Jump to content

POL-pourri


Hermit

Recommended Posts

.

Unable to locate the "study finds lies leading to Iraq war" thread, I

thought I'd re-start the old pol-pourri political discussion thread.

B)

------------------

"Two US non-governmental studies released this week warned that

Afghanistan could once again become a failed state and terrorist haven."

*source*

Afghanistan report warns of 'failed state'

A panel of U.S. diplomatic and military experts says more troops and better

coordination are needed to secure the country in the face of a resurgent Taliban.

January 31, 2008, Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON -- The international effort to stabilize Afghanistan is faltering and urgently needs thousands of additional U.S. and coalition troops, an influential group of American diplomatic and military experts concluded in a report issued Wednesday.

The independent study finds that the Taliban, which two years ago was largely viewed as a defeated movement, has been able to infiltrate and control sizable parts of southern and southeastern Afghanistan, leading to widespread disillusionment among Afghans with the mission.

"The prospect of again losing significant parts of Afghanistan to the forces of Islamic extremists has moved from the improbable to the possible," the study says, warning that Afghanistan could revert to a "failed state."

The report is critical of nearly every governmental and international organization involved in Afghanistan, including the Bush administration, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, calling their efforts inadequate, poorly coordinated and occasionally self-defeating.

Although many of the criticisms have been made before, the new study is spearheaded by some of the same experts and organizations involved in the Iraq Study Group, the influential panel whose report a year ago put intense pressure on the Bush administration to change course in Iraq.

The co-chairmen of the group are former NATO commander and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, and Thomas R. Pickering, a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. The two men have significant bipartisan standing in U.S. foreign policy circles, which could give the study a wider and more authoritative reach than other assessments.

*source/remainder of article*

taliban3.jpg

Afghani Taliban fighters with mortars

Thats right, folks,.. despite the lies being disseminated by Bush and the repubs, the war in Afghanistan is in fact not going well. The Taliban is having a resurgence and Afghanistan may again become a breeding and training ground for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

The lies used by Bush and the neocons to push the war in Iraq resulted in the war in Afghanistan.. and the hunt to bring the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack on America to justice.. have been neglected. <_<

"Coalition forces, including many brave Afghans, have brought America, Afghanistan and the world its first victory in the war on terror. Afghanistan is no longer a terrorist factory sending thousands of killers into the world."

~ George W Bush, January, 2004.

"In Afghanistan, America, our 25 NATO allies and 15 partner nations are helping the Afghan people defend their freedom and rebuild their country. Thanks to the courage of these military and civilian personnel, a nation that was once a safe haven for al Qaeda is now a young democracy where boys and girls are going to school. New roads and hospitals are being built. And people are looking to the future with new hope. These successes must continue. So we're adding 3,200 Marines to our forces in Afghanistan, where they will fight the terrorists and train the Afghan army and police."

~ George W Bush, State Of The Union Address, Jan 28, 2008

slapface.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Unable to locate the "study finds lies leading to Iraq war" thread, I

thought I'd re-start the old pol-pourri political discussion thread.

B)

Yeah, what happened that thread? Somebody please PM what the particulars of what happened. I thought it was a pretty good thread and I need to respond to at least 10 posts in there.

Thats right, folks,.. despite the lies being disseminated by Bush and the repubs, the war in Afghanistan is in fact not going well. The Taliban is having a resurgence and Afghanistan may again become a breeding and training ground for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

The war against these extremist will last for at least the next 50 years or more. Ups and downs but probably no clear end in site.

... as long as we remain willling to fight this battle.

But isn't this good news? Let's not forget to post the ups Hermit.

February 1, 2008

U.S. officials: CIA kills top al Qaeda terrorist in Pakistan

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/01/31/alqaeda.death/

U.S. officials: CIA kills top al Qaeda terrorist in Pakistan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say, the mods on this new site are very quick to pull threads, I've seen more threads pulled in the last couple of weeks than I saw the whole time I was on the old board.

