| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 24 2006 : 11:25:47 AM
|
Smcf,
In reality, I didn't compare Paisley to Hitler. You did. I don't let him off the hook because, if true, he never lit a fuse or pulled a trigger.
The violence fomented by his rhetoric is historical fact, pretty obvious in the research D.C. has already provided. The violence perpetuated in Paisley's entrenched opposition to any peace process or compromise has cost thousands of lives over the past 60 years.
Funny thing about libel or for that matter, slander. Truth is an insurmountable defense.
Meanwhile, you overlook Paisley's labeling the Pope as "antichrist."
|
Bob Bostwick |
  |
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - February 24 2006 : 12:08:48 PM
|
quote:
If Paisley's off the hook, so is Hitler
Who posted that?
Thousands of lives (over 3000) in the North since 1969 and the start of the republican campaign of violence - you blaming Paisley for that? From 1921 - 1969, how many?, as a matter of interest?
If Paisley has an entrenced position, it is that he will tell the electorate what his party's position is and invite the electorate to vote. If he feels the government is forcing him to talk with people he believes are holding a gun to his head (literally), then he'll say so and leave it to the voters. As I said before, his party is now the main Unionist party. That means people who voted against him at the time of the Good Friday agreement are now voting for him. Its called democracy. He doesn't get voted in by the fairies, and he doesn't get voted in because electors believe he's a genocidal maniac.
I don't overlook anything. I judge folk by what they do, not what they believe in, nor yet what others think about them.
My last word on this - honest.
|
Edited by - Smcf on February 24 2006 12:12:01 PM |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 24 2006 : 3:32:08 PM
|
SMCF
"He's a politician, not a paramilitary. He hasn't killed anyone..."
"Equating Paisley with republican violence is a lie. He planted no bombs, shot no bullets..."
Hitler didn't burn down the Reichstag. Heck, he didn't even break a window on Krystal Nocht (sic?). Hitler didn't drop any pellets of Zyklon B...
However, his rhetoric and political leadership had much to do with the two former and everything to do with the latter.
It's your comparison. I'm pointing it out.
I'm really rather surprised that you don't see the similarities here and throughout history. Poltician my patoot. He's a leader of a movement and the movement is a very violent one. Peace will never be possible in Northern Ireland with the likes of Paisley in leadership.
Again, look at the record. I'm not the subject of the discussion, Paisley is.
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 24 2006 : 3:50:38 PM
|
And remember Wild, it's still up on the board.
On the slim chance that anybody might just be interested in what's still up on the board here it is in technicolour.
The policy adopted by the US was intended to destroy the native Americans as a functioning people.The main elements in that plan were murder,transportation,confinment and coercion.The detritus can be found on human reservations.[examples can be provided]And that is genocide.
and you've never apologized. An apology consists of the words "I'm sorry for...." or "apologies for...",
Good call DC.It's easy to forget that there are those who take everything personally and regard what is an academic discussion as an attack on the fatherland.Rest assured DC that on my worst day I could not reach the level of pathological hatred you have displayed in these exchanges.But my apologies if my rather laboured efforts have given offence.
You say "benign or benevolent they are noncompetitive socialist concepts" which is malarkey.You love to formulate things as systems, and the US as capitalist, but it's strongly socialistic as well, which is why people are PO'd about Katrina and government response.We are not debating welfare relief for projects or trailerparks but the predatory capitalistic nature of the US.
The combined GDP of the three countries you mentioned Brazil,Argentina and Chile is less than that of the much whacked and incompetant Ireland why ?
The US will tolerate no rivals.Benign and Benevolent could have been shown at Keyoto or signing up to the World court but system US just cannot bring itself to contemplate a subordinate position to anything outside its control.
And as we've discovered, you clearly hadn't even read some of the books you held up for acclaim.If you have a point make it DC.Somewhat disingenuous of you to go cherry picking in old debates.
See, this is what I mean. It was England's persistence to parliament and elections, not the Grecian myth, that inspired others under their Empire including the US. It's because of them that the idea retained strength, because they were the only important nation doing it for centuries at a time, consistently, ever expanding the suffrage.
