Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on March 30, 2004, 06:42:03 PM
-
"Initially, the administration said an invasion was necessary to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction that Iraq possessed and was prepared to use. With none uncovered, the White House now says the war, in which more than 500 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis have died, was justified by Saddam's alleged intent to build and use such weaponry. "
What a joke, Bush's had picked teams have found absouletly zero and now Iraq was invaded because of intent to produce WMD's. Oh but he was a horrible tirant and we had to get rid of him. By invading the country? Don't know how Bush and Blair manage to spin such BS and still expect people to believe in them other then the most guliable.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering, April 18, 1946, while awaiting the Nuremberg trials.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Oh but he was a horrible tirant and we had to get rid of him. By invading the country?
No ... by sending him a pink slip and waiting for him to stand in the unemployment line.
-
(http://hosemedown.20m.com/smilies/smiley_horsebeat.gif)(http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/yawn.gif)
-
"Don't try to have a rational debate with an idiot, people watching may not be able to tell the difference."
LOL Rip, you should take your own advice every debate you enter just turns into personal insults. Maybe I should do a search and quote some of your finest.
...-Gixer
-
Gixer we all know Bush is Hitler....
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
(http://hosemedown.20m.com/smilies/smiley_horsebeat.gif)(http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/yawn.gif)
its not the horse that is dead, but almost 600 US military - all for Bush's lies.
whats funny about that, cupcake?
-
Ok, for the slower people here: The UN said Iraq probably had WMD, had other banned weapons and that they had never complied with UN resolutions and agreements which ended the 1st war.
You tell me what we are suppossed to do when the UN agrees that Iraq was in voilation and probably had WMD. The UN passed a "LAST CHANCE" resolution for Iraq to comply or else "FACE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES"
I guess we are supposed to sit around hoping for the best and let the UN blabber about what they meant by serious consequences.
I can't believe how ignorant people can be on the matter. The US acted on the best intelligence THE WORLD offered.
Saddam played games and could have PREVENTED THIS WAR but CHOSE NOT TO .
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Btw. funny you should mention "ignorance". Perhaps you still believe it was the Europeans who slaughtered your Indian population? Yeah, I thought so. Ignorant.
no it was the euro's who did the spanish inquisition, ww1, ww2 (remember all the dead Jews?) Bosnia, Serievo. I guess none of that stuff counts since it happened after the Indian thing huh?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The UN did not sanction the invasion. Any UN resolution is therefore irrelevant and cannot be used as justification.
The USA does not have the right to police the world. The USA does not have the right to "make the world a better place".
Btw. funny you should mention "ignorance". Perhaps you still believe it was the Europeans who slaughtered your Indian population? Yeah, I thought so. Ignorant.
How many wars have occured that the UN didn't sanction? What makes the UN the sole determination for a war?
I guess you like the UN to draft resolutions and sign papers and nothing else other that talk big. Did the UN authorize the invasion Yugoslavia?
And tell me where I said the Indians were slaughtered by anyone. The fact is that the Spanish, French, British and Mexicans took about 95% of the Indians land, mostly before the US existed. I know it's hard for you to comprehend that. Anyway "Indians" land is missleading. There were many different tribes......none had a government or declared borders or a declared nation. Anyone on earth at that time had just as much claim to that land as anyone else.
By the laws of the world at the time, the US legally obtained all of our land. We gained the colonies from Britain, bought Alaska from Russia, bought ALL the land from the Mississippi to the Rockies from the French. Mexico ( a Spanish colony) ceded most of the west ( California, Nevada, Arizona,New Mexico, Utah and parts of Colorado and Wyoming ) after a war they started. Then of course Texas, an independant nation joined the US.
What land did we take from the Indians again?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Any UN resolution is therefore irrelevant
you said it, couldn't agree more.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Any UN resolution is therefore irrelevant
Ditto
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Ditto
You can't have it both ways, either it matters or it don't
-
Originally posted by strk
You can't have it both ways, either it matters or it don't
And the UN doesn't matter......we have it the only way it is, just the facts.
-
Look at the total number of Native Americans alive from the time of the Euor landings in North American until 1776.
