|
|
Post by conz on May 9, 2009 11:00:47 GMT -6
It was not a single wagon train but an invasion.The whites were a veritable tide of people spreading across the country. So who killed first west of the Mississippi...the Native tribes or the American wagon trains? I don't think that is a good definition for genocide. It is certainly much less than the Armenian and other examples you cited, right? The above sounds like the definition of how we handle criminals...is that what you consider to be genocide...putting people in prisons due to bad behavior? Bungling is not a war crime. So where is the crime? Dresden was the industrial and transportation center of Saxony. Their government refused to allow the people to leave...they kept them there deliberately as human shields. The U.S. does not blanche at this...the German government caused all those deaths, not the U.S. and British bombers. Their blood is on their own hands...they killed their own people. Not unlike the Native chiefs at Wounded Knee, and many other places. ALL the cities in Germany were targeted...just like the Natives knew that all villages declared to be "hostile" were targeted. There is no defense in this matter...if you are in these areas, you are liable to be killed. It was all known in advance, before military forces even got close. It was precisely because we could not do precision bombing very well that entire cities had to be destroyed...including Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The only way to destroy their war-making capacity was to destroy the entire city. That is why it is militarily justifiable. All humans have free will...even Soldiers. Soldiers will not obey an illegal or immoral order. That, too, is Cavalry Training, then and today. My Lay,bombing of Cambodia. [/quote] Mi Lai was not ordered...the officer responsible for it was sent to prison, hence PROVING my point. The bombing of Cambodia was not illegal or immoral, so that example does not apply. That only means that the United States is the only country left with balls after WWII, doesn't it? We are the only nation capable of true power projection around the world, so that has fell to our lot. Remember the Serbian War? We can't save the whole world at once...step by step over the next several hundred years. Sometimes it is two steps forward, one step back, but at least we are trying to make the world a better place, when force is required. Nobody else is making much of an attempt. That's true, but it does not negate my point, eh? Maybe several million...most of the Sunni minority that oppressed that nation. But the vast majority of the Iraqis praise the day American sent their armies into their land to eliminate Sunni control. Just like the majority of Vietnamese appreciated the Americans when we were there in the '60s...and then let them down because the cost became too high for us to tolerate. Americans know better than anyone the price of freedom. Maybe the rest of the world will learn one day. But we are getting FAR away from judging the conduct and training of our Army forces on the Plains in the mid-19th century. I don't see much value in taking this path, do you? Would you like to focus it back to the Trooper and Warrior level? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by lew on May 9, 2009 11:05:31 GMT -6
ConZ, You stated that "Every nation in Europe, including Great Britain, would be a socialist dictatorship had the U.S. not fought wars on that continent," -as you and I both know Nazi Germany was not a socialist state. Thus I have to believe you meant the Soviet Union would have to defeat all of Europe. Sorry, but that just wasn't going to happen. As for Mexico,do you really believe that Mexico is better of by just having a good neighbor? What about the wealth from the territory she lost?
|
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 9, 2009 13:21:35 GMT -6
But we are getting FAR away from judging the conduct and training of our Army forces on the Plains in the mid-19th century. I don't see much value in taking this path, do you? Would you like to focus it back to the Trooper and Warrior
We are indeed very far off topic but there is value to such a discussion.Like US society of the 1860/70 there is a deathly silence from our friends, even the most vocal of them have taken the 5th on this.
Only your good self has come forward to discuss the issues and to my mind your contention is representitive of the average American.
A last word from me in reply is that,if I understand you correctly,the US will do evil and promise a good .
|
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 9, 2009 13:43:03 GMT -6
<snip> A last word from me in reply... May we take that as a promise? Only someone who believes in arrow-dancing horses would have allowed you to hijack a thread so thoroughly. My thoughts, and I am not going to respond on this thread, is that if you wish to beat your chest about the sins of America, you had best start start contributing alternatives and then, for entertainment's sake, perhaps find someone who really, beyond yourself, gives a rat's ass. And, as extra-credit, an itemization of the good Ireland has done for the world in the post-World War I-era. Billy |
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 9, 2009 14:56:03 GMT -6
May we take that as a promise? Only someone who believes in arrow-dancing horses would have allowed you to hijack a thread so thoroughly.
You are free to contribute,no one is stopping you.
My thoughts, and I am not going to respond on this thread, is that if you wish to beat your chest about the sins of America, you had best start start contributing alternatives and then, for entertainment's sake, perhaps find someone who really, beyond yourself, gives a rat's ass.
Well the latest news from Afganistan is that scores of civilians have been killed in US air attacks.I think you would find your "care" among those people.
And, as extra-credit, an itemization of the good Ireland has done for the world in the post-World War I-era
As this is a military discussion board I'll limit my reply to military contribution to world peace by Ireland.
