|
|
Post by wild on May 15, 2009 7:33:27 GMT -6
and we almost always "clean it up," but perhaps not in the best way possible had the government or citizens handled things better in the first place.
Examples
|
|
|
|
Post by bc on May 15, 2009 7:55:10 GMT -6
I think the NA displacement policy was started with Chrisopher Columbus in 1492 at Hispanola. Incurred a setback at Roanoke. Then was exacabated by the Jamestown colony. Then excelerated by the Mayflower landing at Plymouth Rock. Guess we can start out by blaming the Spanish, Portuguese, and the English. But for them....
bc
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 15, 2009 8:09:41 GMT -6
Conz:
I think we see the light regarding each other's views (good)
The military has always been "used" by politicians for cleaning up their messes or enforcing most of their ludicrous decisions.
Most people in the military are going to be good soldiers and follow orders. However, human nature being what it is there are always going to be mistakes, errors, poor judgement, and unfortunately atrocities, and that can be said for all humans regardless of the military, police, school teachers, and your average everyday person.
And this holds true for Native Americans. Afterall they were only doing what they felt was right for themselves, while some of their actions may be considered harsh in our eyes, it was something they had been doing for generations to each other. And when a "new" force arrived it was carried over to them.
There were good & bad Indians, like all races. Some better than others and some worse.
We just need to be careful when we judge "others" that we don't judge them by what we believe is right and try to force our valves on them and the same is true for the "others".
All in all the military, then and now, is something we want to only use as a last resort.
I don't really think anyone really "won" in the proper use of the term.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 21, 2009 7:58:53 GMT -6
Well said, my friend.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 21, 2009 7:59:42 GMT -6
Back to training, here is an item out of SGT Windolph's biography that reflects upon the attitude of the Soldiers of the 7th Cav...
Elitism of the 7th Cavalry, out of SGT Windolf, a new recruit at the time:
“I’d learned a lot about the regiment by this time. It was supposed to be one of the top Indian-fighting outfits in the whole army. It was a fairly new regiment, as it had only been formed in 1866…the Seventh was only seven years old in 1873, but it had a fine reputation. Everybody in the country knew General Custer, and he was always bragging about what a fine fighting regiment he had. He was supposed to be the best Indian fighter in the American army…It was wonderful to be young, and to be riding into Indian country as part of the finest regiment of cavalry in the world. We were all might proud of the Seventh. It just didn’t seem like anything could ever happen to it.”
“We were tired of playing soldier. We wanted some action. It’d be fun to do a little Indian fighting…nd here it was the early spring of 1873, and we were being sent from Nashville a thousand miles north straight into the Indian country. We’d see some service now. And we wanted it, too. We were tired of garrison duty.”
“The regiment had spent the first four years of its life on the Kansas plains, and in Indian territory. The old-timers in the outfit could sure tell some blood-curdling Indian stories.”
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 22, 2009 18:55:00 GMT -6
Back to training, here is an item out of SGT Windolph's biography that reflects upon the attitude of the Soldiers of the 7th Cav... Elitism of the 7th Cavalry, out of SGT Windolf, a new recruit at the time: “I’d learned a lot about the regiment by this time. It was supposed to be one of the top Indian-fighting outfits in the whole army. It was a fairly new regiment, as it had only been formed in 1866…the Seventh was only seven years old in 1873, but it had a fine reputation. Everybody in the country knew General Custer, and he was always bragging about what a fine fighting regiment he had. He was supposed to be the best Indian fighter in the American army…It was wonderful to be young, and to be riding into Indian country as part of the finest regiment of cavalry in the world. We were all might proud of the Seventh. It just didn’t seem like anything could ever happen to it.” “We were tired of playing soldier. We wanted some action. It’d be fun to do a little Indian fighting…nd here it was the early spring of 1873, and we were being sent from Nashville a thousand miles north straight into the Indian country. We’d see some service now. And we wanted it, too. We were tired of garrison duty.” “The regiment had spent the first four years of its life on the Kansas plains, and in Indian territory. The old-timers in the outfit could sure tell some blood-curdling Indian stories.” Clair So were are the specifics of training received? Attitude is great but without expertise to back it up, bad things happen. If in doubt, see June 25, 1876. Billy |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 22, 2009 19:58:23 GMT -6
So were are the specifics of training received? Attitude is great but without expertise to back it up, bad things happen. If in doubt, see June 25, 1876. Billy So I take it you see evidence that what happened at LBH was caused, at least in part, by lack of training? It would be interesting to me where you analyze that improved training would have changed some event at LBH... Clair |