Well, let me be the fist to offer my condolences for your thread being pulled. I'm sorry that I missed out on all the fun in the end... whatever happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, what happened that thread? Somebody please PM what the particulars of what happened. I thought it was a pretty good thread and I need to respond to at least 10 posts in there.

I dont know what happened to that thread,.. but here's

one of those posts/questions you were about to respond to ;) -->

"Do I understand you correctly, Del?

Are you saying that its your position that America's economic interests trump

anything/everything else,.. including principles of law, sovereignty, and human rights?

:whistling: "

Now's your chance to respond. B)

But isn't this good news? Let's not forget to post the ups Hermit.

February 1, 2008

U.S. officials: CIA kills top al Qaeda terrorist in Pakistan

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/01/31/alqaeda.death/

U.S. officials: CIA kills top al Qaeda terrorist in Pakistan

In the context of war,.. yeah, that is 'good news'. :beer:

[Capture and lifetime imprisonment would be preferable though, imho. I'm

not naive though; I recognize and accept that capture isn't always an option.]

And you're right,.. lets not forget to post the ups too. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The war against these extremist will last for at least the next 50 years or more. Ups and downs but probably no clear end in site.

... as long as we remain willling to fight this battle.

So why should anybody be willing to fight this battle [in Afghanistan] for these people:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/2...list/index.html

Jan.23, 2008, cnn:

Death sentence for Afghan reporter

Student journalist sentenced to death for distributing paper that blasphemed Islam

Media group say 23-year-old is being punished for articles written by his brother

Sayed Perwiz Kaambaksh was sentenced by 3-judge panel in northern Afghanistan

Charges were based on document Kaambaksh download and distributed from Web

(CNN) -- A three-judge panel in northern Afghanistan has sentenced a student journalist to death for distributing a paper he printed off the Internet that allegedly blasphemed Islam, according to international media groups.

Moulvi Shamas-ul- Rehman Moomand, head of the court which sentenced Sayad Parwez Kambaksh to death gestures during a press conference.

But media groups in the country say the journalist is in fact being punished for investigative pieces his brother wrote.

Those articles exposed human rights abuses by political and paramilitary factions in northern Afghanistan.

Sayed Perwiz Kaambaksh, 23, was tried behind closed doors and without representation in Mazar-e-Sharif Tuesday, the group Reporters Without Borders said.

Soon after, the deputy provincial prosecutor in charge of the case threatened to imprison any reporter who expressed support for Kaambaksh, the group said in a statement.

The charges of distributing anti-Islamic propaganda are based on a document that Kaambaksh downloaded from the Internet last October and shared with students at Balkh University in Mazar-e-Sharif where he is a journalism student.

Prosecutors said the article commented on verses in the Quran that dealt with women, and they deemed the work offensive to Islam. Kaambaksh has denied authoring the document, saying that his name was added to the paper after it was printed.

Media groups in the country believe Kaambaksh was actually arrested for articles his brother wrote that criticized provincial authorities.

"(The brother) feels very strongly that it's a campaign of intimidation against him and others like him who might want to take on these powerful commanders," Jean Mackenzie, country director of the Institute for War & Peace Reporting, told CNN.

The brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, is one of the leading independent journalists in the region and has written numerous stories that detail human rights abuses, MacKenzie said.

Among his best-known pieces was an expose of the "dancing boys," teenage boys who dress up as girls and dance for male patrons at parties thrown by some commanders in northern Afghanistan.

In other reports, Ibrahimi has named government officials who extort money from locals, MacKenzie said.

The day after Kaambaksh was arrested, authorities paid Ibrahimi a visit and combed through his computer and notebooks looking for names of sources who helped him in his reporting, MacKenzie said.

"This is why we think this is tied to (Ibrahimi)," she said.

The case now goes to an appeals court, and various media organizations have appealed to Afghan President Hamid Karzai to intervene.

"(Ibrahimi) is a very brave reporter and I've never known him to falter," MacKenzie said. "But having his brother sentenced to death has made him very, very anxious."

Isn't this exactly the type of government we should fight against?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

When I was training to be a bartender,the old salt who was my 'teacher' said,"If people start yaking about politics,religion or broads,tell 'em to stop.If they don't throw 'em out!" :D

I must say, the mods on this new site are very quick to pull threads, I've seen more threads pulled in the last couple of weeks than I saw the whole time I was on the old board.