Well we can thank the Chinese for fire,the Sumarians for writing,the Egyptians for math,textiles from the Mesopotamians,the wheel from the Oohmebumbums and all at little or no cost but for a voting system we must enjure war, conquest, slavery,famine.A bit over priced I think.
The battle of the Wolf Mountains. There is no Wolf Mountain. Miles lied a lot, as I've given examples, and I doubt his tally.Answer my question DC or are you stating clearly that Miles fabricated an engagement known as the battle of Wolf Mountain/s ?
No, Wild. Those little nations, smaller than Ireland, often showed more backbone. Some because they had to and some because they'd given their word.
Would that be Italy,Hungary,Rumania,Bulgaria,Finland?
So let's see what we have.
1 Nations who declared neutrality--Ireland,US,Spain,Portugal etc.
2 Nations who would not fight when invaded---Cezhs,Austrians,Danes.
3 Nations who fought only when attacked Belgium,Poland,Holland.
4 nations who sorta changed sides---France Norway.
5 Nations who sided with Hitler---see above.
So whatcha tink DC no moral hero's there?
Remember, I've said from the beginning Wild, everyone's done horrible things. But some of us have done good things to offset it. What has Ireland done? Lotta talk. North and South, all of it. Self congratulatory nonsense. Yet
Other than River Dance I can't think of one horrible thing we have inflicted on the world.
But when people get compared to Hitler, that's over the line. Nobody was that bad.
Well Uncle Stalin [ally]would run him close.And we must not forget polpot old friend of the US.
Your arguement is admirable but innocent and dangerious.What a much better place the world would be if states acted out of moral persuasion.And you know your sentiments are the same sentiments that have sent the lads of the 82nd 101st and the Big Red 1 off to do corporate US's dirty work.Is it not time to grow up?
|
Edited by - wILD I on February 24 2006 3:53:59 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2006 : 2:12:11 PM
|
1. No, it isn't. It's awful, but it's not genocide. Wild wants to lower the bar on the term as much as possible so the Irish can claim they were the victims of genocide. In Wild's world, Ireland can only be a victim, allowed to hurl all sorts of accusations, but never be slapped for it. He's Irish, you see, a perfect encapsulation of a national mood derived from a four century brain drain.
2. On the contrary, the worst thing I've said is that everybody is pretty bad, but some have offsetting good works to history. It's up, I encourage people to judge Wild's honesty by rereading our past exchanges. Start with the Springfield cartridge, then the thread on Ireland.
3. You've clearly never been in this hemisphere, have you Wild? In any case, you made the claim the US was in the middle of the Third World. Far from it.
4. I made the point. You called Joyce's works an example of Irish art, though written in English and with wordplay dependent upon English, and you didn't know that, and so couldn't have read them. It's in our previous exchanges. You'll try to cover this up, but you cannot erase what's already up.
5. No Wild, underpriced. It's that attitude you embody that continually propels Ireland into dependence and the lower tiers. Your young listen to that gibberish and celebration of incompetence and either hang themselves or emigrate. Ireland has/had low labor costs and that brought in foreign - mostly English - investment. "war, conquest, slavery,famine" are nearly trademarked Made in Ireland, and was a feature of your island no more, no less, than anywhere else, and was not inflicted upon you - except in degrees of success. Remember, even St. Patrick was a war slave, and is currently thought not even Irish except by choice.
6. Of course there was a battle of the Wolf Mountains, I've said that from the beginning. You called it the Battle of Wolfe Mountain, then Wolf Mountain, and now, without admitting error, correctly the Battle of the Wolf Mountains, which are mere bumps like the Crow's Nest.
7. Defensive, Wild? Inaccurate, anyway. Let's indeed see what we have. A bunch of nations initially neutral and those still neutral after others fought - coincidently, of course - for their protection and profit. First, you can't read. Smaller than Ireland means just that. Ireland wouldn't have been under direct threat till England fell. And you condemn Belgium for not fighting till attacked?