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on May 23, 2009 17:52:35 GMT -6
1) Both the goals of your war, and the manner in which you pursue them, must be moral for it to be called a "just" war, is my opinion, and the Army's training on the matter. 2) Of course...we wouldn't be in the Army if we weren't prepared to "perish by the sword." Of course, we try very hard to make the other guy perish on the sword, first...as many and as rapidly as possible. We do it very well. 3) The first basis for that campaign was the Sioux invading Crow reservation lands and murdering Crows. Is this proof enough? Let me find a book...do you find Utley to be "credible?"... "The breakdown of negotiations for the Black Hills capped seven years of mounting frustration with the Sioux hunting bands. They raided all around the periphery of the unceded territory. They terrorized friendly tribes. They contested the advance of the Northern Pacific Railroad. They disrupted the management of the reservation Indians while obtaining recruits, supplies, and munitions at the agencies for these hostile activities...Almost from the ratification of the Treaty of 1868, military leaders had seen in the repeated aggressions of the hunting bands justification for extinguishing their right to range the unceded territory. 'Inasmuch as the Sioux have not lived at peace,' declared General Sherman in 1873, 'I think Congress has a perfect right to abrogate the whole of that treaty, or any part of it;...I would like to see the Sioux forced to live near the Missouri River..." 3a) That is the start of the 1876 campaign. Fact? 4) Do you believe Utley and Gray are at odds with each other? What does Gray say about the depredations of the Sioux "wild bands?" 5) Do you agree that my evidence here is more specific, so trumps your evidence? Have I won my point that Sioux violence begat the 1876 punitive expeditions into their unceded lands? 6) I disagree with this assumption of yours. Unless we lay out the reasoning of the court, it still could have made that decision even if hostile Sioux activity "precipitated" the conflict. Maybe the court didn't care about Sioux activity in its verdict. 7) Does one Sioux killing one Crow on Crow land constitute "precipitating" a conflict and an abrogation of the 1868 treaty? 8) Are you this nasty and offensive a person in person?! Have a beer... What slaughter of Navahos in '61? Fort Fauntleroy? Here is Michno's brief: "Occasionally, Navajos gathered at Fort Fauntleroy, a Union post established in August 1860 at Ojo del Oso, to wager money and goods on horse races. On 13 September 1861, a race degenerated into a fight when the soldiers' horse won and the Indians cried foul. A warrior scuffled with a sentry, and soldiers fired their muskets. [The New Mexico Volunteer troops commander], believing the place was being attacked, brought out his howitzers. Five shell bursts killed about a dozen Navajos, causing the enraged Indians to withdraw." You call that a "slaughter?" It wasn't even a war crime...it was a fight that got out of control. Probably everyone was drunk. Howitzers broke it up. What's your point? Maybe you need to "engage" one. Clair
1) There is no such thing as a morally just war, there is aggressive war waged for some gain or other and there is self-defense against such agression. 2) So if you and the Army subscribe to Christian teachings how do you square yourself with these?: a) The Sixth Commandment - "Thou shalt not kill" b) "How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!" (II Samuel: 1:27) c) "He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth, he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire" (Psalms: 46:9) d) "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; Nations shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (Isaiah 2:4) e) "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (St. Matthew: 5:38-39) Whoever goes against these teachings is therefore committing a sin and in Romans 6:23 we have "For the wages of sin is death". Your 'value system' therefore condemns all soldiers to death. 3) OMG an actual quote and from Utley no less, though you did not cite the work or page number to be helpful to your fellow posters as Utley has written many books. I wonder though, if this is the same Utley as?: historian Robert Ultey. I consider him to be, if not anti-military, at least militarily naive, Clair Your quote is from 'Frontier Regulars' Page 246 in a Chapter entitled 'Sitting Bull, 1870-76' in which Utley is demonstrating in general terms, the Grant Administration's irritation with the Sioux hunting bands culminating in the refusal by ALL the Sioux to sell the Black Hills. He is describing the Administration's rationale for justifying the 1876 campaign, NOT accusing the Sioux of starting a war. In 'Centennial Campaign' Gray has this to say (about the Fort Laramie Treaty: "Here is a solemn treaty that cedes territory admittedly unceded; that confines the Indian to a reservation while allowing him to roam elsewhere; and that guarantees against trespass, unless a trespasser appears! The Indian was given to understand that he retained his full right to live in the old way in a vast unceded territory without trespass or molestation from whites. The treaty does indeed say precisely this. The fact that it also denies it, was no fault of the Indian. It was the Commission that wrote in the contradictions - they designed one set of provisions to beguile and another to enforce.