I'm just guessing here,but everytime we have one of these discussion,it results in personal attacks,swearing,etc.Yes there is alot of great sensible debate,but it always spins way out of control.

Remember "All over a stupid teddy bear." "WW3"???

The F-bombs,the FU's,....it's very easy to sit at your computer and fire away.I have rarely encounter people that would do that face to face,....

So the mods,as is their right pull the plug so to speak.If and that is the biggest word in the english langauge we can keep it civil the plug stays in the socket.

Also imagine if your the owner or mod of a disscussion group,you have to think of everyone on the site,be it a 13 kid who just got into Zep or the old hand who also wants to discuss baseball,beliefs, and my receipe for roasted vegatables,.....daunting ain't it? :)

I know enough,....GO PATS!!!! :lol:

KB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Do I understand you correctly, Del?

Are you saying that its your position that America's economic interests trump

anything/everything else,.. including principles of law, sovereignty, and human rights?

:whistling: "

Now's your chance to respond. B)

No I'm not saying that. And I hardly think that has been our history either. Germany and Japan are two excellent examples of our commitment to sovereignty, law and rights.

But what I am saying it that we have strategic interests in the middle east and around the world that require us to not exclude a military option. We cannot be held hostage by those who would seek to upset the free flow of oil to us and others, anymore than it would be right for us to cut off the export of food and grain from us to other nations. The fact that we can enforce these strategic interests with a military force just makes us better at the game. But it's nothing new to the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I'm not saying that. And I hardly think that has been our history either. Germany and Japan are two excellent examples of our commitment to sovereignty, law and rights.

We're not talking about the entirety of American foreign

policy history, we're talking about the invasion of Iraq.

You know,.. Iraq, that sovereign nation that had done nothing to America.

But what I am saying it that we have strategic interests in the middle east and around the world that require us to not exclude a military option. We cannot be held hostage by those who would seek to upset the free flow of oil to us and others, anymore than it would be right for us to cut off the export of food and grain from us to other nations. The fact that we can enforce these strategic interests with a military force just makes us better at the game. But it's nothing new to the world.

So,.. in effect, you are saying that America's economic interests, trumps sovereignty.

As far as I know, America does not have a legal right.. nor a God-granted right (as if there is such a thing).. to free-flowing access to middle east oil. The flow of middle east oil is an American economic interest, for sure, but if we really value and respect sovereignty, then our having an economic interest in middle east oil is not in itself a valid reason to violate another nation's sovereignty. Unless, of course, our "respect" for sovereignty is a qualified respect and is trumped by our economic issues.. as you seem to be suggesting (even as you deny the suggestion).

I'll give you this much credit,.. from the beginning you've been up front in

acknowledging that the invasion of Iraq was first and foremost about...OIL.

WMD and the spreading of democracy are bogus excuses for the war.

Securing the flow of middle east OIL was the reason for the invasion.

You might as well come all the way clean and admit that you believe America's economic

interests trumps everything else... including the principles of law, sovereignty, and human rights.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmm, gotta love this "fiscally conservative" administration! Took 200 years to get to a $1 Trillion budget, and now Bush has hit $2 Trillion, and now $3 Trillion in his tenure. Major increases in military and security spending of course, while cutting domestic programs like crazy. His cuts still don't stop the deficit from running to $410 billion this year, which only falls short of his own record $413 billion from 2004.

Budget article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ $3 trillion .. for one 12-month period?! :huh:

The repubs like to call democrats "tax and spenders", but isn't generating revenue to pay

for gov't spending more fiscally responsible than the republican practice of "charge it"? :rolleyes:

Of course it is. Which is why its officially official now that

the repub party is no longer 'the party of fiscal responsibility'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're not talking about the entirety of American foreign

policy history, we're talking about the invasion of Iraq.

You know,.. Iraq, that sovereign nation that had done nothing to America.