8. Don't be modest, Wild. Ireland has raised posturing hypocrisy and self love to an art form. And no, you can't pretend by implication Ireland acts out of moral persuasion or that the world would be a better place if people did. I certainly don't think that. That's childish. "Moral persuasion" appeals to morals that are often stupid, vicious, and degrading, mostly found in religious tracts. That's fatwahs against writers and cartoonists, a church of pedophiles and their criminal lisping prelates scolding others on any subject, Ireland lecturing the world on brotherhood and honesty. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 25 2006 2:13:23 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 26 2006 : 1:53:49 PM
|
No, it isn't. It's awful, but it's not genocide.
This is a debate and something more than a puerile denial is required.
An accusation of genocide is an important substantive historical issue which you have signally failed to address.
No Wild, underpriced.
Your contention that colonization was somehow compensated for by democracy is dubious to say the least.The catch is that you must survive colonization to avail of the side effect,which a number of peoples did not in any meaningful way.Also many nations/peoples who did in fact survive Britiania's tender embrace are at this point in time basket cases.Saudi Arabia whose citizens have an unusual fethish for flying aircraft into high rise buildings,Iraq where at this very moment people are being murdered in industrial quantities,Afghanistan,Pakistan,Uganda.
Also is difficult to understand Uncle Sam's attitude to democracy as its agencies have stamped it out in most continents.
And you condemn Belgium for not fighting till attacked?
I contend that all nations without exception act in their own self interest and you seem to agree with me--"Moral persuasion" appeals to morals that are often stupid, vicious, and degrading, mostly found in religious tracts.Let me put it this way why should Ireland declare war on Germany [it had of course no means of doing such a thing the US having turned down requests for arms]in support of Poland and it's repressive Government who had participated in the carve up of Czechoslovakia?
Your other points---Wolf Mountain/s St Patrick,Canada in the third world,fahways/unAmerican activities/McCartyism
/KKK ad nausium are just too facile to reply to.
|
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2006 : 06:35:58 AM
|
HR,
More last words (sorry). The reason I don't see any similarities between Hitler and Paisley is because there aren't any. I can see the difference between blather and deeds. The peace process in NI milestoned the signing of the Good Friday agreement. The agreement points were negotiated by all parties in NI and agreement was reached eventually by all except Paisley's. The finished article was put before the electorate in a referendum. Paisley campaigned against accepting the agreement. The result of the referendum was a success for the agreement. Paisley accepted defeat and his party set about working with the institutions set up under the agreement's terms. It doesn't mean he's happy with the outcome, but he's accepted it because he bases his political philosophy around democracy, first and last.
The loyalist parties representing the violent paramilitary groups, you know - the ones responsible for sectarian violence on the loyalist side - all supported the agreement. Now, where are these violent loyalist parties? Where are they in the polls? Nowhere. Paisley wanted their armed friends kept locked up.
Paisley is far less a rampant supremacist than Carson, under whom the NI state was founded after partition. Again, where is any evidence of any sort of murderous regime between 1921 and 1969? Social and political reform in NI has been very slow and I think everyone now accepts that, but much of the contention had contextual roots in the backdrop of a civil war in Eire and the fear of a United Ireland being brought about by force, against the will of the majority in the North.
Although it must be said that social and political bias existed pre 1969, these were all addressed after the Civil Rights campaign pretty quickly. An increase in violence happened after these issues were addressed. Some of the social concerns were arguably overplayed. For instance, the same social rights are afforded Northern Irish by the Southern government e.g. all NI folk can obtain both British and Irish passports etc. Early on in the troubles, a group of nationalists made a sort of refugee trip down South. You'd think they'd be better off there, rather than under the yolk of tyranny up North. After a couple of days, they all came back up again, realizing they were better off financially under the British welfare system. Not that nationalists did not have genuine greivances, mind.