The proof of this came on June 29, 1869, only four months after the retiring President Johnson had proclaimed the treaty. On this date General Sheridan issued a general order, under directive from General Sherman, the most prominent signer of the treaty. The simple stroke of a military pen unilaterally nullified all the concessions and restored the treaty to its original, unacceptable (to the Indians) form. 'All Indians, when on their proper reservations, are under the exclusive control of their agents... Outside the well-defined limits of their reservations they are under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the military authority, and as a rule will be considered hostile". As of that moment the unceded Indian territory became white territory, and Indians who continued to roam there were officially labelled 'hostiles' no matter how peaceful nor how insistent on avoiding all contact with whites. And Generals Sherman and Sheridan would soon lead the white chorus of protests against Indian violations of the treaty!"So the Indians were not informed of the unilateral changes to the treaty, but were condemned for attacking trespassers, both white and red, for make no mistake, the Crow and Pawnee did their share of raiding. No case here then for Sioux/Cheyenne depredations. Added to the equation was the desperate financial crisis that the United States faced at that time. Post Civil War economic overexpansion was followed by a series of economic setbacks, the Black Friday panic of 1869, the Chicago fire of 1871, the outbreak of equine influenza in 1872 and the demonetization of silver in 1873. The latter move depressed the price of silver and the knock on effect caused the collapse of Jay Cooke & Company. When Custer's 1874 Black Hills Expedition confirmed that there was gold in the Hills it was an answer to Grant's prayers, if only he could exploit that resource. The Indians' refusal to sell the Hills and Sherman's unilateral amendments to the Fort Laramie Treaty gave Grant the excuse he needed to talk up the idea that the Indians had violated the Treaty, refer to them as hostiles and send the Army out to force them on to reservations, even though the indians in question had not signed the Treaty anyway. 3a) THAT was the start of the 1876 Campaign - FACT 4) Utley and Gray are not at odds with each other as they are looking at the matter from different angles, yet in his book "Custer and the Great Controversy" pages 19 and 20 Utley says: "The Sioux were angry. Oblivious to the solemn promises of the Treaty of 1868, the white men had invaded the northern fringes of the unceded territory, then tramped on to the reservation itself. They desecrated with mining operations the forested hills where resided the Sioux gods. At the agencies, moreover, venal agents and contractors made enormous profits from the food and clothing that had been purchased for the Indians under the terms of the treaty. Individual warriors and whole families began to slip way from the reservations to cast their lot with their kinsmen in the unceded territory to the west."Broadly speaking then, Utley confirms what Gray is saying. 5) Your evidence is superficial and out of context, trumping nothing, so no, you have not proved your point. 6) The above quote from Gray gives you the basis on which the Supreme Court made its judgement. If you are arrogant enough to challenge a Supreme Court judgement I suggest that you make the necessary legal case to overturn that judgement, otherwise stop making wild statements. 7) No, because the killing was mutual and occurred on both Sioux and Crow land. They had been having relatively small scale skirmishes for over 100 years and what was happening in the 1870's was merely a continuation of that tribal enmity 8) In the light of your continued inability to take your head out of the sand and face realities I am being neither nasty nor offensive, merely observant. Beer? I prefer wine. Ah Michno, your star quarterback, even though he is only one of your scorned historians, yet he has the date wrong as it was actually September 2 1861. As an avowed believer in the veracity of Army officers perhaps the following from an officer who was there, namely Captain Nicholas Hodt, might give you pause for thought:- "The Navahos, squaws, and children ran in all directions and were shot and bayoneted. I succeeded in forming about twenty men...I then marched out to the east side of the post: there I saw a soldier murdering two little children and a woman. I hallooed immediately to the soldier to stop. He looked up, but did not obey my order. I ran up as quick as I could, but could not get there soon enough to prevent him from killing the two innocent children and wounding severely the squaw.....Meanwhile, the colonel had given orders to the officer of theday to have the artillery [mountain howitzers] brought out to open fire upon the Indians. The sergeant in charge of the mountain howitzers pretended not to understand the order given, for he considered it as an unlawful order; but being cursed by the officer of the day, and threatened, he had to execute the order or else get himself in trouble.....After the massacre there were no more Indians to be seen about the post...."The army was the aggressor, that is my point and not just an aggressor but one who killed indiscriminately. It is about time you climbed down from your racially arrogant high horse, studied historical events more profoundly and realised that your attitude to the Native Americans is identical to that of the Army in 1876. It got Custer and over 200 of his men killed. You will no doubt respond to this post with yet another of your knee jerk floundering attempts to get yourself off the hook. You can and probably will, bother, but you will only succeed in continuing to look foolish and lose whatever shred of credibility you may have once possessed. Hunk |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 23, 2009 19:26:53 GMT -6
1) There is no such thing as a morally just war, there is aggressive war waged for some gain or other and there is self-defense against such agression.