Then look at the number from 1776 until now.
You'll see who did what to whom.
And if I was a Euro, I'd study it pretty closely before I spoke about how many the US slaughtered.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
And the UN doesn't matter......we have it the only way it is, just the facts.
next question - should it? and why?
-
Nuke,
"I can't believe how ignorant people can be on the matter. The US acted on the best intelligence THE WORLD offered."
US wanted a war with Iraq from the begining and the Intelligence (which every single point raised has since been proven to be false) was created to try and justify a war in Iraq over WMD's and violation of UN resolutions.
One of the biggest problems for the US now, and for many years to come even once Iraq (if ever) is finally sorted out Is that because of this US credibility in the world is now zero.
Saying US acted due to UN resolutions being broken really is clutching at straws for justification of the war. The world was sold the story of WMD's which have proved to be non existent. Some serious questions need to be asked of the administration as to how they come to the conclusion they did exist and why war with Iraq was actioned.
Seems to me if US acted on the best of intelligence then how did they manage to get it all so badly wrong?
Dosn't matter how you try and look or justify it, invasion of Iraq was wrong and world opinion agrees.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Nuke,
"I can't believe how ignorant people can be on the matter. The US acted on the best intelligence THE WORLD offered."
US wanted a war with Iraq from the begining and the Intelligence (which every single point raised has since been proven to be false) was created to try and justify a war in Iraq over WMD's and violation of UN resolutions.
One of the biggest problems for the US now, and for many years to come even once Iraq (if ever) is finally sorted out Is that because of this US credibility in the world is now zero.
Saying US acted due to UN resolutions being broken really is clutching at straws for justification of the war. The world was sold the story of WMD's which have proved to be non existent. Some serious questions need to be asked of the administration as to how they come to the conclusion they did exist and why war with Iraq was actioned.
Seems to me if US acted on the best of intelligence then how did they manage to get it all so badly wrong?
Dosn't matter how you try and look or justify it, invasion of Iraq was wrong and world opinion agrees.
...-Gixer
Well I feel the invasion of Iraq was a good thing. Which part of the invasion of Iraq do you feel is bad or wrong?
What "world" opinion?
-
Originally posted by strk
You can't have it both ways, either it matters or it don't
So we agree, they did authorize??
Do I have you or are you just swimming in your own hate?
Mae-West has something for you.
-
I must have missed something ? How did bush lie about Iraq?
Is It the WMD thing?
If so that Is very week people.
Sadumb insaine had 12 years to comply with the UN after the first gulf war.
Anyone remember that one?
Well he basicly told everyone to F@#K Off.
And spent the next 12n years raping and killing thousands of people.
Oh And ofcoures thumbing his nose at the UN the whole time.
Now Is It possible for the Bush administration to have made a mistake about WMD?
Well I know none of us have never made a mistake so how dare them right!
Look wether WMD is found or not And I do believe they have found some just not the quanities to make the world go golly look at all those WMDs.
LOL Iraq Is one giant sand box
you ever try and find the last terd in your cats litter box?
Dammed near impossible right?
Well just imagine how hard it would be to find WMDs in a giant sand box called Iraq.
Bush did a good thing by removing Sadum hussien from power can that be denied?
__________________
-
Originally posted by Toad
Look at the total number of Native Americans alive from the time of the Euor landings in North American until 1776.
Then look at the number from 1776 until now.
You'll see who did what to whom.
And if I was a Euro, I'd study it pretty closely before I spoke about how many the US slaughtered.
No toad, all the natives dissapeared 10 seconds after the revolutniary war began. The "european" colonists were innocent cultured and pure because they came from the land of magical 1000 year old cathedrals...
We all know europes true face in the last century, how many 100s of millions were killed by the ideopliogies and wars and genocides started and encouraged by superior euro cultural thought...
-
Originally posted by Toad
Look at the total number of Native Americans alive from the time of the Euor landings in North American until 1776.
Then look at the number from 1776 until now.
You'll see who did what to whom.
And if I was a Euro, I'd study it pretty closely before I spoke about how many the US slaughtered.
