0
   

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

 
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 03:41 pm
Quote:
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.


These are extraordinary statements. If the native Americans were malignancies, we did indeed excise them, leave them without lifeblood to exist, and thus destroy them. We did everything we could to ensure that only our way of life survived.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 04:10 pm
Kara wrote:
Quote:
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.


These are extraordinary statements. If the native Americans were malignancies, we did indeed excise them, leave them without lifeblood to exist, and thus destroy them. We did everything we could to ensure that only our way of life survived.


Sigh!

You surely do not believe that because some members of a group are M, all members of that group are M.

I did not post here or anywhere that native Americans (American Indians) were malignancies. I do not and have never thought native Americans (American Indians) were malignancies.

Native Americans (American Indians) comprise a group of human beings, only some of whom mass murdered civilians. Thus by definition only some Native Americans (American Indians) were malignancies.

Only some members of the group known as Muslims (or Christians, or Jews, or etc.) are malignancies. Surely you understand that by definition not all members of the group known as Muslims (or Christians, or Jews, or etc.) are malignancies.

malignancy = those that mass murder civilians or serve as accomplices to those that mass murder civilians.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 04:16 pm
But we gave them 'democracy' and the right to 'govern' their own lands ... as long as we approved the methodology. We even saw fit to allow them to hunt and fish freely to supplement the rancid meat that we sold them at the government trading posts ... even allowing them credit ... when they over spent on flour and blankets and clothing.
Iraq should consider its self lucky the world has grown smaller with more eyes to observe the atrocities ascribed to 'gaining freedom'.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 04:20 pm
Quote:
ican

Sigh!

You surely do not believe that because some members of a group are M, all members of that group are M.

I did not post here or anywhere that native Americans (American Indians) were malignancies. I do not and have never thought native Americans (American Indians) were malignancies.

Native Americans (American Indians) comprise a group of human beings, only some of whom mass murdered civilians. Thus by definition only some Native Americans (American Indians) were malignancies.


Ground control to major tom ....
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 04:30 pm
Every state that wipes out a group of people to exert or maintain its hegemony or expand its territory has its own survival in mind. If they must kill civilians along the way, they call it "collateral damage," a sacrifice to the larger cause. The native Americans fought, killing civilians if necessary, to maintain their hunting grounds and their lands that were necessary for survival. They were in the way of our westward expansion. We must call this what it was. We saw ourselves as bringing civilization to heathens; they saw us as enforcers of an alien and ruthless society, one with culture and customs that would destroy their faith and way of life.

I think that many in the middle East see us the same way.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 04:32 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
But we gave them 'democracy' and the right to 'govern' their own lands ... as long as we approved the methodology. We even saw fit to allow them to hunt and fish freely to supplement the rancid meat that we sold them at the government trading posts ... even allowing them credit ... when they over spent on flour and blankets and clothing.
WE Americans did not do that! Only some Americans did do that (i.e., defrauded native Americans)! Most Aericans now living weren't even alive when the native Americans (American Indians) were defrauded.

Iraq should consider its self lucky the world has grown smaller with more eyes to observe the atrocities ascribed to 'gaining freedom'.

If you are writing about the mass murder of Iraqi civilians by the malignancy, then "more eyes to observe" does not guarantee more eyes to understand. Witness here in this forum there continue to be those who blame the Bush administration for what the malignancy perpetrates.

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 04:37 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
... Ground control to major tom ....


Smile Ground control, major tom is airborne and has switched to Center .... check your binoculars ....
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 04:42 pm
Time to address the malignancy of mis-information don't you think?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 04:55 pm
Kara wrote:
Every state that wipes out a group of people to exert or maintain its hegemony or expand its territory has its own survival in mind. If they must kill civilians along the way, they call it "collateral damage," a sacrifice to the larger cause.

True! Every state and every group as well. But that was then and this is now. Now it's time to stop doing that.


The native Americans fought, killing civilians if necessary, to maintain their hunting grounds and their lands that were necessary for survival. They were in the way of our westward expansion. We must call this what it was. We saw ourselves as bringing civilization to heathens; they saw us as enforcers of an alien and ruthless society, one with culture and customs that would destroy their faith and way of life.

Perhaps that was the right thing for them to do at that time. Perhaps not. Now it is no longer the right thing for any group or state to do.


I think that many in the middle East see us the same way.

I think so too. I think those who now mass murder civilians and those who now serve as their accomplices in order to achieve their objectives (e.g., a ticket to a mythical paradice, totalitarian power) are now malignancies of humanity and must now be exterminated to save humanity.