What kind of war would you call it if an American Joint Task Force under U.N. mandate went into Rwanda to prevent the tribes there from massacring each other, as they did a few years ago, but everyone then just stood around and watched? Horrible war ensues, but it is not justified? The proper translation from Aramaic is "thou shalt not murder." The Army does not murder. Murder is the unjustified killing of someone. Justified killings are not murder. That is basic morality 101...we should be past that. Happens every time ONE side wins. That's life...no morality involved. Seen any Indian tribes at war lately? I'd say the Army on the Plains performed its moral duty admirably...at least in outcome, if not perfectly in execution. That makes us Christian Soldiers. We fight to bring on this day...it is our heavenly goal. We believe this is mistranslated. It means not to take offense when no real harm has been given. But we disagree with the implication here that if a man is about to kill your wife and rape your daughter, that you shouldn't try to stop him with violence, if necessary. You can COUNT on the Army protecting you from these people, using deadly force, in a Christian spirit. No, because my values are not the mistranslations you quoted above. I've explained it completely, I think. Yes, but what is your point? The treaty also stated that the Sioux would not attack any other tribe, such as the Crow and Shoshone...and that if they did, the treaty was abrogated. [/i][/quote] And why do you believe this happened? No case here for Sioux depredations? Are you trying to say that the Sioux did not attack Crow, Shoshone, and whites, every single year the treaty was in effect, from the very beginning? If they didn't sign the treaty in the first place, why are you talking about anyone violating it?! FACT is that there were MANY good reasons to start the 1876 campaign...it was both moral and financially sound for the Americans. This is usually the only way America goes to war...it has to be right, and it has to be in our own self-interest. If either standard is not met, we will not bother with any war. We leave whatever mess is out there to fester on its own. That these tribes were treated badly I have no argument with. That they needed to be dealt with, though, is a FACT. My only point is that one of the reasons the 1876 campaign was conducted was because the Sioux were violating the mandate from the Americans not to attack other tribes or whites. But it is FACT that the hostile Sioux and Cheyenne DID do these things, and that JUSTIFIES the war. I think I've proven that point, have I not? I've never studied the Supreme Court decision...if it becomes important enough I'll look it up and read it. But I don't see how it has any bearing on our argument here, that the 1876 campaign was justified. Note that I'm not saying that the Americans, be they the administration, civilians, or the Army, didn't do anything wrong. But I AM saying that it is a fact that the campaign was justified, on the basis of eliminating the hostile threat, alone. None of the other facts can eliminate this justification, can they? You call that an excuse for the violence? Not. And I thank you for that. Would you share a Chilean Shiraz with me? Yes...sounds pretty ugly. That Soldier could have been tried for a war crime, I warrant, and that Army officer had the morality right, most likely...we have to trust his judgment on this, but sounds like he could have convicted that Soldier in a court of law. We sometimes have such men in any outfit...you have to keep an eye on them and use leadership to prevent it from happening as best you can. First, that quote did not establish that the Army was the aggressor...the Indians could have started the fight. The note I saw said that they had accused the Soldiers of cheating, right? So why did the Soldiers have a motive to start a fight? Secondly, the Army does not kill indiscriminately, as you may be using the term. The note from that ARMY officer rather PROVES it...that officers do NOT think that kind of killing is justified. Firing artillery bursts does not discriminate whom it kills...Warriors, families, Soldiers, cattle...the burst is indiscriminate. But if you are targeting the Warriors, this is not considered indiscriminate killing in military morality, as I have explained above. You make sure you kill the Warriors, and do not let them escape, regardless of whomever else you have to kill to accomplish that. If you can do it without killing civilians, then you should use that method. If there is no other way, though, civilians are going to suffer. That is the law of war, then and today. It is identical, but no way is it racial. What a baseless charge. We treated the Confederates and the Germans in WWII the same way, right? Did you see what we did in Waco, Texas, a while back? Nobody was charged of a crime when federal officers killed dozens of white women and children trying to get at the hostile men. Andy you had better get a grip and understand how militaries work, not only back then, but even today around the world. It will help you understand human events better. Whose head is really in the sand, then? Listen to what I say...you may never get a better chance with a real military officer, of any country. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 25, 2009 7:05:50 GMT -6
Quote:2) So if you and the Army subscribe to Christian teachings how do you square yourself with these?:
a) The Sixth Commandment - "Thou shalt not kill"
The proper translation from Aramaic is "thou shalt not murder." The Army does not murder. Murder is the unjustified killing of someone. Justified killings are not murder. That is basic morality 101...we should be past that.