Yeah that one. The one that attacked Kuwait, set their oil wells on fire, sent scud missles into Saudi Arabia and Israel, had used nerve gas on Iranians and Kurds and had this little problem with the United Nations inspectors trying to make sure that 'that sovereign nation' respected the sovereignty and human rights of other sovereign nations/people. Yeah, that's the one.

So,.. in effect, you are saying that America's economic interests, trumps sovereignty.

I would prefer to say that if a nation commits rogue acts of violence and aggression, including acts that may jepordize our economic interests.... then their sovereignty might end up being "redefined."

But ask the Japanese about that fact. They might have some better insight on the subject.

As far as I know, America does not have a legal right.. nor a God-granted right (as if there is such a thing).. to free-flowing access to middle east oil. The flow of middle east oil is an American economic interest, for sure, but if we really value and respect sovereignty, then our having an economic interest in middle east oil is not in itself a valid reason to violate another nation's sovereignty. Unless, of course, our "respect" for sovereignty is a qualified respect and is trumped by our economic issues.. as you seem to be suggesting (even as you deny the suggestion).

So then based on you view, would you say that major food producing countries like The United States and Canada don't have a moral obligation to continue to sell/export/provide that food to other nations? If we have an obligation (even if that obligation turns a profit) to continue with that necessary exporting of food, why shouldn't the world expect to maintain the same obligation with energy needs?

What do you think the result to the rest of the world would be if the United States and Candada had to cut way back on crop production due to a lack of petroleum reserve to fuel our agriculture at the current levels? Do yo think that would be good for the rest of the world?

To borrorw a line from the movie The Godfather, "Times have changed. It's not like the Old Days, when we can do anything we want. A refusal is not the act of a friend. If Don Corleone had all the judges, and the politicians in New York, then he must share them, or let us others use them. He must let us draw the water from the well. Certainly he can present a bill for such services; after all... we are not Communists." :D

I'll give you this much credit,.. from the beginning you've been up front in

acknowledging that the invasion of Iraq was first and foremost about...OIL.

But not simply Iraqi oil. But gulf oil and our interests in the region in general.

WMD and the spreading of democracy are bogus excuses for the war.

Securing the flow of middle east OIL was the reason for the invasion.

Well, yes and no. Securing the middle east oil from the possibility of further instability was a good reason in Iraq, but we were on our way over there because of Afghanistan anyway. So why not expand our goals into trying to secure the whole region by putting radical Islam on notice.

You do believe that opposing the radicals is a worthy cause don't you? I can't imagine that you believe that if we withdrew our commitments to the middle east that there would suddenly be peace do you?

You might as well come all the way clean and admit that you believe America's economic

interests trumps everything else... including the principles of law, sovereignty, and human rights.

;)

Never.

Mmm, gotta love this "fiscally conservative" administration! Took 200 years to get to a $1 Trillion budget, and now Bush has hit $2 Trillion, and now $3 Trillion in his tenure. Major increases in military and security spending of course, while cutting domestic programs like crazy. His cuts still don't stop the deficit from running to $410 billion this year, which only falls short of his own record $413 billion from 2004.

I place the blame on the budget on congress (and yes the Republican congress). But this is what we Republicans deserve for moving away from our own core principals by electing 'Republicans' who are not conservatives.

But we (Republicans) did pay a price for it when we lost the congress to the Democrats.... and should have. Now we are going down the same path again by electing non-Conservative Republican governors and representatives.

The way to bring down the debt is just to grow the economy. The congress needs to cut taxes even further, but not with this stupid economic stimulus package that gives 'everyone' $600 rebates. First of all, why give 'rebates' to people on welfare who never paid taxes in the first place? It makes no sense! It's just another political pander to get votes. And the President and the Dems are both in on it. We need to cut taxes on captial gains, maybe even abolish the capital gains tax all together, and get the economy back on track. We need to stop punishing entrepreneurship and investing, and start rewarding companies who will bring jobs back to this country. But taxing our way into prosperity is never going to work, despite the Hillary and Obama mythologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that one. The one that attacked Kuwait, set their oil wells on fire, sent scud missles into Saudi Arabia and Israel, had used nerve gas on Iranians and Kurds and had this little problem with the United Nations inspectors trying to make sure that 'that sovereign nation' respected the sovereignty and human rights of other sovereign nations/people. Yeah, that's the one.