Now I may have my views and opinions on political figures in Ireland and Britain. Some of them are pretty strong, but what I don't do is pick one out and say he would kill all catholics (and Jews - that's a real joke), or protestants as the case may be. Its bollocks. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2006 : 10:20:11 AM
|
Good post, well said. I don't agree about Paisley being all that innocent and constructive, and I think that most of the militias in Ireland are little more than drug gangs at this point, well outside their supposed goals, and if the violent types are locked up, they missed many of them, and it was the Brits, not the NI governments, who did it. I don't think Paisley himself or anyone had the stones to even attempt that.
If he actually believes the religion he claims, he's required to kill the anti-Christ and physically fight him for his salvation and the world's. ID'ing the anti-Christ is a physical threat against that person.
However, this has zippo to do with Custer, and should be reinstated on the Ireland thread or a new one. It's only relevance is that it perhaps demonstrates the verbal accusations hurled and printed agains the savage redmen of the New World which Wild chose to think made it genocide, because it would therefore allow Ireland to claim a similarity that does not exist. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2006 : 12:23:28 PM
|
Smcf
Your argument is well-written and thoughtful. I agree with D.C.'s thoughts regarding it. I also agree with him regarding Paisley. We've beaten this one to death these past few days, but I want you to know that I respect your opinions.
Had I the magic to do so, I would change history at, say, 1922 and get the British off the island entirely, allowing the Irish to sort out their own religious differences without the politics of religion that have devasted Northern Ireland, and by both sides. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2006 : 1:08:11 PM
|
It's only relevance is that it perhaps demonstrates the verbal accusations hurled and printed agains the savage redmen of the New World which Wild chose to think made it genocide, because it would therefore allow Ireland to claim a similarity that does not exist.
Without genocide vast tracts of the world and its resources would be the preserve of the innocent primatives.Austrailia would come on stream about the year 28000 likewise North America.
The genocide perpetrated by the US was just one of a number of genocides in an age of commercial genocide.
Wild wants to lower the bar on the term as much as possible so the Irish can claim they were the victims of genocide. On the contrary some articles in the convention are so low Mother Teresa could be accused of genocide.
Uncle Sam's actions of endevouring to preserve the indians on a slightly different level is just misunderstood.
HR,Smcf,interesting exchange.
but he's accepted it because he bases his political philosophy around democracy, first and last.
That's because of the artifical majority engineered by the Brits to keep him and his likes in the ascendancy.
Democracy does not work in tribal situations so of course Paisley is only too pleased to be seen as an arch democrate
|
Edited by - wILD I on February 27 2006 1:10:12 PM |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - February 28 2006 : 05:29:40 AM
|
Thank you HR - we'll agree to disagree. If and when Scotland and Wales feel the need to secede from the UK, then perhaps NI might consider it.
WildI - Congrats on beating Wales at the weekend and I hope O'Connell street is back to normal. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 28 2006 : 3:18:23 PM
|
Thanks Smcf as I'v no idea where you are posting from I cannot return the compliment.
As regards O'Connell Street it was quieter on Saturday than normal. |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - February 28 2006 : 7:56:55 PM
|
The mighty English sent packing once more at murrayfield,they dont like it up em."O flower of Scotland"
What a difference a defeat makes to the BBC and all these smirking English sports broadcasters,you would never had known there had been a match by Sunday morning. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 1:50:57 PM
|
Sorry about Saturday H7 great Scottish defence though.
Let's hope we can discommode the Sasanachs and take the triple crown next week. |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2006 : 7:59:37 PM
|
Wild,
best of luck in winning the triple crown,wouldn't it be sweet to duff them at twickenham.
I think the Italians will do us as well
Altogether now"Soldiers are we" |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2006 : 06:44:11 AM
|
| Fingers crossed for an Irish triple crown and championship. Don't know what's happened to England, but lets hope they remain in disarray for at least another week. Wales to beat France. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 18 2006 : 4:20:27 PM
|
| YES YES YES no better way to beat the Sasanachs than with a last minute try in the corner.And we beat their best at Cheltenham and took the gold cup.And the Scots did themselves proud as well.A good week boys.Nach raibh an tath againn agus Alban abu. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 08 2006 : 10:14:07 AM
|
AZ--I believe it was quite conceivable from the start that either column would have to engage the Indians first. So without going into Terry's Order and the obey/disobey argument, whom do you believe bears the responsibility within the 7th cavalry for its defeat? Custer is to blame for failing to engage the Indians with all 12 companies with no clear plan? Subordinate Officers and NCOs for having untrained troops, failing to properly apply themselves, etc?