Can you please point a source ,I've no idea where to find such information
-
I must have missed something ? How did bush lie about Iraq?
LMFAO you have to be kidding me? Yes you are missing something. Here's a small sample of Bush's lies about Iraq and there are heaps more.
Lie 1 "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq
Lie 2 “U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.”
Zero Munitions Found,
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq
Lie 3 “We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq
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.
Lie 5 "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.
Lie 6 "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."
Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there
Lie 7 "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.
Lie 8 "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003
Lie 9 "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003
-
"UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003"
Why and by whom were they asked to leave? And why then and not some time later? This is the part that confuses me.
-
You tell me what we are suppossed to do when the UN agrees that Iraq was in voilation and probably had WMD. The UN passed a "LAST CHANCE" resolution for Iraq to comply or else "FACE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES"
The UN had Weapon inspectors in Iraq... do you remember this?
They couldnt find anything... Even the places the US told them to search at came out empty...
This could have been a hint...
-
Originally posted by Nash
"UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003"
Why and by whom were they asked to leave? And why then and not some time later? This is the part that confuses me.
They were asked to leave by Bush himself so he could Invade Iraq.
...-Gixer
-
Kick back and take a breather - read this then come back for round 2 (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/dkay100203.html)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well I feel the invasion of Iraq was a good thing. Which part of the invasion of Iraq do you feel is bad or wrong?
What "world" opinion?
Three main reasons against for me would be:
The many lies leading to the invasion.
The many lies since the invasion.
The 100's coalition soilders killed, 1000's wounded. 1000's Iraqi's killed and who knows how many 10's thousands Iraqi's wounded.
World Opinion? Probably the millions that protested prior to the war and that in polls other then in the US opinion for against the war rates at anything from 60 to almost 95% in different countries. What's the approval rating in the US at the moment for the war in Iraq?
Even the US allies the majority of population are against the war. UK for example was around 67% against even prior to the invasion. Today it's probably 90%.
True Sadam was a bastage, but invading the country wasn't the answer. And certinly not worth the cost and consequences of this action.
...-Gixer
-
The 100's coalition soilders killed, 1000's wounded. 1000's Iraqi's killed and who knows how many 10's thousands Iraqi's wounded
Gixer, how many Iraqi's would Saddam have killed if we hadn't invaded? Go ahead, speculate. :)
-
True Sadam was a bastage, but invading the country wasn't the answer. And certinly not worth the cost and consequences of this action.
True, an endless sanction regime would have been much prefferable. Oh wait, the sanctoions were evil too.
What exactly would have been the right course of action?
Allow me to ask you this. Lets say the UN WMD inspections ended, saddam got off the WMD hook and sanctions were lifted allowing him to do almost whatver he wants. Do you for one second belive that he wouldnt consider it a great victory and immideatly restore his WMD programs, now full of cash and free of inspections and restrictions. And we all know Saddam has been prone to such misjudgements in the past. What then?
-
What exactly would have been the right course of action?
The right course of action would have been Bush stating the real reason for the war... And not blaming the war on the WMD BS.
-
So the problem you have is with Bush and not the war at all. Don't worry .. it's an election year. The worst that could happen is you being miserable about whoever the citizens of the U.S. elect as their leader for the next four years. And the best case scenario is you get to complain about whoever replaces him.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
The right course of action would have been Bush stating the real reason for the war... And not blaming the war on the WMD BS.
But concern about WMD was one of the reasons and the key reason. If Saddam was not suspected of violating his GW1 cease-fire agreements there would have been no issue with him thougout the 1990s and 2000s and hence no sanctions, no overfly zones and daily bombing, no endless WMD enspections and no 2003 war.
And even the vaunted UN thought there was sufficient cause to doubt Saddam's WMD sincerity just up to the war in 2003.
What do you think was the real reason for the Iraq war?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Gixer, how many Iraqi's would Saddam have killed if we hadn't invaded? Go ahead, speculate. :)
I can't speculate on that any more then you can on how many Iraqi's will be killed as the country moves from Anarchy to Democracy and then a new democratic leader. Who will most likely end up being a Shiite Cleric with ties to Iran. (July 1st is awful close)
Of course this is assuming that handover date isn't missed and that the country dosn't just collapse into civil war.