Saddam Hussein was one the world's bad guys. No question about that.

So then,.. back to the point at hand..

You still seem to be suggesting (and also denying that you're suggesting it) that US economic interests trump anything/everything else,.. including principles of law, sovereignty, and human rights.

Afaict,.. you have yet to put forth any plausible argument to the contrary. :whistling:

I would prefer to say that if a nation commits rogue acts of violence and aggression, including acts that may jepordize our economic interests.... then their sovereignty might end up being "redefined."

You mean "especially acts" that may jepordize our economic interests,..right?

We didn't invade Iraq after our then-friend Saddam gassed the Kurds, did we? We didn't invade Iraq after Saddam invaded Kuwait, did we? Despite all the human rights atrocities committed by their ruling dictators, we haven't invaded Cuba, N Korea, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, The Sudan, or Saudi Arabia, have we? We haven't gone into Tibet to liberate the Tibetans from the Chinese occupation there, have we? Answer to each of the preceding: No we haven't. Why not? :whistling:

I take your comment "sovereignty might end up being "redefined."" as an

affirmation that your respect for the sovereignty of foreign nations is "qualified". ;)

For the sake of clarity, I'm not suggesting that sovereignty reigns supreme. There are moral justifications for violating another nations sovereignty. My point is that "economic interests"/"securing access to natural resources in a foreign country" is not a moral justification for invading a foreign nation.

But ask the Japanese about that fact. They might have some better insight on the subject.

The Japanese attacked America and America retaliated.

Iraq neither attacked nor threaten to attack America.

So then based on you view, would you say that major food producing countries like The United States and Canada don't have a moral obligation to continue to sell/export/provide that food to other nations? If we have an obligation (even if that obligation turns a profit) to continue with that necessary exporting of food, why shouldn't the world expect to maintain the same obligation with energy needs?

Oil producing countries are under no "moral obligation" to provide oil to America, nor

does America have any "moral authority" to use military force to ensure the flow of oil.

We have the technology and the scientific/financial resources to evolve beyond any reliance on fossil fuels. Were it not for the profits being reaped by Big Oil, America could already be weaned from foreign oil. The fact that our corporate-influenced political leaders have made policy choices and economic choices to go after every possible dollar of petrol profit rather than investing in alternative energy technologies does not mean the US has any "economic moral authority" upon which to justify invading foreign countries to ensure that oil continues to flow to America.

Your "we need it; they have; we're morally justified to do whatever it

takes to get it" mentality is fundamentally arrogant and self-serving.

Oh,.. btw.. our sense of moral obligation to help feed those nations who cannot feed themselves comes primarily from an internal locus. i.e, we choose to feel morally obligated because its consistent with our values as a nation. Conversely, you seem to imposing a moral obligation on oil producing nations that may not have anything at all to do with their actual sense of morality. :whistling:

What do you think the result to the rest of the world would be if the United States and Candada had to cut way back on crop production due to a lack of petroleum reserve to fuel our agriculture at the current levels? Do yo think that would be good for the rest of the world?

Oh, I see,.. now you're suggesting that the invasion of Iraq was altruistic on our part, eh? ..not only to ensure that oil continues to flow into America, but also to ensure that grain continues to flow out of Amwerica, eh? :lol: Puh-lease! Is there no limit to your self-serving justifications, Del? :rolleyes:

[/1 of 2]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[2 of 2]

But not simply Iraqi oil. But gulf oil and our interests in the region in general.

Yeah, I know Del. As far as you're concerned American economic interests trumps anything/everything else,.. including principles of law, sovereignty, and human rights.. and thats not limited just to the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

I'm crystal clear on that, bud. ;)

Well, yes and no. Securing the middle east oil from the possibility of further instability was a good reason in Iraq, but we were on our way over there because of Afghanistan anyway. So why not expand our goals into trying to secure the whole region by putting radical Islam on notice.