I am in 100% agreement with you on that Clair. Murder and killing are not the same.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 25, 2009 8:35:31 GMT -6
It is Memorial Day, and I put this last night on another thread, but these arguments seem to be waged on different fronts all the time. AZ is right: murder is unjustified killing. But by whose standards? God's? There's a lot of conflicting orders in the Bible. The 10 Commandments are given twice in the Bible, not quite the same, and they'd be written in Hebrew since Aramaic may not have existed then. And while we can't murder, we also can't suffer 'witches' to live. And God periodically demands abolutely innocent infants be murdered.
Sometimes what seems justified at the time is not. Sometimes what the mob wants at the time is later justified by contorted evidence, sometimes by actual evidence, sometimes refuted by actual evidence. Sometimes, you cannot possibly know but have to decide , and it's those awful damned decisions that people like to play God over.
This is from Ft. Phil Kearny thread, not because it's so wonderful but because it is relevant.
Yeah. Christianity is the go-to religion for the ethics in such matters.
Even the Life Magazine of Luce had a Japanese skull on the cover, hacked off by a Marine and sent to his wife, so what does that tell you about Christian America in 1943? They also had a photo of a Japanese head, with skin and helmet and all, mounted on a tank. Apparently everyone mutilates enemy dead and keeps body parts as good luck totems or out of sense of sadism or vengeance. Since battle is something none of us - conz, hunk, markland, or myself - have ever experienced, I'm pretty sure, voicing definitive estimations of the morality involved is pretty silly. It happens in every war, by all sides. It's a totally understandable reaction when scared, I'd think, but it isn't something that can be officially tolerated, because these guys eventually come back to home in our nation.
We civvies, precious beings and so innocent, continue to pretend that we 'understand' the horrors of war, and we couldn't have a clue. I think the greatest mulitation performed on our combat vet soldiers is the ludicrous ethical dichotomies we burden them with, and we do next to nothing to help them deal with what they saw, did, and tolerated in themselves and others. Six months hard labor to become a killing maching. Push-pull, click-click, now you're a civvie so don't do, think, or act like that anymore. Startiiiiiiiiiiiiing, now.
We - meaning us humans - have done it in every war. The photos referenced are easy to find, and are probably on the WEB. It wasn't a few bad eggs doing it. It was not uncommon. General orders periodically had to be given not to deface the dead. Marines pried open Japanese mouths and took out gold teeth with their knife. Those mouths were sometimes still attached to heart beats.
Some American parachute units took no - as in none - prisoners while in Europe. Somehow, Germans all were just dead, even those seen to surrender. Our subs surfaced and machine gunned Japanese survivors after their ships sank, Mush Morton in the Wahoo most famously, just like we complained about that issue with the Nazis and Japanese. The British shot some of those sinking their own ships at Scapa Flow, and despite the legal reasons allowing it, that was an unnecessary sadism. The Germans had no weapons and were ridiculously outnumbered.
Under heavy artillery, on land and sea, men got blown apart with body parts everywhere, and this undoubtedly played a role in the numbing of senses if you see hands, feet, heads, torso sections everywhere all the time. It's not a distant step to take beyond the dead.
It has zippo to do with cultures: men become animals in combat, especially those there for a while. Indians were not the aggresors, tactically, at LBH, but they did what everyone else does. I don't know how you can read the memoirs of combat soldiers and much history and not see this all the time, by everyone.
Yes, it's Memorial Day, but I think it terribly cruel because we civvies want no responsibility, that we aren't sharing some of the blame and not make these guys think they're monsters for the rest of their lives because they lost it once. Discounting those who were monsters before, and just joined for combat because opportunity beckened. There'd be less of it if everyone came clean. That'll happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 25, 2009 8:48:25 GMT -6
I am in 100% agreement with you on that Clair. Murder and killing are not the same. AZ Ranger Yeah, I'm sure that Soldiers and Law Enforcement officers in any society feel the same. But there are a few "Quakers" in every society, and as long as they are a distinct minority, that it okay...they can serve in their own ways. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 25, 2009 9:02:13 GMT -6
As for DC's sentiments....sorta.