AZ-- Billy and Wild -- Wouldn't Terry's plan only work if there is only one large village? Weren't they looking for the Indians that made the trail that Reno had discovered earlier?
DC-- If there had been, say, three large villages of the same rough size in 1876 and the Army only found one and walloped it, the same result might be reasonably expected. I don't think anyone thought it remotely necessary to herd all together and then hit them, although that was the best of all possible worlds and not to be avoided if it appeared. This, to minds who'd shined on Kildeer Mountain and thought that which applied to a village of 75 lodges and 400 people somehow applied the same to cities of 15k people. That was and is spectacularly stupid and unimaginative. And so very, very wrong.
Trying to get back to responsibility and the question of more villages in regards to Terry's orders. DC my thought was 2 or more villages along the LBH when I posted above. This would mean Terry's column would not encounter the same as Custer's columns. If one village was at the headwater of the LBH and another at the confluence of LBH and BH rivers then the columns could not support each other. Which leads to my original question that Terry's order assumes only one village between the 2 columns.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 13 2006 : 1:09:42 PM
|
| An assumption based on the fact that there was only one trail |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 27 2006 : 9:02:34 PM
|
An assumption based on the fact that there was only one trail
How could that possibly be true if Indians were constantly joining up |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 28 2006 : 12:54:21 PM
|
| There is a difference between a trail left by a travelling village and that of individuals. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 28 2006 : 6:06:40 PM
|
| There is a difference between a trail left by a travelling village and that of individuals. It would depend on the size of the village and the number of individuals. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 27 2006 : 8:33:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Horse
The main tactical error Custer made that day , was to engage the village. To split his regiment, just compounded this error but hindsight is great
Your reference to "hindsight" is, for a certainty, an astute observation worthy of comment. Custer's tactics, when judged by contemporaneous military potentates, were incorrect. However, military tactics of that century (no matter how ludicrous by todays standards)were standard procedure for the "Indian Fighter" genre of the era.
Would it not be wonderful if the rest of us, like you, understood this basic train of thought? Good job sir. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 29 2006 : 04:55:59 AM
|
| Give us a few examples Joe. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 03 2006 : 7:56:40 PM
|
Custer's martial tactics on that fatefull day have been reviled by some as the epitome of outrageous conduct compounded by atrocious decision making which was directly responsible for the death of he and his unfortunate men. As a result, in some social circles, the name Custer has come to exemplify the essence of unmitigated gall and arrogance;augmented by a healthy dose of narcissism.
A substantial portion of the inflammatory rhetoric piled upon the hapless shade of the General is based upon this one battle, and his infamous decision to divide his troops when facing the greatest conglomeration of hostiles ever known.
Certainly Custer's decision to do so, in the face of an enemy whose numbers were unknown to him, constituted a military blunder created by an arrogant personality who believed himself to be a demi-god? Could any other contemporary of Custer create and enact such an idiotic design?
In "the spring Sheridan's forces resumed the offensive in three isolated columns." Custer Myth, page 151.
The columns were led by Crook, Terry, and Gibbon. When one understands that the chief concern of the military intelligentsia of that era was the "flight" to escape by the hostiles (actually making a "stand" was far removed from their thought processes) then one begins to understand several factors:
Crook, who was extremely surprised by the tenacity of the Sioux,was able to withdraw from the battle with his force of 1,049 men;
Terry and Gibbon were fortunate enough to be spared a confrontation;
Custer,with considerably less men, was vanquished.
Does it not appear possible that the one individual in this episode, who was not able to defend his actions at the Reno Inquiry, has become the scapegoat of the entire affair?
|
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 03 2006 8:02:13 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
