Yes, and you said that Cheney, Bush, McCarthy, etc. were of the same level as bad as Africa's tyrants. Good show.
No I didn't. You infered I said that. But since your an idiot it doesn't really matter. There's nothing there to really indicate I made a strict and absolute comparison.
Uh huh. You won't find anyone willing to speak against those rulers for the simple reason that dissent isn't allowed under those governments. In America, we don't suffer that handicap. So your point is hollow.
My point is hollow. Hmmm. Well, let's assume that your right. Let's assume there's ABSOLUTELY no one in Africa with courage. Let's assume that those dicatators are pure evil and that no other form of evil is as bad. Let's also assume that evil can't possibly exist in America because you have the right to bitch about it (not that you would, you'd probaly cheer it on). But my point is perfectly legitimate. I've talked to people in other countries who think that American law is draconian. Are they wrong or are we just used to it? That's a question I honestly can't answer cause for all the idealogical rhetoric you throw out there are ways around it. Does it really matter if we can speak out when nothing we say really matters. Most people oppose the war in Iraq and yet we're there and Haliburton's getting rich. Iraqies themselves have protested our presence there and we've ignored them saying "all that matters is that they can protest" which I found to be extremely arrogant. South Koreans aren't happy about our presence there and have protested yet we're still there.
So the question are you content knowing you can bitch about things you can't change? Now, I know your gonna try and twist this into me hating free speech. I think free speech is important. But once again I think your being naive if you think it's the diffrence between good and evil.
The most you've been able to say so far is "rationalize." Meaning that you're lumping together everyone you hate with everyone who's actually evil and mass murdering and saying that it's not much better over here. I'm sorry if you find me rationalizing a president's actions in going to war comparable to a dictators actions in torturing, murdering, and stealing from his constituence, but I can't be blamed for your own ignorance.
And all you've done is ignore my points, embelish, repeat yourself, and call me ignorant.
Common sense. Anyone reading the conversation would have known that you were comparing Bush et al to the African dictators and yet you flip-flop and try to deny it.
Not Common sense. That's just your desperation to undermine my argument.
African citizen: Last year, my family and I were taxed into the ground, my neighbors’ houses were seized for “government business,” my brother was carried away for interrogation after being accused of conspiracy, professors were executed for teaching about history outside of the state, and our dictator personally indentured citizens to be miners and work for pennies on the hour.
Halo: Yeah well, what can you do? The only thing anyone can look forward to nowadays is a corrupt and evil ruler. Take my country for example: I got this retard who actually thinks pointlessly retaliating against foreign terrorism and tax-cuts are good things—Not to mention the fact that gas prices have raised under his term. It’s surprising that no one’s rebelled yet considering how hellish it is in America nowadays.
You extrapulate all that from
"No but you do live under Bush, Cheney, McCarthy..". I should get you to do my taxes.*
African citizen: ...
In this scenario, you more clearly made no comparisons, but that doesn’t mean your ideas are any less ridiculous and insensitive.
That would be insensitive. Fortunetly, I'd never say anything like that. I would have said "that sucks". Now, if we were talking about bad people in general then your beloveds would have come up.
Haven’t manipulated, exacerbated, or made up facts. You’re just to sore to admit that you’ve been schooled and so you’ve adopted a ‘deny everything’ knee-jerk.
And “genocide” and “mass murder” are basically synonymous. So you can’t use either phrase in the context you’ve chosen. You can’t “marginalize” what didn’t happen (mass slaughter of Indians).
There's no pleasing you is there. Well, in that case I'll just continue using genocide as word. Deal with it.
BTW, it's seems to me your the one doing most of the denying. "I haven't ignored the point", "I haven't manipulated", "I haven't exaggerated". It just seems kind of hypocritical considering your red herring about my knee jerk reactions is all.
Oh my God you’re stupid.
Endemic warfare isn’t a Native American tradition you moron. It’s a socio-cultural phenomenon that surfaces in tribal societies that live in proximity. It’s not something that originated from them. And even then, it’s still violent behavior with a savage edict—It doesn’t lead to anything; endemic warfare is a skirmish cycle that carries no objectives aside from raiding someone other than yourself. If the most you can offer up is an ‘unofficial rules of engagement’ then you might as well...I dunno, stop posting.
Wow your gonna regret this.