Humans get carried away in the heat and horror of battle, to be sure. Sometimes small units take on the "persona" of "bad asses" and do gross things to enhance that reputation, and sometimes to come to grips with the normal stress of combat, even sans barbaric behavior...killing and being killed kinda trumps the silliness of cutting off ears and hands, after all.
But it is the VALUE that DOES matter, which DC does not address. "Everyone" does NOT do it...you can find some examples of it everywhere. The more civilized human groups, I maintain, are the ones that officially decry barbarisms, and that their occurrence in that group are an exception, not a rule. MOST of their Soldiers do NOT participate in barbarism...only a few souls do, and they are not admired by the group as a whole...and at the very least, their actions are not, no matter how 'bad' and successful they are.
A societies/group that condones barbaric behavior, even encourages it, and holds up to acclaim such activity is a barbaric, primitive group that cannot be allowed to coexist with a more civilized group. That is where morality comes in...the moral OBLIGATION of a group that believes it is more "civilized," and better for the human condition over all, than what it judges, by its morality, to be the less civilized group.
So my three points are:
1) It IS important to judge the relative morality between two groups, by our own personal standards for what is good for the progress of the human race, and,
2) It is a moral obligation for one group to defend its morality, even as it extends to another group (stop wars, stop genocide, halt barbaric practices toward women and children, feed the starving, etc.). The group that believes in such a morality MUST act...it cannot let things "just be."
3) A group can be judged as being right or wrong, or its activities being moral or immoral, two ways: by what THEY believe is moral, and then by what WE believe is moral. So we can separate such judgments and say: "They were immoral by our standards, but this activity was not immoral by theirs." Of course, because THEY thought they were acting morally, doesn't negate the requirement for another group to act, according to the above.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on May 25, 2009 17:40:09 GMT -6
1) What kind of war would you call it if an American Joint Task Force under U.N. mandate went into Rwanda to prevent the tribes there from massacring each other, as they did a few years ago, but everyone then just stood around and watched? Horrible war ensues, but it is not justified? 2) The proper translation from Aramaic is "thou shalt not murder." The Army does not murder. Murder is the unjustified killing of someone. Justified killings are not murder. That is basic morality 101...we should be past that. Happens every time ONE side wins. That's life...no morality involved. Seen any Indian tribes at war lately? I'd say the Army on the Plains performed its moral duty admirably...at least in outcome, if not perfectly in execution. That makes us Christian Soldiers. We[/b] fight to bring on this day...it is our heavenly goal. We[/b] believe this is mistranslated. It means not to take offense when no real harm has been given. But we disagree with the implication here that if a man is about to kill your wife and rape your daughter, that you shouldn't try to stop him with violence, if necessary. You can COUNT on the Army protecting you from these people, using deadly force, in a Christian spirit. No, because my values are not the mistranslations you quoted above. I've explained it completely, I think. 3) Yes, but what is your point? The treaty also stated that the Sioux would not attack any other tribe, such as the Crow and Shoshone...and that if they did, the treaty was abrogated. 4) And why do you believe this happened? 5) No case here for Sioux depredations? Are you trying to say that the Sioux did not attack Crow, Shoshone, and whites, every single year the treaty was in effect, from the very beginning? 6) If they didn't sign the treaty in the first place, why are you talking about anyone violating it?! 7) FACT is that there were MANY good reasons to start the 1876 campaign...it was both moral and financially sound for the Americans. This is usually the only way America goes to war...it has to be right, and it has to be in our own self-interest. If either standard is not met, we will not bother with any war. We leave whatever mess is out there to fester on its own. 8) That these tribes were treated badly I have no argument with. That they needed to be dealt with, though, is a FACT. 9) My only point is that one of the reasons the 1876 campaign was conducted was because the Sioux were violating the mandate from the Americans not to attack other tribes or whites. But it is FACT that the hostile Sioux and Cheyenne DID do these things, and that JUSTIFIES the war. I think I've proven that point, have I not? 10) I've never studied the Supreme Court decision...if it becomes important enough I'll look it up and read it. But I don't see how it has any bearing on our argument here, that the 1876 campaign was justified. Note that I'm not saying that the Americans, be they the administration, civilians, or the Army, didn't do anything wrong. But I AM saying that it is a fact that the campaign was justified, on the basis of eliminating the hostile threat, alone. None of the other facts can eliminate this justification, can they? 11) You call that an excuse for the violence? Not. 12) And I thank you for that. Would you share a Chilean Shiraz with me? 13) a) Yes...sounds pretty ugly. That Soldier could have been tried for a war crime, I warrant, and that Army officer had