US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Golly gee Mr. Ican ..... did any of those doctors go to yail or harvard?

0 Replies

It does not in the least surprise me that Ican't makes a hero out of Custer. He should go to Monroe, Michigan--they'd love him there.

Undoubtedly, he'd have been a deer friend to ol' Phil Sheridan, ol' "The only good Indian I ever saw was dead."

It's not worth bothering with his claptrap to reply in detail but as usual, Ican't shows just as much knowledge and understanding of history here as he ever does--which is to say, a bare iota more than nothing.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

...
If only some people in a group are "malignancies", how can "extermination" be followed as a policy. Wouldn't the innocent get exterminated?

Some members of humanity are malignancies. These malignancies must be exterminated to protect the lives of the rest of humanity.

wandeljw wrote:

If only some people in a group are "malignancies", how can "extermination" be followed as a policy?

If only some people in a group are malignancies, then do not exterminate the whole group; just exterminate the malignancies in the group.

If the malignancies and no one else in a group are exterminated, then only the malignancies will be exterminated, and none of the those who are not malignancies will be exterminated.

The problem that must be solved is not whether or not to exterminate malignancies. Yes, exterminate malignancies. The problem to be solved is how to minimize the number of people who are not malignancies (i.e., civilians) that are exterminated. Our current solution for exterminating the malignancies has by default allowed the malignancies to murder 15 to 30 civilians per day. To significantly curtail that, and maybe even stop that, I recommend we do not capture malignancies and instead exterminate them wherever and whenever we encounter them.

My compassion is reserved not for captured malignancies, but is instead reserved for civilians.

What if, you may ask, if some of the captured are thought to be malignancies but are merely in chance proximity to malignancies when captured? I expect there will be a far smaller number of civilians mistakenly killed by us under these conditions than are currently being mass murdered by malignancy.

You may then ask, do I think the ends justify the means? No, I do not think that. I do not think the desireability of an end justifies any means for achieving it. A means is justified by the determination its consequences are acceptable and are more acceptable than the consequences of the other acceptable means. I am describing that particular means among the acceptable alternatives that is perceived to probably have the most net positive consequences for achieving the desired end.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Golly gee Mr. Ican ..... did any of those doctors go to yail or harvard?

It has been alleged by various historical writers that those American Indian doctors I wrote of were "witchdoctors" and graduated from the universe of witchdoctors.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It does not in the least surprise me that Ican't makes a hero out of Custer. He should go to Monroe, Michigan--they'd love him there.

Undoubtedly, he'd have been a deer friend to ol' Phil Sheridan, ol' "The only good Indian I ever saw was dead."

It's not worth bothering with his claptrap to reply in detail but as usual, Ican't shows just as much knowledge and understanding of history here as he ever does--which is to say, a bare iota more than nothing.

The cannots cannot argue without vilifying those with whom they disagree.[/size] Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

As usual, Ican't responds to perceived personal remarks by making personal remarks of his own.

Ican't seems unable to distinguish between criticism of the drivel he writes and personal criticism. It's all the same to me, though, if he wants to take personal offense, i heartily welcome him to do so.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It does not in the least surprise me that Ican't makes a hero out of Custer. He should go to Monroe, Michigan--they'd love him there.

Undoubtedly, he'd have been a deer friend to ol' Phil Sheridan, ol' "The only good Indian I ever saw was dead."

It's not worth bothering with his claptrap to reply in detail but as usual, Ican't shows just as much knowledge and understanding of history here as he ever does--which is to say, a bare iota more than nothing.

The cannots cannot argue without vilifying those with whom they disagree.[/size] Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

By the way, Mr. History Lesson, how exactly was it that Custer was defending himself from a malignancy? He went into the Dakota "badlands" at his own insistence, and said the region was rich in gold. National survival certainly was not at stake, nor even Custer's personal survival, until he willfully and stupidly went in harm's way, beyond recall. It is not even certain that Custer personally found any gold, and the final result was that there wasn't too damned much gold anyway.

Less than a decade after Custer got what he so richly deserved, Theodore Roosevelt was one among a number of people who tried to cattle ranch on a large scale in the Dakotas. But he was wiped out in the terrible winter of 1886, as were most every other "cattleman" who had rushed to exploit what proved to be a chimerical opportunity.

