No WMD Search focus on "Intent"

[Toad]

Originally posted by straffo
Can you please point a source ,I've no idea where to find such information

Well, I had this discussion with Ram many years ago right here on this BBS.  It's so old I doubt it's in the archives.

However, the internet will serve.

Start here and I'm sure you'll find enough to put in a search engine to further satisfy you thirst for knowledge.

http://www.zkea.com/archives/archive01002.html

At the time of the Columbian Exchange the estimated population of North and South America was at least 40 million. Due to imported pathogens, in a few centuries these populations fell to just a few million. This demographic catastrophe had some obvious ramifications, such as paving the way for easy conquest of the America's by European settlers. But it also had some less-obvious ramifications. For example, the introduction of slavery was largely due to the lack of enslaveable natives. Native Americans were simply too few and tended to die too easily. Thus the forced import of Africans became necessary to provide labor for the plantation economies.

Or, perhaps here:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~riin/culture/native.htm

In my later reading I learned that before Columbus landed on Hispaniola, the island had an estimated population of 8,000,000. Four years later, the native population was approximately half that. By 1535, for all practical purposes, the native population was extinct. They never taught us that in school. Ever since I’ve learned that, I feel a bit queasy just thinking about Columbus. I wear all black on Columbus Day now....

Over the next five centuries, a lot of ugly things happened in North America. Spaniards reasoned that since there were no descriptions of red people in the bible, the people living here must not be human beings, so it was therefore morally acceptable to hunt them like wild animals. By the time the British came to North America, there weren’t very many Native people left. Entire tribes had become extinct.

Maybe here:

There is considerable scholarly debate regarding the size of America's native population in 1492. A modest estimate is that 75 million people occupied North and South America at the time of Columbus's voyages, a figure that represents approximately 15 percent of the world's population at that time. Most of these people lived south of the Rio Grande, in what is today central Mexico and some of the countries that form Central and South America. The native population of aboriginal America north of Mexico (including Greenland) has been estimated at anywhere from less than 1 million to as many as 18 million.

Early in the twentieth century, James Mooney estimated individual tribal populations for regions north of the Rio Grande and arrived at a total of only 1.15 million Native Americans (American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts) at the time of, in his words, "first extensive European contact." (The dates of extensive European contact, according to Mooney, varied from 1600 to 1845 across the different regions.)

In subsequent decades other scholars generally reaffirmed Mooney's low estimate; Alfred Kroeber even reduced it to 900,000. In 1966, however, the anthropologist Henry Dobyns introduced the idea that European diseases may have dramatically reduced native populations long before settlers actually came into contact with Indian people. Thus, he argued, Native American population losses were far higher than Mooney and his colleagues might have imagined and, logically, Native American populations far larger.

Dobyns proceeded to use mortality rates from epidemics as well as estimates of environmental carrying capacity in specific regions to speculate that there were as many as 18 million native inhabitants north of Mesoamerica at the time of first European contact.

And here's another good one for you:

http://web.mit.edu/thistle/www/v9/9.11/1columbus.html

Evolution of the Columbian Legacy

   Nor was this by any means the end of it. The genocidal model
for conquest and colonization established by Columbus was to a large
extent replicated by others such as Cortez (in Mexico) a Pizarro (in
Peru) during the following half-century. During the same period,
expeditions such as those of Ponce de Leon in 1513, Coronado in 1540,
and de Soto during the same year were launched with an eye towards
effecting the same pattern on the North American continent proper. In
the latter sphere the Spanish example was followed and in certain ways
intensified by the British, beginning at Roanoake in 1607 and Plymouth
in 1620. Overall the process of English colonization along the
Atlantic Coast was marked by a series of massacres of native people as
relentless and devastating as any perpetrated by the Spaniards. One of
the best known illustrations drawn from among hundreds was the
slaughter of some 800 Pequots at present-day Mystic, Connecticut, on
the night of May 26, 1637.
   During the latter portion of the seventeenth century, and
throughout most of the eighteenth, Great Britain battled France for
colonial primacy in North America. The resulting sequence of four
"French and Indian Wars" greatly accelerated the liquidation of
indigenous people as far west as the Ohio River Valley. During the
last of these, concluded in 1763 history's first documentable case of
biological warfare occurred against Pontiac's Algonkian
Confederacy, a powerful military alliance aligned with the French.

Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of the British forces...wrote
in a postscript of a letter to Bouquet [a subordinate] that smallpox
be sent among the disaffected tribes. Bouquet replied, also in a
postscript, "I will try to [contaminate] them...with some blankets
that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease
myself."...To Bouquet's postscript Amherst replied, "You will do
well to [infect] the Indians by means of blankets as well as to try
every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable
race." On June 24, Captain Ecuyer, of the Royal Americans, noted in
his journal: "...we gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out
of the smallpox hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."

   It did. Over the next few months, the disease spread like
wildfire among the Mingo, Delaware, Shawnee, and other Ohio River
nations, killing perhaps 100,000 people. The example of Amherst's
action does much to dispel the myth that the post contact attrition of
Indian people through disease; introduced by Europeans was necessarily
unintentional and unavoidable. There are a number earlier instances in
which native people felt disease, had been deliberately inculcated
among them. For example, the so-called "King Philip's War" of
1675-76 was fought largely because the Wampanoag and Narragansett
nations believed English traders had consciously contaminated certain
of their villages with smallpox.