No,.. we were not "on our way over there because of Afghanistan", we were already in Afghanistan waging war in response to that country's ruling regime (The Taliban) having harbored and supported those who perpetrated the 9/11 attack on America.

Our military resources were then diverted to Iraq, and Afghanistan was practically all but abandoned. If you haven't been keeping up on the current state of affairs in Afghanistan, I refer you back to the opening post in this thread. :whistling:

btw,.. afaic, "putting [fill in the blank] on notice" is an extremely twisted, deplorable

justification for preemptively invading a country that posed no threat to America.

You do believe that opposing the radicals is a worthy cause don't you? I can't imagine that you believe that if we withdrew our commitments to the middle east that there would suddenly be peace do you?

Are the the prism of absurd oversimplifications the only lens

through which you see these extremely complex issues?

Never.

And here I thought you had the guts to tell it like it is (for you) even when how it is (for you) is politically incorrect. It seems we've found the line of political incorrectness that even you won't cross, eh? :P

I place the blame on the budget on congress (and yes the Republican congress). But this is what we Republicans deserve for moving away from our own core principals by electing 'Republicans' who are not conservatives.

But we (Republicans) did pay a price for it when we lost the congress to the Democrats.... and should have. Now we are going down the same path again by electing non-Conservative Republican governors and representatives.

The way to bring down the debt is just to grow the economy. The congress needs to cut taxes even further, but not with this stupid economic stimulus package that gives 'everyone' $600 rebates. First of all, why give 'rebates' to people on welfare who never paid taxes in the first place? It makes no sense! It's just another political pander to get votes. And the President and the Dems are both in on it. We need to cut taxes on captial gains, maybe even abolish the capital gains tax all together, and get the economy back on track. We need to stop punishing entrepreneurship and investing, and start rewarding companies who will bring jobs back to this country. But taxing our way into prosperity is never going to work, despite the Hillary and Obama mythologies.

1. Trickle down economics (which is what you're advocating) has never worked.

2. I agree, the so-called "stimulus package" being proposed is a political sham.

3. Neither Clinton nor Obama have never suggested a "taxing our way into prosperity" philosophy. :rolleyes:

Come on Del,.. admit it, muh-man,.. you believe that US economic interests trump

anything/everything else,..including principles of law, sovereignty, and human rights.

:cheer:

'preciate the discussion, Delbert.

:beer:

~ H

:hippy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still interesting how its not widely reported that WE gave Saddam the WMDs he used against the Kurds in 1988 because WE sponsered him. There goes the Reaganomics of Foreign Policy and unfortunately our own stupidity in the world. (We sponser the lesser of two evils while its convienent for us.) WE only went after him when Saddam decided to get greedy and shut down Kuwait, our lifeline in the oil business at the time.

Schwarzkoff was no pushover and one helluva fucking military man. He wanted nothing to do with invading Iraq based on the sects of people and he convinced everyone at the top not to go in.

What pisses me off more than anything? A good friend of mine who served 5 years in the Marine Corp. was in Afghanistan in early 2003 hunting Bin Laden and his wack pack up in the mountains along the Pakistani border. They actually had that motherfucker cornered within a small basin and were about to move in on him within days when they received orders for all troops to pull out to be redeployed to Iraq.

Now, what many saw would happen with time, has. The Taliban has come back, because they never went anywhere and is regaining strength within Afghanistan.

Bush's legacy, IMO, is not the failure of Iraq but the failure of Afghanistan-a war nearly everyone still sees as a justified military engagement, but that has been more mishandled than Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Senate passes immunity for telecoms in domestic spying case.

Barack Obama voted against immunity.

John McCain voted for immunity.

Hillary Clinton didn't even bother to show up to vote.

I say again..

Hillary Clinton didn't even bother to show up to vote. :angry:

February 12, 2008

Dems fall well short of stripping immunity from spy bill

An attempt to strip lawsuit immunity for telecom firms which helped the government tap phone calls fell well short in the Senate, leaving liberal Democrats on the losing side of what they believe is a fundamental civil liberties debate.