The Indian Wars of the 1860s through the 1890s were definitely never a matter of national survival. But in Ican't's partisan obsession to clutch at any straw to justify the scurrilous and venal policies of the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad, he now equates those wars of extermination with the alleged war on terrorism, which is not a war the Shrub seems interested in fighting. Pathetic, ain't it?

0 Replies

I believe it was Dyslexia who brought up Custer.

0 Replies

i believe it was truman who sent the first troops to vietnam

0 Replies

Custer died for our sins, well that and he died for his own hubris.

0 Replies

You'll get no argument from me regarding Custers' issues. What he has to do with current events I have no idea though.

0 Replies

Well you see Mcg, custer has this idea that he could just overwhelm the "natives" being as how they were savages and all they would just sort of naturally scatter away and avoid the fight against "superior" forces. (Shock and Awe) He was wrong. And that's my Iraq analogy for today.

0 Replies

Well, both North and South Dakota have been pretty peaceful and free from Indian raids for sometime now...

0 Replies

"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history."
--Dan Quayle

0 Replies

So has Montana where Custer meet the Lakotas (et al) at the Little Big Horn. The interesting note is that not only did Custer die, every one of his men of the 7th died with him (in vain). Well, thanks mcg, my analogy for Iraq seems to grow stronger with your every post.

0 Replies

Ican posted:

Quote:

Consider the U.S. of 2001: The Clinton administration had left behind a record of essentially ignoring those few terrorism analysts who asserted that full-fledged military action against al Qaeda's Afghan training bases, backed by the possibility of military strikes against other terrorist sponsor states, was the only truly effective method of preventing an eventual attack within U.S. borders. President Clinton himself, we now know, at times favored such decisive moves; but opposition from various members of his cabinet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and finally (as well as most importantly) a general public that would not or could not confront the true extent of the Islamist problem generally, and al Qaeda specifically, forced him to confine his responses to occassional and counterproductive bombings -- even as the death toll from al Qaeda attacks on U.S. interests abroad rose dramatically. Correctly sensing that the new president, George W. Bush, was treating the terrorist threat with a similar attitude of denial, al Qaeda's Hamburg-based subsidiaries launched the 9/11 operation.

...

I have now lived to see Ican post information that accurately depicts the historical state of affairs prior to 9/11.

Joe(I was holding my breath the whole time)Nation

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I believe it was Dyslexia who brought up Custer.

It was, however, Ican't who followed the ludicrous path of inferentially defending Custer with his take off on the malignancies quote, attempting to compare to the alleged war on terror. Which war is largely moribund as we pour blood and treasure down the sink hole in Iraq, the subject of this thread.

Ican't does this all the time. He doesn't read history to learn, he rushed off, finds something he thinks he can twist to support his partisan-blinded position, and runs with it. If anyone else mentions history, he is even worse, because he hasn't done a shred of background research for his absurd contentions.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Well, both North and South Dakota have been pretty peaceful and free from Indian raids for sometime now...

http://www.lastoftheindependents.com/bigfoot.jpg

Big Foot, Chief of the Miniconjou, killed December, 1890--fourteen years after Custer's defeat at the Greasy Grass. Wounded Knee was considered the last "battle" of the Indian Wars--if outright slaughter can be characterized as battle.

The Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890.

http://www.atasite.org/i/dfa6cdc039609c3695e07233a0fa9f28/Oglala.jpg

Ask Leonard Peltier if the Dakotas have been pretty much peaceful and free from "Indian raids" for some time now . . . he'll probably agree, and point out that the FBI does the raiding now . . .

The Pine Ridge Reservation, the American Indian Movement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1973-75.

So basically, McG, in line with Dys' analogy, you're saying we can look forward to a century of fun and games in Iraq ?

What, are you just tryin' to cheer us up ?

0 Replies

ican711nm's only two comments on Custer (makes a hero out of Custer ? defended Custer ?), on page 260, with some boldface added, wrote:

George Custer also underestimated the magnitude of the threat to his own existence, as well as the hardness of the problem with which he was confronted. But despite George Custer's miscalculations, the problem was solved, was it not, because the U.S. government persevered.
------
Regardless of the price he paid, Custer was very close to correct about one thing: the malignancy must be exterminated in order for us to survive.

0 Replies

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know