Would you care to speculate?
...-Gixer
-
So the problem you have is with Bush and not the war at all.
Yes. And ive been saying this since day one....
Heres a list of my concern for the Iraq war... to simplify things.
1. Bush selling the war on false grounds.
2. The American citizens swallowing his lies without hesitation.
3. The US-stance "Youre either with us or against us", no room for any middle ground...
4. That 70% of the US-Citizens beliving the Iraq war was about 9/11
What do you think was the real reason for the Iraq war?
Not sure. Ask your leader.
-
Would you care to speculate?
Sure, conservative estimates that over 300,000 people were murdered by Saddam's regime in the 24 years it was in power.
That's 12500 or so people killed every year.
How many more years would this guy have been in power?
Some simple math here.
Oh, let's not forget all the people he had tortured, imprisoned, maimed, and raped.
The loss of life in the war is trivial when compared to the lives saved by ending his reign of tyranny.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Sure, conservative estimates that over 300,000 people were murdered by Saddam's regime in the 24 years it was in power.
That's 12500 or so people killed every year.
How many more years would this guy have been in power?
Some simple math here.
Oh, let's not forget all the people he had tortured, imprisoned, maimed, and raped.
The loss of life in the war is trivial when compared to the lives saved by ending his reign of tyranny.
Simple Math, So how many of those deaths, torture and maimed happend while the US was supporting Saddam through out the 80's?
I guess it's only recently the US has been concerned about the Iraqi civilian population.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Yes. And ive been saying this since day one....
Heres a list of my concern for the Iraq war... to simplify things.
1. Bush selling the war on false grounds.
2. The American citizens swallowing his lies without hesitation.
3. The US-stance "Youre either with us or against us", no room for any middle ground...
4. That 70% of the US-Citizens beliving the Iraq war was about 9/11
All of that centers on the war. Seems you DO actually have a problem with both then. Now that it's perfectly clear that you consider the POTUS an evil liar and the U.S. public gullible dupes, you've been as blunt about it as you can be. Anything else would be redundant but to be expected.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Simple Math, So how many of those deaths, torture and maimed happend while the US was supporting Saddam through out the 80's?
I guess it's only recently the US has been concerned about the Iraqi civilian population.
...-Gixer
So the only real problem you have with it all is that the war came too late.
-
500 dead? hell, the sadman and his sons tortured more than that on a long weekend of partying.
everyone is better off except the soldiers and we lose more than that in the same amount of time to war game exercises and normal attrition.
Now, if you just want to say that the sadman was not working toward more and grander evil... that is another thing... I believe the little dickens was.
So... in summary... everything worked out fine. and... you probly won't get to vote anyway if you are a euro.
so far as the U.N. Hey... they tell us how big a threat someone is and say they are in violation but then sit on their hands... you can keep your impotent U.N.
lazs
-
All of that centers on the war. Seems you DO actually have a problem with both then. Now that it's perfectly clear that you consider the POTUS an evil liar and the U.S. public gullible dupes, you've been as blunt about it as you can be. Anything else would be redundant but to be expected.
All of that does not center on the war. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion because i certainly dont see it.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I can't speculate on that any more then you can on how many Iraqi's will be killed as the country moves from Anarchy to Democracy and then a new democratic leader. Who will most likely end up being a Shiite Cleric with ties to Iran. (July 1st is awful close)
Of course this is assuming that handover date isn't missed and that the country dosn't just collapse into civil war.
Would you care to speculate?
...-Gixer
yep.....those close ties to Iran are gonna be trouble in the future.
and now Iran has Nuke Factories.....
well the Jew has em....why not the Muslem's
lets see the good ol' U S of A invade Iran cause it has a tyrant Leader who imprisons and tortures its population AND it does have WMD's.....
WTG on giving more shiites there freedom to express there faith in ALLA.....just more fanatics to deal with.....no problem
-
maniac said..."Yes. And ive been saying this since day one....
Heres a list of my concern for the Iraq war... to simplify things.