"Time is awastin'" and so are civilians!
Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 05:01 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
Time to address the malignancy of mis-information don't you think?


Wonderful! Please begin. First please define: "malignancy of mis-information."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 05:31 pm
ican711nm 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.


A quaint way to describe someone so out of touch with reality that he would divide his small command, and facing literally thousands of well equipped, experience warriors with 260 troopers, send a message to the effect that he "had the hostiles on the run, and their village in sight." (Quotation marks indicate the silliness of his message, not an exact quote; the text of the message is available, and constitute the last known words of Custer, an appeal to Captain Benteen to "come on with the trains," meaning the pack animals carrying rations and ammunition. Benteen wisely joined Major Reno and this five troops, so that a force of about 250 managed to survive the battle after being besieged on a "knob" at the height of the valley for three days.) Not only was Custer's assessment of the situation surrealistic (ironically creating an interesting parallel with the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad), he may well have been suffering from chronic, acute lead poisoning and its attendant dementia. He was also acting in direct contravention of the orders of his superior officer, General Terry, who had ordered him to conform and to join General Terry's column at his earliest opportunity. The "hostiles" (another quaint locution) who destoryed Custer and half the Seventh Cavalry had just come from administering a major drubbing to General Terry's column, which could have greatly profited had Custer obeyed his orders and joined that column.

Quote:
But despite George Custer's miscalculations, the problem was solved, was it not, because the U.S. government persevered.


See the above--suggesting that any calculation entered into Custer's "plans," beyond finding and slaughtering as many aboriginals as possible is an exercise in historical fantasy, and displays a complete ignorance of the man, his career and his method. It is also more than a little naïve to suggest that there was a problem which needed to be solved by the United States government. When Custer went into the Black Hills on his "surveying" mission, gold miner wannabes were the only white boys interested in the region. Custer's report, which may well have been a complete fabrication (he brought no samples and provided no maps, an incredible oversight by a West Point-trained officer who was taught to draw maps from his first year), created the impression that there was a great deal of gold in the Black Hills. Given the task of assuring the safety of white "settlers" (none of whom had shown up--these were men looking for gold, or the opportunity to exploit those looking for gold), Phil Sheridan sent General Terry after the chimerical hostiles. They had to march right through the Dakotas into Montana to find them, and then found far more than they had ever wanted to encounter.

All in all, a sterling preformance in creating an anology for the gung-ho, all hat and no cattle cowboy and his buckaroos in the White House setting up their dirty little war in Iraq, and then discovering that there were a hellofa lot more "hostiles" than they bargained for.

Please Mr. Custer
I don't wanna go . . .


Quote:
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.


At no time were the Ogala, Miniconjou, Hunkpapa and Lokota Sioux, and their allies, the Cheyenne, even a distant threat to the security and survival of the nation. In 1876, neither the Dakotas nor Montana nor Wyoming were destinations for white settlers. More than thirty years after the Mexican War, they were still headed for California and Oregon. Custer's idiocy made those journeys a good deal more dangerous, and sparked a war on the Great Plains which lasted for another fifteen years, and saw the near extermination of many tribes of aboriginals, and the complete extermination of several bands within those tribes.

Ican't has outdone himself this time. He has not only once again demonstrated that he knows next to nothing about our history (as though we needed to be reminded), but he has inadvertantly provided a wonderful parallel to the lies and miscalculations of which the current administration is guilty, and for which Americans pay in blood every day.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 05:41 pm
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.

Laughing

Was the problem eventually solved?

Yes the problem was eventually solved! No native Americans (American Indians) are being mass murdered by other Americans. No native Americans (American Indians) are mass murdering other Americans.

Was Custer very close to correct about one thing[/b]: the malignancy must be exterminated in order for us to survive?

Yes he was very close to correct: that is, very close to understanding that those that mass murder civilians must be exterminated in order for civilians to survive.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 05:45 pm
Laugh all you want, it is common for those who are ignorant, and ignorant of their ignorance, that they are amused by reality. Since you know nothing of that period of history, and have consistently demonstrated in this thread that your partisan obsession prevents you from exercising reasonable judgment, i don't expect you to understand just how far from reality your silly statements about Custer and the aboriginals are.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 06:05 pm
Setanta wrote:
Laugh all you want, it is common for those who are ignorant, and ignorant of their ignorance, that they are amused by reality. Since you know nothing of that period of history, and have consistently demonstrated in this thread that your partisan obsession prevents you from exercising reasonable judgment, i don't expect you to understand just how far from reality your silly statements about Custer and the aboriginals are.