See, I found about Endemic warfare by following this link from this page-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_StatesWhich fortunetly for me is about Native Americans. Anyway, if you'll scroll down to the paragraph about "Initial Impact" you'll notice a hyperlink called "internal warfare". A link that takes you to my page about Endemic warfare.
So either I'm stupid and Wiki's wrong or your desperately trying to discredit me so you can go on thinking your the unassailable authority on the matter. Hmmm...I gotta go with the latter.
Eh, right. Calling into question your credibility on a subject you’ve been arguing by note for the past 6 pages is being “desperate.” I’ll have to remember that one next time you tell me I’m wrong about history and then wait two posts to find a Wiki article or obscure link like “Infoplease” to complement your claim.
Circular arguments will not avail you.
In other words: You can’t prove me wrong and so you say that I’ve proclaimed myself an expert on Indian history just because I’ve stated the basics that you were previously unacquainted with before you spoke to me.
You’re the one who’s been saying that I’m wrong over and over again based on nothing but your opinion of what would craft “justice,” “law,” and “genocide.” The most you’ve done is picked apart the logic I’ve used to best define Native American culture. You’ve abided my references and then tried to put them into context rather than offer counter-citations. You can’t tolerate my examples this long and say you don’t have to listen to them when that’s what this entire conversation consists of. Try again.
...Oh yeah. And stop stalling and find me
Methinks the bitch doth protest too much. I've provided links, referances, and pointed out quotes of yours that are wrong. It's a fact you can't deny. Well, you can but it won't help you.
It’s called the “hunter/gatherer,” and it’s not a law. It’s necessity when you’re living out in the wilderness. In hunter/gatherer communities, rites of living fall into place; it doesn’t need organized thought, aside from developed and passed skills, to work. Furthermore, tribes aren’t exactly “societies” since they don’t rely on any systems of government aside from alpha male. That is to say, they’re not a “society” in its most advanced definition.
“Law” is an organized system of living that traces back to a chain of command or individual dictator demanding obedience. This isn’t the same as their warrior codes or honorific spirituality. Yes, they had a culture, but they didn’t have law.
See this is a perfect example if you manipulating facts. EARLY Indian tribes were hunters/gatherers and that's has nothing to do with there organization. Another quote from Wiki-
[edit] Cultural aspects
Though cultural features, language, clothing, and customs vary enormously from one tribe to another, there are certain elements which are encountered frequently and shared by many tribes.
Early hunter-gatherer tribes made stone weapons from around 10,000 years ago; as the age of metallurgy dawned, newer technologies were used and more efficient weapons produced. Prior to contact with Europeans, most tribes used similar weaponry. The most common implement were the bow and arrow, the war club, and the spear. Quality, material, and design varied widely.
Large mammals like mammoths and mastodons were largely extinct by around 8,000 B.C., and the Native Americans switched to hunting other large game, such as bison. The Great Plains tribes were still hunting the bison when they first encountered the Europeans. The acquisition of the horse and horsemanship from the Spanish in the 17th century greatly altered the natives' culture, changing the way in which these large creatures were hunted and making them a central feature of their lives.
Your either truly stupid or arrogant enough to think your the only person with any kind of brains. Again, I'll go with the latter. Why don't you just concede that Indians weren't the mindless brutes you like to think of them as? It's a moot point anyway cause even if they were, even if they had no law that doesn't justify having there shit takin away from them. It's ludicrous to think that it would.
What do you mean “excuses excuses?” YOUR LINK DIDN’T COVER WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. And it was a pathetic hodgepodge of summaries without detail. Infoplease didn’t disprove or speak against anything I’ve said; it was just flimsy and stupid, so I got a better one. If you’re still so confident of it, then perhaps you should actually quote it rather than say I evaded it.
Yes it did. Your lying. You can say this is more of me denying but the fact is all somebody has to do is follow the link.
You’re the one trying to school me remember? Avoiding question isn’t going to help your point OR your self-esteem along.
I remember posting links...
In the case of the Iroquois Confederacy and other isolated hostile tribes being engaged by the settlers, I disagree.
Fine, the Indians did stupid things too.
Yes, you think they committed “genocide,” but do you really have any scenarios to offer up in which the government mandated a bill that demanded the Anglos to round them up and exterminate them?
You, quite simply, will not find anything of the sort. You will see history about a war and Anglo negligence that involved the Cherokee starving to death—But you will find nothing in regards to the government attempting to wipe them out.