1. Bush selling the war on false grounds.
2. The American citizens swallowing his lies without hesitation.
3. The US-stance "Youre either with us or against us", no room for any middle ground...
4. That 70% of the US-Citizens beliving the Iraq war was about 9/11 "
1. if he sold it on false grounds then the U.N. and everyone else was just as much wrong.
2. I don't think you give the American people enough credit.. We been wanting to get the sadman for a long time and most Americans feel that the value of a good example can't be overstated... beats watching euros sit on their hands till they creat some bosnia debacle or any of the endless ones they have created in the past...
3. Yep... Americans feel that you are with us or against us. I see nothing wrong withn that. I don't see any other country that I would want to take advise from right now.
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
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/30/iraq.wmd.duelfer/index.html
New inspector won't rule out finding Iraqi WMD[/b]
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In prepared testimony, the CIA's new chief Iraq weapons inspector said he does not rule out finding weapons of mass destruction, adding "we regularly receive reports, some quite intriguing and credible, about concealed caches" of weapons.
Charles Duelfer said, however, that former Iraqi senior officials -- now prisoners of U.S. forces -- are not talking.
"Over the past 10 months, we have learned that [deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's] most senior and trusted officials can hold their tongues," Duelfer said.
"We know from high-level briefings that Saddam conveyed his most sensitive messages to particular individuals orally," he said. "Moreover, there were explicit instructions not to repeat such conversations."
Saddam's government collapsed April 9, 2003, when U.S. troops entered Baghdad. U.S. forces captured the fugitive leader in December near his ancestral homeland of Tikrit.
U.S.-led forces had invaded Iraq a month earlier after the Bush administration argued that Iraq was concealing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapons program and long-range missiles in violation of U.N. resolutions.
No stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction have been found despite an intensive search.
Critics have accused the administration of overstating the threat Iraq posed in order to go to war.
Duelfer is testifying Tuesday behind closed doors before the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees. His comments contrast with those of his predecessor, David Kay, who has said he does not expect that any weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq.
In prepared testimony, Duelfer said fear of retribution is still a significant stumbling block as the Iraq Survey Group he heads seeks information from Iraqi managers, scientists and engineers.
"Many perceive a grave risk in speaking with us. On one hand, there is a fear of prosecution or arrest. On the other, there is a fear [that] former regime supporters will exact retribution. This is, in part, why we do not yet fully understand the central issue of regime intentions," Duelfer said.
Duelfer, who is a special adviser to CIA Director George Tenet, said he is providing only a status report -- not a preliminary assessment of findings, which will come later.
Like Kay, Duelfer said that the regime was in "clear" violation of several U.N. resolutions banning WMD programs in Iraq, including the ban on certain biological research and the ban on deploying missiles or unmanned aerial vehicles with a range of more than 93 miles (150 kilometers).
-
I have no doubt (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716) that Iraq will succumb to civil war after the US pull-out unless one side completely decimates the other side. I predict either long and expensive police crack-downs or widespread genocide in Malamah and Fallujah.
The latest violence came two days after Carina Perelli, the head of a U.N. electoral team, said better security is vital if Iraq wants to hold elections by a Jan. 31 deadline. The polls are scheduled to follow a June 30 transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government.
-
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.
I really cant understand this... When all of the Terrorists from 9/11 were Saudi´s... I do understand the "a good example part" but hey, you picked the wrong ones to make an example off...
-
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.
-
Thanks Toad,I'll have something to read now
I just discovered that a laptop is handy when you're sick in your bed :p
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :p
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
"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/
-
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?
-
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
-
Why have we developed this attitiude of your against us or for us?
Well its called solidarity.
Without we had veit nam!
We finaly pulled our heads out of our arses as a country and found out that if we stick together we win .
Its that simple
A close look at our history will prove this.
And when the majority of the country is divided we lose (veit nam).
We as a country have resolve and the GUTTS
to take on these worthless bastardos and kill em all.
Lord knows noone else has sept for Israel.
We where ATTACKED!!! you dont do that to this country and just go about your merry way.
We are a big country with a even bigger ego and we back up what we say.
So dont come up to the porch and kick the big dog and think you aint gonna get bite!