the morality right, most likely...we have to trust his judgment on this, but sounds like he could have convicted that Soldier in a court of law. We sometimes have such men in any outfit...you have to keep an eye on them and use leadership to prevent it from happening as best you can. b) First, that quote did not establish that the Army was the aggressor...the Indians could have started the fight. The note I saw said that they had accused the Soldiers of cheating, right? So why did the Soldiers have a motive to start a fight? c) Secondly, the Army does not kill indiscriminately, as you may be using the term. The note from that ARMY officer rather PROVES it...that officers do NOT think that kind of killing is justified. Firing artillery bursts does not discriminate whom it kills...Warriors, families, Soldiers, cattle...the burst is indiscriminate. But if you are targeting the Warriors, this is not considered indiscriminate killing in military morality, as I have explained above. You make sure you kill the Warriors, and do not let them escape, regardless of whomever else you have to kill to accomplish that. If you can do it without killing civilians, then you should use that method. If there is no other way, though, civilians are going to suffer. That is the law of war, then and today. 14) It is identical, but no way is it racial. What a baseless charge. We treated the Confederates and the Germans in WWII the same way, right? Did you see what we did in Waco, Texas, a while back? Nobody was charged of a crime when federal officers killed dozens of white women and children trying to get at the hostile men. 15) Andy you had better get a grip and understand how militaries work, not only back then, but even today around the world. It will help you understand human events better. Whose head is really in the sand, then? Listen to what I say...you may never get a better chance with a real military officer, of any country. Clair
1) I wouldn't call it any kind of war. UN Task Forces go in to create a protected environment for conducting humanitarian operations. They keep protagonists apart, thus preventing war. As a soldier I would have thought you would have known that and not posed a pointless question. 2) Wow! I had no idea who I was jousting with; a man who knows better than God, amends the meanings of the teachings of Jesus AND speaks for the entire U.S. Army judging by the enlarged and highlighted 'We's'. If that were true I would bow the knee and tug the forelock (perfectly legal in some States). As it is an apposite Bible quote comes to mind " Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities, all is vanity." [Ecclesiastes 1:2) That you had the gall to try to turn centuries old texts in your favour is beyond belief, but that you get it so wrong is plain risible. a) YOU say it means 'Thou shalt not murder' so if that is right quote your source, which I very much doubt will see the light of day on these boards. It would suit you if the word 'kill' could be eliminated wouldn't it, but having tried to eliminate it you only succeed in putting your foot in your mouth again. The Army does not murder. No? Do the following names mean anything to you? My Lai, Thang Pong, Son Thang? How about 'Tiger Force'? Then there is 'Soldier' by Lt. Col. Anthony Herbert in which he alleges war crimes including murder. You will try and justify them in your usual weasely way, but don't bother we've heard it all before. Just be careful what sweeping statements you make as they seem to have a habit of biting you up the Khyber Pass. b) Is a lament for those killed futilely in battle, not about winning or losing. c) Describes GOD'S power as a peacemaker NOT man's, you silly soldier. In fact, I think you may have committed blasephemy here. d) Not about fighting. It refers to a time when there will be complete harmony between all peoples. No chance whilst there are bellicose, gung-ho simpletons like you around who believe war is glorious. e) You can believe what you like. It means what is says, without any reference to exceptional circumstances. You seem to be unaware that Jesus was a pacifist and yet you call yourself a Christian. Wriggle all you want but what I quoted were verbatim teachings from the Bible, so if you believe they are mistranslated take it up with the experts in the original translations. And no, you explained nothing as usual and certainly not completely because all you did was to try get off the hook by distorting wording that has been handed down unchanged for centuries. It is a favourite trick of yours to attempt to alter original meanings to avoid admitting that you are wrong. 3) Let me try and educate you in some of the machinations of the Treaty of Fort Laramie 1868. The Treaty was between the U.S. Government and all the Sioux who signed the Treaty, not ALL the Sioux, because the free, non-reservation, bands never signed anything. Nevertheless, the Treaty stipulated that the unceded Indian territory belonged to ALL the Sioux, but the U.S. Government had no legal hold over the free Indians because they were not party to the Treaty. If the free bands raided etc., or were attacked in turn, the Authorities had no jurisdiction over them. Yet, the Government had solemnly agreed to keep ALL whites out of that territory unless prior Indian permission had been given for certain whites to travel through etc., So my point is, that the whites broke the Treaty almost immediately, the free bands were not party to it so could not be punished by the Army for either inter-tribal fights or attacks on whites who had entered the territory without permission. Whilst some reservation warriors may have joined in with the free bands that could not be proven so the Government's hands were tied. Now do you understand? 