Crying or Very sad The cannots cannot argue without vilifying those with whom they disagree.[/size] Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 06:12 pm
The Custer invasion at Little Big Horn was no less than a serious attempt at genocide, I am quite convinced that the US of A invasion of Iraq is no less intentioned.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 06:14 pm
Once again, Ican't responds to criticism of what he writes as though it were personal vilification. This is a very profound forensic flaw. A high school debate student with good method would make minced-meat of you. I don't know you personally, and could not care less what kind of person you are. I do, however, read what you post here, and it is largely nonsense, and it is obviously motivated by a partisan obsession to claim that the war is justified and that the Shrub is doing a good job running the show. Because that is such a ludicrous proposition, and because you attempt to use historical reference to bolster your silly arguments, i rip them up, and call them what they are, silly and uninformed.

Custer received a report of an aboriginal encampment about fifteen miles from his position on the march, and, disobeying his orders to join General Terry, doing no reconaissance, he followed a method he had used throughout the "Indian Wars." He left one troop, along with the "fatigue" troop (troopers who were on the sick list or recovering from wounds, or bound for judicial punishment) with the trains to "seal off the escape route." He then divided his command, sending the smaller portion in to engage the "hostiles," while he came around from the other direction to slam into them in the rear. Reno was not so unprofessional, and he set out slowly in the direction ordered, while troopers rode ahead to find a route. He therefore moved slowly to make haste, and indeed did reach the "village" before Custer. Custer charged off without surveying the ground for an approach march, and found himself in a bewildering terrain of bluffs, small streams and box valleys. By the time he arrived, Reno had wisely withdrawn and was seeking a defensible position. Crazy Horse, a much better and more thorough soldier than Custer, took Ogala warriors on a route which had already been scouted, got in Custer's rear, and cut him off--assuring the destruction of more than half of the Seventh Cavalry.

As i've pointed out, this is a wonderful parallel situation to the Shrub and his clueless Defense Secretary, Rummy. They went in blind, they went in with too few forces, and they can't admit defeat, no matter what it will cost. After all, they are not bleeding and dying, and neither will their children.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 06:23 pm
dyslexia wrote:
The Custer invasion at Little Big Horn was no less than a serious attempt at genocide, I am quite convinced that the US of A invasion of Iraq is no less intentioned.


Perhaps you are right about Custer's intentions at Little Big Horn. Perhaps you are wrong. I forgot to ask him! Embarrassed

Why are you convinced that the US of A invasion of Iraq intends no less than genocide? Do you think the malignancy in Iraq is operating under Bush administration direction? If yes, why yes?

Should I not believe this? If yes, why yes?
the non-partisan, 9/11 Commission wrote:

The pre-9/11 draft presidential directive on al Qaeda evolved into a new directive, National Security Presidential Directive 9, now titled "Defeating the Terrorist Threat to the United States." The directive would now extend to a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda. It also incorporated the President's determination not to distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them. It included a determination to use military force if necessary to end al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan. The new directive—formally signed on October 25 [2001], after the fighting in Afghanistan had already begun--included new material followed by annexes discussing each targeted terrorist group. The old draft directive on al Qaeda became, in effect, the first annex.57 The United States would strive to eliminate all terrorist networks, dry up their financial support, and prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The goal was the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life."58
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 06:31 pm
Some when confronted by a problem attempt to solve it.

Others when confronted by a problem attempt to deny it.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 07:30 pm
And then there are some that don't know diddly about theproblem but claim intimate knowledge
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 08:02 pm
American Committees on Foreign Relations, ACFR NewsGroup No. 582, Friday, July 22, 2005, distributed and author wrote:


Evil Within
The Enemy Is Not Far from Home

By Michael A. Ledeen
National Review Online

Publication Date: July 19, 2005

...

They are not misfits or sociopaths. They are people who find it fulfilling to kill us and destroy our society. As time passes, we will meet more and more of them. And, in the fullness of time, we will remember that Machiavelli warned us half a millennium ago that "man is more inclined to do evil than to do good," and that the primary role of statesmen and other leaders is to contain the dark forces of human nature. Evil cannot be "fixed" by some social program or suitably energetic public-affairs strategy, or by "reaching out" to our misguided comrades. It must be dominated.

Otherwise it will dominate us.

Michael Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at AEI.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/08/2025 at 08:32:22