All of this hoopla...

It wasn't till we were a nation that the genocide started...It was our army that performed most of it...They have strange history books where you're at, Gonz... :p
 
In 1638, the Puritans and their Indian allies signed the Treaty of Hartford, which declared the Pequot nation dissolved. The spirit behind this genocide is encapsulated in the victory sermon of Increase Mather, a leading Puritan minister, who asked his congregation to thank God 'that on this day we have sent six hundred heathen souls to hell'
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that once the US was founded we weren't slaughtering on our way west, I'm just pointing out that it began long before James Madison went on a writing spree.
 
We, as a nation, just finished the job.
Click to expand...

I think that says it all. It's not who started it or finished it that really matters though, or whether we were a nation or not. The very people that decided that Indians were lesser people than the white man are the people that took their land, made it their own and prospered off of it. Then a couple hundred years later, we decided that Black men were worth less than whites and started one of the largest slave trade businesses the world had ever seen. The point to all this is simple. If the people of the world should unite and get rid of every nasty motherfucker out there, the US should have been eliminated many times over in the past.
 
Well, I suppose so, but with the rest of the world acting just as nasty as we were, who do you figure should have been the police?
 
Gonz said:
And all this time I thought the English & the French & the Dutch, among others, were the culprits. We, as a nation, just finished the job.
Click to expand...
Oh... so you disown the fact that you are, in fact, all "illegal immigrants", or did americans just suddenly evolve out of thin air?.... :eyebrow: :lol:
 
outside looking in said:
Well, I suppose so, but with the rest of the world acting just as nasty as we were, who do you figure should have been the police?
Click to expand...
Whomever the world as a whole elected... that's democracy, something that as a nation you claim to uphold. Unilateral action isn't.

You also claim to be a meritocracy, but we all know what a load of bs that is or Bush wouldn't be in the White House: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0%2C3604%2C882935%2C00.html

Lets face it, based on human nature, neither really exist - just the illussion.
 
Aunty Em said:
Whomever the world as a whole elected... that's democracy, something that as a nation you claim to uphold. Unilateral action isn't.
Click to expand...

Let's set the record straight here. The US is not and never was a democracy, nor did the founding fathers ever delude themselves into thinking such a system was workable. What we have is a Republic. Call it a "representational democracy" if you wish, but it isn't a pure democracy by a long shot.

And your use of the term "unilateral" is shocking - you should know better. I'm sure you were trying to make your point, but abusing the definitions of words isn't going to help.

And BTW, that comment of mine was in direct response to PT's discussion of our past indescretions. Thanks for taking it out of context.
 
outside looking in said:
And BTW, that comment of mine was in direct response to PT's discussion of our past indescretions. Thanks for taking it out of context.
Click to expand...

Well now there's an example of "The pot calling the kettle black" if ever I saw one... :lol:
 
The US is not and never was a democracy,
Click to expand...

Then your president shouldn't claim that it is or that you are defending democracy.

And your use of the term "unilateral" is shocking - you should know better.
Click to expand...

He also said that the US would act unilaterally if it had to or is your memory failing?
 
Well, I suppose so, but with the rest of the world acting just as nasty as we were, who do you figure should have been the police?
Click to expand...
What about the UN? Oh, I forgot, they sent in weapons inpectors who found some improprieties, but no evidence of WMDs. They were obviously incompetent, since our intelligence (we're told) said the WMDs were there. We clearly had to attack, find these WMDs and eliminate the threat to our country immediately. Oh, umm, wait...


That is part of the UNs job, and evidence now seems to suggest they were doing an adequate job. If they err on the side of caution in dealing with internal affairs of sovereign nations, isn't that the way it should be?
 
chcr said:
What about the UN? Oh, I forgot, they sent in weapons inpectors who found some improprieties, but no evidence of WMDs. They were obviously incompetent, since our intelligence (we're told) said the WMDs were there. We clearly had to attack, find these WMDs and eliminate the threat to our country immediately. Oh, umm, wait...


That is part of the UNs job, and evidence now seems to suggest they were doing an adequate job. If they err on the side of caution in dealing with internal affairs of sovereign nations, isn't that the way it should be?
Click to expand...



nothing is the way it should be chcr.
 
Aunty Em said:
Then your president shouldn't claim that it is or that you are defending democracy.



He also said that the US would act unilaterally if it had to or is your memory failing?
Click to expand...
And every other US president.
 
chcr said:
What about the UN?
Click to expand...
Again, my statement was addressing PT's comments about our history, such as or treatment of native Indians. I'm pretty sure the UN didn't exist back then.

I you want to extend this line of reasoning to the present situation, well, we can, but that wasn't were I was going.
 
Aunty Em said:
Then your president shouldn't claim that it is or that you are defending democracy.
Click to expand...

Using the term 'democracy' is just the popular thing to do, and avoids the complexities in correcting the "colloquial use" of the word around the globe. However, if you're going to make an argument about our actions based on the form of government we run, make sure you have the right definition in front of you.

He also said that the US would act unilaterally if it had to or is your memory failing?
Click to expand...
He said he would, just as every president has. Show me where he did.
 
outside looking in said:
Using the term 'democracy' is just the popular thing to do.QUOTE]

Therefore jumping on the bandwagon and misconstruing the definitions of the two
Click to expand...
 
outside looking in said:
Show me where he did.
Click to expand...
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70146-1083451,00.html
March 6

"If we need to act, we will act, and we really don't need the United Nations' approval to do so," he said.
Click to expand...
Now if that's not a declaration of unilateral action in all but name I don't know what is. And 5 days later this statements were made...
March 11

Donald Rumsfeld says the US could go to war without Britain amid the continuing UN diplomatic deadlock over Iraq.
Click to expand...
Admittedly not Bush this time, but unmistakable in it's message.
 
C'mon, this is basic grammar here. Perhaps you simply misread what I wrote.

He said he would, just as every president has. Show me where he did.
Click to expand...

Would, in the future, if the situation warrants it, act unilaterally.

Did, in the past, act unilaterally.

Aunty Em said:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70146-1083451,00.html
Now if that's not a declaration of unilateral action in all but name I don't know what is. And 5 days later this statements were made...

Admittedly not Bush this time, but unmistakable in it's message.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a declraration. About the future. Just as all past presidents have made.

Look, this is really simple. You made the suggestion that Bush acted unilaterally. Show me where he did act unilaterally.
 
A review of speeches and reports, plus interviews with present and former administration officials and intelligence analysts, suggests that between Oct. 7, when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and Jan. 28, when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq.
By Jan. 28, in fact, the intelligence report concerning Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa — although now almost entirely disproved — was the only publicly unchallenged element of the administration’s case that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. That may explain why the administration strived to keep the information in the speech and attribute it to the British, even though the CIA had challenged it earlier.
Click to expand...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/939538.asp

BushCo are criminals.
 
i think it would be slightly naiive to assume that the us and uk were not going to go to war once the process was begun. the actions through the un and the constant pressure for results that suited were clear to most people that the intent and decision for conlict was already made.

hans blix said that the us and uk had no intention of letting the inspectors finish the job - given the short amount of time they were there and the apparently low quality intelligence they were passed there was no way they could achieve a satisfactory conclusion of their job.

the stalling by the french and german governments that made the likelihood of a quick and decisive second resolution impossible served to expose the coalition's hand. act now with all the conveniently recently moved troops [all to act as a scare tactic, not definitely for military action ;)] or face a wait until the heat of summer dissipates.

the intention was for conflict when the first troops went over in october, the question was when and not if.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top