Congo,Cyprus,Lebanon,Egypt/Iraeli border,Liberia, and at this moment in Chad all that stands between thousands of refugees and massacre is 400 Irish troops.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 9, 2009 19:12:21 GMT -6
ConZ, You stated that "Every nation in Europe, including Great Britain, would be a socialist dictatorship had the U.S. not fought wars on that continent," -as you and I both know Nazi Germany was not a socialist state. Of course Nazi Germany was a socialists state...just like the communist state of Russia was a socialist state. Nazi is short for "National Socialists," right?! Perhaps Germany would defeat Russia...its up for grabs. Either way, you have a socialist state running things. What wealth? Mexico never controlled anything north of the Rio Grande and Tiajuana...those were independent states, for all intents and purposes. The government in Mexico City could not control them, and could not defend them. They were part of "Mexico" in name only. They certainly were better off under the United States government, don't you agree? They weren't of much use to the Mexican government. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 9, 2009 19:15:57 GMT -6
What does go back to the topic of this thread is:
Do you think the officers and Troopers on the Plains in the mid-19th Century were good Christian people, who lived by the principles of their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?
Was religion part of the required training for Soldiers?
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by lew on May 10, 2009 0:49:52 GMT -6
ConZ, Any socialists in the Nazi Party were eliminated along with SA Chief Ernst Röhm during The Night of The Long Knives, June 30th 1934. The Nazi's under Hitler were extreme right wing not socialist. The profits of large corporations soared under the Nazis. After coming to power, Hitler sent thousand of communists, social democrats and unionists to concentration camps and killed the communist leaders in Germany. He outlawed labor unions and guaranteed corporate profits for Krupp & Co.In his rise to power, Hitler reassured German industrialists that he would respect private property and fight labor unions. As to the second part of your post--You wrote "The government in Mexico City could not control them, and could not defend them. They were part of "Mexico" in name only.
They certainly were better off under the United States government, don't you agree? They weren't of much use to the Mexican government." Sounds like an argument that Hitler made before invading Czechoslovakia!
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 10, 2009 6:27:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2009 7:30:38 GMT -6
<All humans have free will...even Soldiers. Soldiers will not obey an illegal or immoral order>
And who decides what is "immoral"?
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2009 7:33:08 GMT -6
<The above sounds like the definition of how we handle criminals...is that what you consider to be genocide...putting people in prisons due to bad behavior?>
How many non-military Whites were convincted of murdering Indians and imprisoned?
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2009 7:34:52 GMT -6
<So who killed first west of the Mississippi...the Native tribes or the American wagon trains?
I don't know . . . do you?
Who started the killing between Indians and Trappers?
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2009 7:39:43 GMT -6
<Do you think the officers and Troopers on the Plains in the mid-19th Century were good Christian people, who lived by the principles of their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?>
Christian probably . . . but I doubt they attended Church every Sunday, probably got drunk when they could, "visited" prostitutes, gambled, swore and do what most religious fanatics do . . . preach one thing and do something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 11, 2009 10:30:42 GMT -6
crzhrs
The individual Soldier does.
I have no idea...are you saying that the American civilians committed genocide, but the Army did not? Not sure your point, here...
Certainly the Army was more restrained, and treated the Indians better, than most of the civilian population out West did. In some cases, the Army was the protector of the Natives against civilian depredations against the tribes.
I don't know either, the the Natives can't assert moral superiority with the argument that the Europeans, or Americans, "shot first."
More to the point, the Army campaigns were always in response to Indian depredations...killings of American civilians, always. Any Native tribe knew that if it killed too many white people, the Army was sure to show up on their doorstep, eventually.
They knew this before they ever took a white civilian's scalp.
Yeah...that counts. These boys are a mischievious lot, and some did not hold to Christian morality much, and most did not follow fundamentalist Christian behaviour (no drinking, dancing, swearing, et al).
But most Soldiers, and nearly all officers, I think, held to a strong moral code of Christian charity, goodness, honor, and dealing well with all people. That would be your "normal" Soldier and officer, I think.
And yeah, they liked to party and play hard, too. <g>
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2009 11:07:50 GMT -6
<And who decides what is "immoral"? . . . The individual Soldier does.>
So that means an individual soldiers can refuse an order if he thought it was immoral? If an officer said: "kill that wounded Indian" and the soldier refused because of moral issues, then that soldier could not be court marshalled . . . right?
<But most Soldiers, and nearly all officers, I think, held to a strong moral code of Christian charity, goodness, honor, and dealing well with all people>
Unless of course, you were an Indian, Black, Asian, or even a woman of any color. American women had no rights until well into the 20th century.
<More to the point, the Army campaigns were always in response to Indian depredations>
Unless of course you were the first Indian village . . . like Blue Thunder's who had nothing to do with the Grattan Massacre. But of course, they were Indians and the only good Indian was a dead one.
|
|