You know the Japanese said when attacking pearl harbour that they fear the have awaken a sleeping giant.
Well the terrorist have woke us up once again and we are ANGRY.
So if you don't agree with the way we are taking out the garbage then just get the hell out of the way.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
All of that does not center on the war. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion because i certainly dont see it.
You really don't see it?
Originally posted by Maniac
1. Bush selling the war on false grounds.
2. The American citizens swallowing his lies (about why we need to go to war) without hesitation.
3. The US-stance (on the WAR) "You're either with us or against us", no room for any middle ground...
4. That 70% of the US-Citizens beliving the Iraq war was about 9/11
-
Originally posted by 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.
A lot of that genocide was also just simple disease immunities. Smallpox killed an outrageous number of native americans. As did the Spanish. :D
-
As has been pointed out, smallpox was used as a weapon against the Native Americans long before there was a United States government.
Check out the Brit General, Amherst for a prime example. Hernando Desoto also stands accused of the same tactic but at least in his case he has a very few defenders claiming it was "unintentional".
Oh, and that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the Native American population in North America, South America and the Carribean died directly or indirectly (unintentional infection with disease) as a result of "European Discovery" prior to 1776.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
"Indians" land is missleading. There were many different tribes......none had a government or declared borders or a declared nation.
Native Amerian nations did in fact have highly developed governmental structure. Just because it was not doctrined from European parlimentary procedure does not invalidate its existence.
Wars took place over water rights, hunting grounds, migration and trade routes and laws, etc. Oral history and art is how these laws were passed on.
You might want to do a bit more reading, if all the books on indigenous culture havent been burned in your neighborhood. Any book by Chief Wilma Mankiller should provide some insight, or even Linda Hogan, Chief Arvol Lookinghorse, and others.
-
". 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. "
How is invading Iraq about 9/11? There hasn't been a single document found yet linking Sadam to Al Qaeda. Even bush admited this himself in one of his speaches.
Before the war Bush saying there was a link between Sadam and supporting Al Qaeda, along with Nuclear Materials from Nigera and 100s tons of chemicals weapons in stockpiles with rockets ready to launch in 45 mins. All just part of the lies.
Linking the war on terror to Iraq is a mistake and misleading just like the WMD's. They should of stayed concentrating on Afghanistan as that is directly connected to 9/11. Although we have some sort of order and presence in a few of the main cities. Most of the land has reverted back to the warloards and Taliban.
If we are going after countries that supported terroists and especially the Taliban then why wasn't the area of Pakistan boardering Afghanistan invaded at the same time?
When the US and it's allies kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan everyone was behind it 100% for job very well done. Which it was.
Unfortunetly with Bush's invasion of Iraq all that support has now swung the other way. And those leaders from other countries that have supported Bush against majority of public opinion (Blair especially) are left high and dry. And certinly won't be around next election.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Unfortunetly with Bush's invasion of Iraq all that support has now swung the other way. And those leaders from other countries that have supported Bush against majority of public opinion (Blair especially) are left high and dry. And certinly won't be around next election.
...-Gixer
WOW you can tell the future !
-
1. Yes we were sold a bill of goods by the administration on WMD and "imminent threat".
2. Overall we have had good results from this war.
3. Now what?
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
WOW you can tell the future !
Look at the Polls in UK and how unpopular Blair is right now. You go against majority of public opinion for so long it's obvious what the future outcome is going to be.
...-Gixer
-
"2. Overall we have had good results from this war. "
Still a bit early to start claiming good results, don't you think?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
"2. Overall we have had good results from this war. "
Still a bit early to start claiming good results, don't you think?
...-Gixer
Maybe, but I like to see the glass as half full of oil instead of half empty.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Maybe, but I like to see the glass as half full of oil instead of half empty.
Fair enough.
Nightmares btw.
-
well.... think of it from a terrorists view point of view or... from the viewpoint of a country that welcomes and trains terrorists...
If the U.S. is crazy enough to attack and depose a benevolent and well loved leader of a kind and loving regime like the sadmans iraq who never would go so far as to even talk to a terrorist.... think what they will do if they found a real terrorist or country that supported them.
lazs