I think killing is killing whether it was mandated on paper or not. This clearly wasn't a case of self of defense or defense of others so there's no justifying it.
Just because it took many years and the ride suffered many speed bumps, that doesn’t mean the Indians didn’t eventually assimilate. The Cherokees are the best example here.
I’m sorry if you’re over-extrapolating the phrase “growing-pains” to be too minimalist to work with the situation, but in the overall scheme of things, that’s what it is. The country was growing and the two races were clumsily pushed together with 2 centuries worth of hardship.
I'm sorry your a gutless moron who's incapable of processing somebody else's point of view. We've covered this time and time again and yet we come back here.
So you say...And yet, here you are: Still responding to everything I say and considering it “asinine” with you still not “blowing me off.” Your inferiority complex is so extensive that you continue to follow the conversation even when you yourself state that you have nothing left to say in response to me since you feel my frame of reference is so bias and stupid.
You’re floundering.
Actually it's my superiority complex that makes me think I have to defeat you and get the last word.**
BTW, since you obviously suck at vocablulary-
http://dictionary.reference.com/Nothing to be ashamed of. I have to go there all the time. But at least I know what words like "flounder", "fake", and "patriot" mean.
Halo, I’m sure you believe that saying this will stymie the point, but what you don’t realize is that there really is a thread for people to reference; I don’t have to look for sources to prove I’m right. Posters will look back and see that you’ve done nothing but respond with hearsay.
Always going in circles. Don't you ever get dizzy?
Uh huh, and look at their assault history because of their size. They’re sitting ducks in a conflict. Even if Japan wasn’t under a military embargo and were armed to the teeth, they still wouldn’t be able to protect themselves against a single wave of a Chinese invasion.
Umm okay, one attack justifies there being able to exist there? Your an idiot. Besides, we're one of the biggest nations in the world and we've been assaulted too. Your point is completely and utterly non sequitorial.
Is this you trying to be anti-absolutist or something?
Absolutes only exist in the mind of the weak, stupid, and naive.
Your first sentence is basically saying, “You could look at it that way, but...” and the second part is saying, “Nothing is for certain; you can’t be sure of it.” None of us can technically be sure of anything we say, but we still say it because it’s empirically relevant.
You really got to stop with the assumptions. It be one thing if you were in the ball park but there's absolutely no real reason to take that away from what I said.
The ones that stayed behind were strays. If you scroll down in the Wiki page, you’ll see info on the Seminole War in Florida that involved stray Cherokee.
Doesn't the fact you misrepresented the actual quote that was being used.
They don’t need to expand since they can simply migrate here. And yes, it is within a country’s rights to expand into another country by annexing it, but that doesn’t mean they’ll get away with it and won’t suffer the consequences afterwards. But in any event, it would serve them to try and “expand” into America when both countries are first world.
Again, you fucking twist a question with bull shit. The question is simple. Would it be right for Canada to declare war on the U.S simply for more land? Don't skewer shit just answer the fucking question.
Narrow-minded view? I correct your ridiculous comparison because it’s not even close to true and you consider that warrant to say I’m narrow-minded?
Narrow minded for thinking everything has to be exact for it to be comparable. Plus arrogant for thinking your always correcting everyone. And stupid for not recognizing me as smarter then you*
They didn’t intend, so it wasn’t murder or oppression. They didn’t intend for wars to break out with the Natives in the expansion; that makes them short-sighted, not murderers. They didn’t intend to let the Cherokees starve during their emigration; that makes them inept and perhaps even negligent (I’m pointing more towards congress than I am at the people though; the military wasn’t given the resources it needed to sustain the Natives during their move; the elected officials fucked up the most).
You say things like this then wonder why I use the word "rationalize" on you. Look, they were greedy and war was the result. It's there fault.
It’s not a matter of me not liking it. It’s a matter of propriety. A massive body count could be produced by a war, but that still wouldn’t make it genocide since war doesn’t carry the intent to simply exterminate life. It’s a disagreement between two intellectual bodies of people who have no choice but to resolve differences through military conflict due to an inability to reach compromise (which isn’t always a bad thing).
Slaughter, genocide, mass murder—None of these terms fit the history you’re quoting since you always try to inter-mix them with the fact that wars were fought. But you continually ignore the fact that wars are forms of dissent and not fought simply for the sake of eradicating a large number of people.
