suspension of habeas corpus

[skyknight]

Just an afterthought as well, it is not that I am not proud of my Cherokee heritage, it is just that I refuse to play the victim role. I am also Welsh as I said but my mother is Part Italian as well as Indian. To all the Moors out there I do not hold you responsible for changing my mothers blood line during your occupation.

I just kinda think it is funny that you would bring up native Americans in a torture thread. You my friend are under false illusions if you believe the Natives were all friendly, kind, corn and buffalo eating pascifists. Quite the contrary, they used forms of torture that we could not concieve of today.

As I mentioned above, it was customary to put hot coals under the skin of captured warriors to see if they would scream until they died. Not for info, not for payback, just to see if they could make them scream and take their honor. Scalping while not invented by the Indians was not a very nice practice. Tying wet rawhide strap around a persons thumbs behind his back and around his neck and watching his arms break or the rawhide cut into his throat over the next few days while the rawhide dried was not very nice either. And that being buried up to your neck and having ants eat your face off, well Hoss that is much worse than a stack of naked Iraqi bodies doing a cheerleader move.

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by skyknight

No what I am saying is that the jews do not need to blame todays Germans for what happened to them. Germany is a different place as well today.

As far as the Tribal thing what I am saying is that 400,000 Indians who were here do not automatically get an entire continent. Land was taken in those days by many more than just the English. It was the way of things, unfortunate yes, but that is how it was done back then.

And the lack of Indian tribes is mainly due to being bred out. As I said I am 25% Cherokee which is a whole lot more than most who claim to be Native actually are.

Do you hold the same hatred for the Indian tribes as you do the American Armies of two centuries ago?? They brutalized eachother and were big time slave holders as well as torturers. I guess that is ok though. I mean blankets of Smallpox is so much worse than inserting hot coals under captured warriors flayed skin to make them scream or raping young girls from other tribes.

The targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not to just kill innocent civilians. The strike was made to save millions of Americans lives.

I did not call Canada morally inferior just not morraly superior as was stated above pretty much. Please do not put words in my mouth.

So the Us Army killed your people huh??? That would make you 100% Native... A rare find these days.

And Filbey I did not say forget the past, I said do not hold those responsible who had nothing to do with it. The people who hit us on 9/11 are still around and are still threatening. Therefore they are a target. Some fifty years down the road if we manage a peace between us should we be condemning Osama's great grandchildren for what he did??? I think probably not.

Regarding 9/11.

While it is still fresh in our memories, the thing that bothers me is when I hear people (not you Skyknight) blame Iraqis or even the insurgents for 9/11.

Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We could simply nuke the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan to acheive the same end result of saving American lives. Actually, their future generations might thank us for that since we would likely build up those countries' economy back up and better than ever. Look how well Japan and Germany are doing these days. While we didn't nuke Germany, we sure firebombed the snot out of them. Heck, Afghanistan's economy is mostly based on opium farming. We could rid the world of that bad habit and insert a better way for those people to make a living.

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by skyknight

Just an afterthought as well, it is not that I am not proud of my Cherokee heritage, it is just that I refuse to play the victim role. I am also Welsh as I said but my mother is Part Italian as well as Indian. To all the Moors out there I do not hold you responsible for changing my mothers blood line during your occupation.

I just kinda think it is funny that you would bring up native Americans in a torture thread. You my friend are under false illusions if you believe the Natives were all friendly, kind, corn and buffalo eating pascifists. Quite the contrary, they used forms of torture that we could not concieve of today.

As I mentioned above, it was customary to put hot coals under the skin of captured warriors to see if they would scream until they died. Not for info, not for payback, just to see if they could make them scream and take their honor. Scalping while not invented by the Indians was not a very nice practice. Tying wet rawhide strap around a persons thumbs behind his back and around his neck and watching his arms break or the rawhide cut into his throat over the next few days while the rawhide dried was not very nice either. And that being buried up to your neck and having ants eat your face off, well Hoss that is much worse than a stack of naked Iraqi bodies doing a cheerleader move.

Let's not forget the romantic practice of shoving a spiny type of fish up a woman's private parts and yanking it out. That's not exactly the way to court a woman.

[Filbey]

Skyknight, I agree that it should not be held against people down the road.My comment was really toward the whole thread.I think we should be careful with any power that can be misused.Even if the best intensions are behind the law.If you were called a witch you were burned at the stake just for suspision.They were trying to protect the people from evil.....but....still I just don't like people running with something before they actually think about it. Emotions can really overcome.

[skyknight]

Originally Posted by Hahma

[
Regarding 9/11.

While it is still fresh in our memories, the thing that bothers me is when I hear people (not you Skyknight) blame Iraqis or even the insurgents for 9/11.

Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We could simply nuke the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan to acheive the same end result of saving American lives. Actually, their future generations might thank us for that since we would likely build up those countries' economy back up and better than ever. Look how well Japan and Germany are doing these days. While we didn't nuke Germany, we sure firebombed the snot out of them. Heck, Afghanistan's economy is mostly based on opium farming. We could rid the world of that bad habit and insert a better way for those people to make a living.

You will never hear me link 9/11 and Iraq, I have a totally different set of standards for going in. While I do not think it was to far a stretch that Saddam would have sold weapons to terrorists, seeing as he was paying Palestinian child bombers to run into market squares, I think Iraq is key in other areas.

First off we owed the kurds after we abandoned them in the first War. If no one else in that Godforsaken country wants there freedom at least they do.

Second, Saddam has taken far to many pot shots at our planes over the years under piles of threats and sanctions that were not being enforced. At least this way we can keep Russias and Frances dirty little hands out of the cookie jar.

And last but most important is that we now are central to everything that happens in the Middle East. Time and time again we have always had trouble getting to the area because of "neutral countries' such as France and Turkey. This time we are there and now is more important than ever.