Enjoy your search, there's lots of info out there.

[straffo]

Thanks Toad,I'll have something to read now
I just discovered that a laptop is handy when you're sick in your bed

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Maniac

 Not sure. Ask your leader.

So you dont know what the "real" reason is but you are convinved the ones presented are not the real ones.

I'm sorry Maniac but thats far too convenient a construction - yo can just deny the validity of any reason on a whim while absoloving yourself of responsibity to standards on which to accept a reason for the war as valid.

[lazs2]

maniac.. you don't think that our resolve was a good example?   Do the terrorists think that they can opperate more openly or less openly now?   Do they have one less friendly country?  Are other countries perhaps rethinking their terrorist support?

like most Americans, I am happy with the results no matter what.  Also... like most Americans I do not really care what the euros think.

lazs

l

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by lazs2
1. Bush selling the war on false grounds.

...

1.  if he sold it on false grounds then the U.N. and everyone else was just as much wrong.

The one doesn't follow the other.


Bush lied about the evidence to go to war.

Therefore the UN was wrong about...what exactly?  You aren't making any sense.

[Torque]

Originally posted by straffo
Thanks Toad,I'll have something to read now
I just discovered that a laptop is handy when you're sick in your bed

One positive note is that if not for the US govn't concerted effort to carry out the genocide of all the native Indians Canada wouldn't even exist today cuz we'd have lost the war of 1812.

[Frogm4n]

Originally posted by Torque
One positive note is that if not for the US govn't concerted effort to carry out the genocide of all the native Indians Canada wouldn't even exist today cuz we'd have lost the war of 1812.

I bet people on this board think that the native americans all killed themselves and gave up their land for our sake.

Why is jackson on the 20. Trail of tears anyone?

[Toad]

I didn't say the US government was blameless. I said the majority of the genocide took place before 1776. By far and away the vast majority, probably on the order of 80 to 90%.

That doesn't excuse US policy, it just puts it in perspective.

[lazs2]

thrawn... the U.N. believed the same things Bush did.   They simply were too worthless and impotent to do anythoing about it.  does that make the U.N. liars as well as being impotent cowardly socialists?

lazs

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by lazs2
thrawn... the U.N. believed the same things Bush did.

No they didn't, Bush "knew" SH had WMD.  The UN didn't and so wanted to verify wether or not he did with inspectors.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Thrawn
No they didn't, Bush "knew" SH had WMD.  The UN didn't and so wanted to verify wether or not he did with inspectors.

Kinda tough to do considering Saddam kept kicking them out, and playing with them...

Hey, thought you didn't have access to this forum from work? or are you home like I this week?

[Maniac]

So you dont know what the "real" reason is but you are convinved the ones presented are not the real ones.

I'm sorry Maniac but thats far too convenient a construction - yo can just deny the validity of any reason on a whim while absoloving yourself of responsibity to standards on which to accept a reason for the war as valid

No i dont know your leaders "real" reason for the war... Could be plenty of things...

If you think you know then you are a fool...

I have my ideas but its only speculation...

maniac.. you don't think that our resolve was a good example? Do the terrorists think that they can opperate more openly or less openly now? Do they have one less friendly country? Are other countries perhaps rethinking their terrorist support?

It might have been a good example but it still was directed towards the wrong country....

like most Americans, I am happy with the results no matter what. Also... like most Americans I do not really care what the euros think.

Ya, i know... This is a loosing the argument phrase...

Why are you in this thread then?

[Thrawn]

"Kinda tough to do considering Saddam kept kicking them out, and playing with them..."

That's a lie, but at least you are consistant.


"Briefing the Security Council,19 December 2002: Inspections in Iraq and a preliminary assessment of Iraq's weapons declaration

Dr Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC
19 December 2002
...

Second part: results so far of the inspection effort

· Access to sites has been prompt and assistance on the sites expeditious. It seems probable that a general instruction has been issued not in any way to delay or impede inspection of the kind of sites we have gone to so far. This is welcome and it is to be hoped that such an instruction will extend to all sites we may wish to inspect in the future, regardless of location, character and timing."



"Joint Statement, Baghdad, 20 January 2003

(Baghdad 20 January)

The meeting between the Iraqi side and UNMOVIC and the IAEA was devoted to stocktaking of the inspections, which have taken place and resolving issues that have come up. The following was noted:

1. Access has been obtained to all sites. This will continue. The Iraqi side will encourage persons to accept access also to private sites.

2. There has been helpful assistance in the logistic build-up of the inspection infrastructure, e.g at the Mosul office. This will continue, e.g regarding a field office in Basrah."



"Briefing of the Security Council, 27 January 2003: An update on inspections

Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix
...

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. "


http://www.unmovic.org/

[LAWCobra]

Lie 4. "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

Zero Al Qaeda Connection

To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.


Really I think you screwed the pooch on this one there bud.

As far as the rest yes they did find rockets capable of delievering WMDs

And yes they have found Mustard gas.
You do watch the news much do you?

Or do you only hear what you want to hear?

[LAWCobra]

Originally posted by lazs2



4.  It was about 9/11  and it still is.   As I said... the value of a god example can't be overstated.   I would even go so far as to say more than one terrorist or terrorist sympathizer has met his maker since 9/11... more will follow no doubt.    In any case...  the sadman ain't gonna help anyone.

lazs

Dammed well said LAZ:aok