Only 31 senators — all Democrats — voted to take away retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies facing lawsuits over wiretaps carried out under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Sixty-seven senators — a mix of Republicans and Democrats — voted against the amendment.

The vote also provided an opportunity to showcase the key differences on national security between presidential candidates, as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) voted against immunity for telecoms, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), voted to keep immunity in the bill. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) did not show up for the vote. All three candidates were in the Washington area for the region's three primaries today.

*source*

spying-protest-lg.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
That's exactly the case. America's "nasty little secret" it doesn't want the rest of the world or even our own population to know about. Especially now that we know Hitler was inspired to create the "Final Solution" and the entire Holocaust from the way America treated its Native American population a century before. How much of us wiping out Native American tribes is taught in history books and lecture? The Trail of Tears? That's about it. Truth be told President Andrew Jackson made it his mission in office to kill as many Native Americans as possible. But it was "Manifest Destiny," so it was ok with the understanding it was to acquire land in the name of God.

And it can be said Native American tribes warred and fueded amongst each other, but we also used them as pawns in our wars too. ie The Seven Years War (French & Indian), the Revolution, the War of 1812 and even the Civil War. Forced at the front line of major battles, an Indian's life mattered very little to combat leaders at the time.

Del this is similar to what I was going to post. Thanks bigstickbonzo ;) .

Del, what Native Americans did amongst themselves was a part of their culture, it was survival. What the 'White Man' did to the Native Americans was wiping a 'scurge' from the earth, a race of people that they saw as savages, uneducatable and occupying the land that the government wanted .

If you want to be amongst the delusional and think what happened to my ancestors wasn't genocide then you need to join with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and believe there was no Holocaust.

Edited to say, Del you are a smart guy, read up on this issue and you will be surprised.

Well first of all I don't appreciate being compared to Ahmaddinejad or Hitler just because I don't accept the ridiculous charge that the United States had a policy of 'genocide' against the Native American and Amercian Indian populutions. That is a charge that you cannot prove. It basically falls into the realm of revisionist history, or better yet mythology.

Now I have agreed that there was lots of brutal treatment of Native populations by the European explorers and later settlers in varying degrees. It is certain that some of the Spanish conquistadors were sometimes exceptionally brutal. But that still does not fall into the category of genocide sorry to say. First of all it is a given that most of the native populations died off as a result of diseases brought to the New World from Europe and Africa. Those diseases probably killed off at least 70-80% of the natives BEFORE there were actually settlers or even colonial outposts. Just the mere introduction of European germs to the Americas was enough to kill most of the populations. But that still is NOT genocide.

And furthermore, execpt for one incident by some British soldiers attempting to infect a couple of blankets with smallpox during an uprising in 1763 (which probably didn't even work), there are no other facts to indicate that intentional infection was ever done or even considered. Once again, just more mythology.

Obviously there were policies by the United States that had devastating effects on the Indians. Forced relocation being one of them. But at least be honest enough to admit that it was not a policy of 'genocide'. Unfair treatment and even brutality in some instances occured. But the brutality also occured on both sides as pressure for land and resources continued. For you to say that, "what Native Americans did amongnst themselves as part of their culture for survival" (talking about genocide, human sacrifice and canibalism), is just a cop out in my opinion. If genocide and brutality is wrong, then it is universally wrong, not just something to be charged against Europeans.

I recall reading an account where several hundred Dakota Indians were charged with murder and rape as the result of a conflict that took place in Minnesota during the office of Abraham Lincoln. The offending Indians (around 270 I believe) were to be executed for their supposed crimes. However, the President personally reviewed each and every case and then commutted the sentence of all but around 39 of these Indians, because the President wanted to be certain that only the Indians who had committed crimes against civilians were punished and not those who were engaged in war against the United States millitary. Sorry, but that does not sound like a government that had a stated policy of genocide against American Indians.

The false charges of genocide and the attempt to portray the natural immigration of Europeans to new lands as being evil by nature is nothing but a political attempt to gain support for SOME Native American political groups. And to be honest the tactic works. I have no axe to grind with American Indians in general. In fact my experience with those whom I have known has been mostly positive. The vast majority of American Indians in my opinion are very patriotic people. But it is unfortunate however that some are falling for the liberal lies and distortions coming from many American Universities.