No, it's a matter of you splitting hairs to try and sound smart while also deflecting the important matters of the conversation.
In wars. Not slaughter-fests.
Doesn't make a diffrence. The only diffrence between a war and a slaughter is the length of time.
Cultural superiority (what I was talking about) is not the same as individual superiority (what you’re referring to). The context of your analogy was mis-aligned. Using the cultural lop-sided state of the example you gave me, I demonstrated why your analogy was invalid. My pointing out the importance of noting cultural superiority was necessary to demonstrate exactly why your scenario was flawed.
I think you already know this but are acting ignorant just for the sake of confusing the issue. Yep, you’re Whomod’s ass-child alright.
So because I don't buy into your logic I'm ignoring it? Your logic is heartless at best. At worst it's sociopathic. I don't how a culture bullying is any better then an individual bullying.
And you wanna talk about blatant ad hominem attacks? "Whomod's ass child" is completely out of nowhere.
And, if you’d read above, you’d see why.
Narrow minded flapdoodle is all I see.
Progress couldn’t be more different from superficiality. The whole point of progress is so we can live healthier and longer. Why would you believe that to be superficial?
This is a good example of you being narrow minded. If people want to make gains in the way of material possession or territory at the expense of war that is Superficial. I know you don't grasp that since your also shallow, callous, and an all around asshole but to me territory and possessions are not as imporant as human rights and life.
Also, last I checked, we locked people up in asylums and prisons because society felt their ways of “living” were detrimental to both themselves and the overall community. Are you trying to tell me that you’re not a proponent of such institutions?
There are exceptions. But I don't see how crazy people have anything to do with the Native Americans unless you wnat to generalize them all as insane.
No it’s not. You made a “country-living” caveat. That makes the scenario diverse from the larger culture that is the US, so it morphs the question.
This board needs a jerking off motie.
It’s not simply because they’re “bigger.” It’s because they’re more advanced as a culture and live much more efficiently and healthily. In which case, it’s because they have superior living conditions that they got so big in the first place. If they’re offering such advancement to a fringe society living only through trials of attrition, why should the society refuse aside from pride? You could say that they disagree with the more advanced culture’s morality, but of the reasons why the hypothetically inferior culture we’re talking about is stagnating is because it doesn’t even have a form of morality.
Call it what you want. My point still stands and your point is patholigically indiffrent.
North Vietnam agreed with us, so we helped them.
Kuwait agreed with us, so we helped them.
So we only help nations that agree with us and don't bother with places like Darfur? Thank you for helping prove my point about arrogance and the America messiah complex.
Iraq sponsored attacks against us, so we attacked them.
Have you been asleep these last six years? That rationalization for the war has been defunked a long time now. Even sycophants like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity won't use it. Republicans and Conservatives have now defered the point that it was a mistake and bad intelligence. Your even more clueless then I thought. I mean, fucking up history is one thing but to get the present so incredibly wrong
An overwhelming number of citizens in Iraq agreed with ours ideals of democracy, so we’re helping them.
Including the Iraqies who fight back, have been killed, protest us, or got exiled? You counting them too?
In the end, it’s not arrogance that drives America, but rather preemption. Do you really think we’re helping/helped/attack/attacked these countries for purposes of making them think differently? No. The primary of objective is to insure national security through neutralizing dissent. The dissent against democracy there is in the world, the less chance America will survive the speedy climb of socialism.
Being preemptive sounds nice but it's always a precarious proposition for those who have to courage to recognize the fact there not always right. A fact the U.S can't seem to face.
Their philosophy was evil? You do realize that you wouldn’t even have your own without them exporting it here yes?
MORON that star was put next to my comment to indicate sarcasm. Just like it says at the bottom of the page. I do that cause I KNOW your not smart enough to figure it out on your own. Fuck, even WB was smart enough to figure that out.
So it doesn’t mean anything and its your retarded non-sequitur. Okay.
You really gonna call my intelligence into question when you can't figure out what fake patriotism means? Or are you just dismissing it cause you know it's true? Whichever, either one only plays into my hand.
Which originates from your feelings of inadequacy towards me.
That's some ego you have.
ATTENTION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF SARCASM SO PARIAH WON'T GET CONFUSED DIRECTLY BELOW
*Sarcasm was used.
**Sarcasm somewhat used. I don't have a superiority complex but it won't explain my actions better then an inferiority complex.