4) Because the white race is duplicitious when it comes to dealing with native tribes, just ask the Zulu. 5) Explained in (3) 6) Explained in (3) 7) Answered in (4), but that still makes the reason for the 1876 campaign the subjugation of Indian bands who had not signed the Treaty, in a bid by the Grant Administration to annex the Black Hills one way or another. 8) No, the FACT is they didn't need to be 'dealt with' they needed to be treated with. Dealing with them by force of arms was simply a convenient way to obtain the Black Hills as soon as possible. Custer and his men paid for that greed. 9) Already explained beyond argument. 10) Wrong again. Get off the point, you can't win it. 11) It is not an excuse for anything, just an explanation of how things were. All the Plains tribesmen were raised to be warriors. To gain battle honours was their raison d'etre. They were just as proud of their coup feathers as you are of being 'Army' and in both cases fighting was and is necessary to justify that pride. Fighting = violence, so are you now saying that the 'Army' commits acts of unnecessary violence? 12) Why not? 13) a) Let's not pussyfoot around this incident. The soldier in question committed MURDER, therefore directly contradicting your assertion in (2a). To use the coverall 'the Army' is very expedient, but it obscures the fact that 'the Army' is made up of diverse indivuals, some of whom are clearly capable of murder. 'The Army' and most of its officers do not, I am sure, condone murdering unarmed people, but the cases I have quoted from the Vietnam War are a indication of what can happen. Firing artillery bursts during a war can and does often kill civilians. Firing artillery bursts at fleeing Indians who had originally gathered there to watch a horse race is plain murder. There is no war going on so the term 'warriors' is misleading and intended to mislead I believe. Again, you try and duck 'the Army' out of the responsibilty by saying the quote did not establish that the Army was the aggressor then moving quickly to 'the Indians could have started the fight' to justify the callous remarks you follow up with. Do you honestly think I would have used the incident, then the quote, if your beloved 'Army' had not been the aggressor? After all, that was the theme of my original argument. Still, I suppose I will have to accept that you are slow on the uptake. So, for your guidance, the trouble started when a soldier slashed the bridle rein of the Navaho horse before the start so that it broke soon after the off and its rider lost control. The Navahos asked the judges (all soldiers) for a re-run but were refused and the soldier's horse was declared the winner. The soldiers then took all of their illegal winnings into the Fort and shut the gates. One Navaho tried to batter his way into the Fort and was shot dead. It doesn't take a genius to calculate who the aggressors were. No gold stars for your 'Army' in this episode and please, don't try and blame some poor shmuck for damaging the Fort gates and 'asking for it'. Surely, even you could not be that crass. 14) You truly do have a poor grasp of the English language. 'Racially arrogant' means that you believe the differences between your race and another are balanced in your favour. You are thinking of 'racism' meaning that you discriminate against peoples who you consider inherently inferior to your own. No, you did not treat the Confederate and the Germans in the same way as the Indians were treated. In neither case did they lose their culture. True, the Confederates lost their lifestyles , but remained part of the culture of the United States as they had always been. The German leaders were mostly punished, but as a people, the Germans thrive today. The reason they were not treated like the Indians? Because they are Caucasian, just like you, so of course you would treat 'your own sort' more leniently in victory. You really should be ashamed of the Waco affair, not using it as an example of how American law enforcers can get away with murder. Do you honestly think the FBI would be punished for what they did? If they had been indicted, all the white supremacist groups in the U.S.A. would have been up in arms. Get real. 15) Who is Andy? I don't know why you think the workings of the military are so arcane. There is information enough today to find out most things and as in any large self-contained organisation, there are things that are kept 'in house'. That does not make the Army unique, just similar. As for me, the island where I live has been a place that attracted retired army officers and I have known quite a few as clients, from a Lt. Col. of the Ghurkas to a Lt. in the S.A.S. I have found that as in all walks of life army officers fall into three broad categories. Some are good, some are bad and some are mediocre. When the good relate either their own experiences or their views of any military history period they have studied, one sits at their feet and learns. The bad never relay any information under either heading as they know they will be shown up. The mediocre are actually worse, because in order to make any impression under either heading, they exaggerate the importance and uniqueness of 'their Army' both now and in the past so that by extension, they too appear important and unique. When you have something of merit to contribute here Clair, I assure you that I will listen. Until then, please be aware that in responding to your posts I feel as if I am fighting a duel against an unarmed man. Hunk |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 25, 2009 18:55:21 GMT -6
|
|