A good book for you to read is: Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns%2C_Germs%2C_and_Steel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The false charges of genocide and the attempt to portray the natural immigration of Europeans to new lands as being evil by nature is nothing but a political attempt to gain support for SOME Native American political groups. And to be honest the tactic works. I have no axe to grind with American Indians in general. In fact my experience with those whom I have known has been mostly positive. The vast majority of American Indians in my opinion are very patriotic people. But it is unfortunate however that some are falling for the liberal lies and distortions coming from many American Universities.

Del,

I've always respected your opinion when it came to politics, eventhough it is slightly warped at times. But hey, politics is a warped brainfuck of a good time so you sit with fellow sons of the beguiled bastard.

The only distorting I've read has been within your flavorless and tasteless smear against our own History. You trying to tag the anniliation of the Native American inhabitants of North America as part of a bloodless, fuedless, "natural" thing that Europeans had no choice but to politely ask them to leave because its "our" time now on this land is just ridiculous and boldly futile on your own part, it makes me ponder either you've never read a true American History book, Rush Limbaugh proclaims to be Sitting Bull or the fact that your hatred for liberal politics has undoubtly clouded your ability to read between the red, white, and blueshit of this country. I'm not trying to oppose you because of your political beliefs and I don't see how liberal schooling has anything to do with this. I personally believe our History books are too conservative and leave far too much out. It's a shame too because we have the right to know our History, good or bad.

My understanding of our History is based on reading books, listening to lectures, reading eyewitness accounts documented in historical literature and using common sense when it comes to population control and the differences in the two majoritys at the time.

Your assumptions about Colonial use of disease control and the British use of "smallpox infected blankets" is very understated. My high school history text book alone stated thousands were killed because of the tactic, both British and Native American. And that book is approved by the National Archives and History Alumni. Why? Because the French, the British and the Colonials despised the Natives because they were different, weren't Christian and feared uprising because of newly conquered territory. So, some factions of the military powers decided to enlist in biological warfare and exterminate the brutes! They killed thousands of Native Americans and hundreds of their own soldiers. But that's not genocide.

President Andrew Jackson, the hero of the Battle of New Orleans..pfft, signed several bills while in office for the removal of Indians from lands to be acquired for the growing nation. No option of sharing or intergration. Why? Because the Native Americans were viewed as savages, lower than slaves and worth nothing. Jackson personally stated during one public gathering at the White House he'd retire a satisfied man knowing he eliminated as many of those "savages" as possible while in office. No telling how many Native Americans were killed during his tenor, but scholars estimate well over 20,000. But that's not genocide.

The story of the "Trail of Tears" is so simply understood that its of little regret on shimmering colors of our all mighty emblum. When the government cleared the Cherokee from the Virginias and Carolinas to move them to Oklahoma, there were too many of them for the amount of land approved as their new home. So, the soldiers starved them as they walked thousands of miles to Oklahoma. The numbers dwindled and thousands of Cherokee starved to death along the way, at the hands of our government. But that's not genocide.

The Great Buffalo Hunt of the mid-late 19th Century decimated the North American buffalo population. Buffalo hides were worth big bucks, but the meat was discarded and left to spoil. Native Americans used every aspect of the buffalo for survival. It's been proven that on some instances, buffalo were simply slaughtered and left to spoil when Union soldiers encountered Native Americans. Slowly killing off their main food supply and leaving with no land, their numbers diminshed until they were rounded up like cattle and given a few acres here and there throughout the country to survive on. But that's not genocide.

As I said before, Adolf Hitler got the idea of the Holocaust and the "Final Solution" from reading up on American History. It's in Mein Kompf. He further states what he respected most about America was the fact that its government could exterminate such a large body of its population yet move on and with time, leave the rest of the population forgetting it ever happened.

And since you seem like to Wikipedia, try genocide. The first line is: Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group.

Wikipedia

Indian Removal of the 1800s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...