. Besides the impossibility of proving a negative ((as Inspector noted)...

The Kingdom of Hawaii was an internationally recognized sovereign and neutral state.  Russia, Great Britain, France, as well as the US to name a few had formal treaties with Hawaii.  Prior to the US, there were incidences where Hawaii had been temporarily taken over, but in each case was able to regain her sovereignty.  For the record, it was only the US who illegally annexed Hawaii in 1898.  Would some other power occupy Hawaii, if the US returned control of Hawaii to its rightful populace, would be pure speculation.


Kuleana

I was trying to be nice, but I'll spell it out for you. Seems like you are taking the nuggets of knowledge and trying to parrot them here in an attempt to sound intelligent. Dissent, in case, particle aren't super difficult words. But I can see how if they are heard by some "expert" on TV or radio that people take them and convey them in the way you do. I see if all the time when people want to seem knowledgeable but lack the discipline or intelligence to learn more about what they are talking about. Better to keep quiet and be though ignorant then to open your mouth and remove ALL doubt.

And I don't agree with everyone here. I even disagree with people that I generally see eye to eye with. I am not ganging up on anyone. If anyone spew stupid shit, I will call them on it. Just that you happen to spew stupid shit pretty often.

Yeah, sometimes people are true visionaries and see things the masses don't see. However, when you always find yourself swimming upstream, maybe there is something else going on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Its already known I suck at spelling.  Mixture of spellcheck and me being actually bad at it.  But if that is your crux of your argument that's kinda sad... I mean there are far worse offenders out there like london808 yet I mainly catch flack.  Believe what you want to believe if someone says something you don't agree doesn't mean they are wrong.  Also I find many people here get their info from some conspiracy sites or crazy radio hosts.  I personally watch none and listen to none.  Glen beck, infowars and other similar sites are dumb. So is the other side of the spectrum like salon etc.  For my facts I like to get multiple sources saying the same thing with sources.  That means more than one or a few people saying one thing.    Like I said before I do not really take enough time to do thorough enough arguments here.  I guess thats my bad but I don't have the time to research and write term papers for every single argument.  I try with what time and effort I give and voice my opinion here.

lol, you made the claim, and then backtracked
and your only documentation was a 30+ year old magazine with uncited sources