Iran is the scariest thing this world has seen in thirty or fourty years since the Cold War. Do you realize he has now threatened all of Europe with pain and hurt if they back Israel. This powder keg will burst within six months to a year I am willing to bet. it is a good thing we are now controlling the Persian Gulf. If anyone here thinks we have lost soldiers in Iraq, wait until we have to hit Iran. At least we have forward firebases as well as hospitals now to help that effort. I believe this situation is almost unavoidable and I do believe this was one of the thoughts before we went into Iraq. Iraq has been a serious thorn in the side for a long time, it was easier to remove that decimated military than it will be Irans. At least now we are not fighting for a foothold. We already have it.

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by skyknight

You will never hear me link 9/11 and Iraq, I have a totally different set of standards for going in. While I do not think it was to far a stretch that Saddam would have sold weapons to terrorists, seeing as he was paying Palestinian child bombers to run into market squares, I think Iraq is key in other areas.

First off we owed the kurds after we abandoned them in the first War. If no one else in that Godforsaken country wants there freedom at least they do.

Second, Saddam has taken far to many pot shots at our planes over the years under piles of threats and sanctions that were not being enforced. At least this way we can keep Russias and Frances dirty little hands out of the cookie jar.

And last but most important is that we now are central to everything that happens in the Middle East. Time and time again we have always had trouble getting to the area because of "neutral countries' such as France and Turkey. This time we are there and now is more important than ever.

Iran is the scariest thing this world has seen in thirty or fourty years since the Cold War. Do you realize he has now threatened all of Europe with pain and hurt if they back Israel. This powder keg will burst within six months to a year I am willing to bet. it is a good thing we are now controlling the Persian Gulf. If anyone here thinks we have lost soldiers in Iraq, wait until we have to hit Iran. At least we have forward firebases as well as hospitals now to help that effort. I believe this situation is almost unavoidable and I do believe this was one of the thoughts before we went into Iraq. Iraq has been a serious thorn in the side for a long time, it was easier to remove that decimated military than it will be Irans. At least now we are not fighting for a foothold. We already have it.

From what I've heard about Iran, Iraq will be a walk in the park by comparison. I don't recall the exact things that were said on this one news show I saw months ago, but the jist of it is that Iran is so far superior in every facet than Iraq is/was. It is a scary, scary thought indeed. What I find disturbing about going into Iran, is still having to deal with Iran. We are having difficulty there even with most of our focus there. It would be totally different than launching from Kuwait.

What will be scary for highschool and college age kids of today, is the reality of the draft. There is no way that we can go into Iran with the forces we currently have. They seem to be stretched to their limits as it is, let alone having a nastier foe to deal with. While we've done away with Iraq's army over the past decade plus, Iran has had time to build up and recover from the Iran/Iraq war.

The thing that is really frightening, is the level of hatred that a lot of these people in the Middle-East have for Israel. And as long we support Israel, we will be targeted as well. So my concern is at what point and what will it take militarily wise to get these countries to stop hating on Israel and be able to get along at least to the point of not wanting to destroy each other. Our occupation of Iran won't sway them I'm sure. So do we have to reap destruction to the level of Japan and Germany in order to get them to play nice? We haven't had much luck with N. Korea and N. Vietnam took everything (short of a nuke) that we could dish at them and held on.

This could be a really nasty decade coming up.

[Vette71]

The fact that you [Skynight] justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the statement "it was to save american lives" is astounding. Millions of Japanese families are of less worth and importance than "american" families.
This is the same type of rampant ignorance fanatical christians display when they make comments such as, "the tsunami hit indonesia because they're not a christian part of the world", admittedly, that was mostly said by the ignorant southern baptist types in my local area.
What indian tribes did to one another's prisoners of war etc...is irrelevant because it was on our own terms, not by outside invaders with no right to be here, nothing will justify a culture being forbidden to develope on their own terms and being forced to adopt yours. Only you seem to be a classic example of the "might makes right" mentality.
And if you know nothing of ndn culture, you really shouldn't say anything. 25%. I don't know an ndn alive that believes you can be 25% of a person. Either you are or you're not. Period. Only the US government and its BIA wants that fraction of a person **** to be the standard so they can finish fasing the ndn out of existance.
I didn't have to put words in your mouth. Your implication, although thinly veiled, was clear that you believe there to be none morally superior to "US America."
Today is not a different culture. Innocents were murdered to create this "nation." Innocents were murdered by nukes in the 40's to further this nation. And anyone that believes innocents are not being murdered to further its agenda now is living a propoganda induced fantasy.
But really, I'm getting too worked up to continue the debate here, I don't believe you're a bad person and don't want to turn it into a pointless argument between the two of us. Our differing beliefs have been laid out, so I'll leave it at that.

[skyknight]

I agree vette and I would like to add one more point though. Those bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not just save American lives. Japan would have suffered far greater casualties as well than what she did. Millions of Japanese would have died in an invasion of mainland Japan.

[skyknight]

I always have a thought after I post my initial post and here it is

Alot of people like to look at Hiroshima as the day the world stood still in WWII. When I tell you that many more Japanese would have died you should believe me. Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were the highest death toll from a bombing run.

As Hahma mentioned before there was a term called fire storm that was far worse. We hit one Japanese city so hard with a firestorm created by just regular incindiary bombs that the death toll far outweighed that of either nuke drop.

In a fire storm, you either burn, Suffocate, run from the fire only to be pulled back into the vacuum or you jump in the river as many Japanese did and they boiled in a moving body of water.

The entire country of Japan would have to had been flattened like this to get them to surrender. The Bushido code was alive and well and the Japanese were waiting for us to try and invade. So while the nukes were terrible they also saved lives on both sides.