Quote:
Yeah, I've never lived under such fine gents as Abacha, Afewerki, Al Bashir, Amin, Barre, Biya, Bokassa, Doe, Eyadema, Gaddafi, Habre, Kabila, Mengistu, Mobutu, Mswati, Mugabe, Moi, Nguema, Taylor, or Toure, but I'm sure they were fair and moral individuals.


No, but you have lived under Nixon, Bush, Cheney, McCarthy (not sure if you lived under him). Gonna have to face facts that history is riddled with bad people in every continent.

 Quote:
Uh, yeah I'm the one who told you about their trade agreements in the first place. Do you know why they never lasted? Because they had no lawful precedent. The Native American philosophy of survival and interaction was base upon whim and necessity. You're trying to tell me that they thought it was generally "right" to be peaceful with each other when they held no such values aside from circumstantial inter-dependence.


They didn't last cause they were out gunned. Who's to say they still wouldn't be living the same way today if not for our expansion. There are still Eskimo's and shit. That's a fact you keep ignoring. Tribe's that aren't all that technilogically advanced still exist.

 Quote:
So it's this late in the game that you actually decide to read up on a Native American-Settler history after trying to go by the Hollywood note of, "Those evil whities treated the Indians like shit!" for so long?


It had nothing to do with Hollywood so much as the fact I know your an idiot...so I assumed your wrong.

I had a very basic knowledge of this. Just enough to tell your twisting things with your ideological prism.

 Quote:
Yes, I'm sure you ran crying to a history site after you were unable to dispute any of the history I recited in response to your generalist ideas of 'they must have had morals and the whites must have been evil!' However, that doesn't mean it's going to impress me.


Unable? Dube, all you've done is throw out conjecture. It's not hard to refute that. And now I can almost smell the desperation on you to take attention away from the link I provided.

 Quote:
Unfortunately, as it says, Jefferson's belief didn't last, but the point here is that the lands weren't stolen and the Indians weren't actually trampled on. Initially, efforts were made to assimilate them and not push them away. It was post-Jackson that the "Indian Removal" policy came into effect. After that, there was a failure rather than a lack of upholding civil rights for Native Americans. There was indeed unfair tribulations thrust upon the Indians who moved west as requested, but that was due to ineptitude and not official policies. In that rite, the Trail of Tears was a superfluous fumble; because the Cherokee were assimilating, the was no need for them to move, but because they did, neither Van Buren nor Jackson gave them the proper resources to make such a move.



Alright, it's important that we establish something here. I'm about to blow you off. Not because I can't refute your claims but because it's clear that your perception of reality is so twisted there's no point taking what you say seriously.

But you know what...here's another intresting quote from Wiki-

In the nineteenth century, the incessant Westward expansion of the United States incrementally compelled large numbers of Native Americans to resettle further west, often by force, almost always reluctantly. Under President Andrew Jackson, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which authorized the President to conduct treaties to exchange Native American land east of the Mississippi River for lands west of the river. As many as 100,000 Native Americans eventually relocated in the West as a result of this Indian Removal policy. In theory, relocation was supposed to be voluntary (and many Native Americans did remain in the East), but in practice great pressure was put on Native American leaders to sign removal treaties. Arguably the most egregious violation of the stated intention of the removal policy was the Treaty of New Echota, which was signed by a dissident faction of Cherokees, but not the elected leadership. The treaty was brutally enforced by President Andrew Jackson, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated four thousand Cherokees on the Trail of Tears.

You see that Pariah, the part about them being reluctant? The US having to use force to take what they want? That's a fact you can't deny. There was no necesity to us moving out west therefore no need for force.

 Quote:
Okay...You just ignored everything I said, so I'll repost my previous response:


I didn't ignore it. I'm just getting tired of saying how your rationalizing and exaggeratating.

 Quote:
Actually, it is the point, but since you're so adamant to use a "shoe on the other foot" analogy, I'll ignore the fact that you ignored a relevant observation of how fallacious your comparison is and roll with it:


It's a simple question you keep dodging. I didn't ignore anything it's bullshit to get out of answering. It's a valid comparison. Of course no two situation are gonna be exactly the same but it's close enough.

 Quote:
Because I verbalize the fact that they were living savage lifestyles, that doesn't mean I'm demonizing them


It does when your using there savage lifestyle to justify genocide and assimilation.

 Quote:
Assuming that American culture was at the level of the Indians in the 1700s and the Russians or India wanted to build a society here as a means of expansion with technology and ways of living far beyond ours, I wouldn't mind assimilating so as to advance my way of life.


I'm talking about the 1700's I'm talking about right now. Tommorow.

 Quote:
*sigh* Another bullshit paragraph.

First: Vietnam was fought for the sake of cutting off communism. Not spreading democracy. Giving Iraq a democracy was a secondary objective for the sake of building an ally after we've eliminated a threat (I'm not going to both arguing on whether or not it was worth it). That's not the same as simply wanting to enlighten society just for the sake of doing so.

Second: America is not the only country that has bases situated all over the world. Being strategically setup is not the same as "policing." We have never attacked another country for the sake of anyone else aside from ourselves.




Again, you act like the two can't be alike because there not absolutely symmetrical. It's this kind of lopsided logic that makes me and others think your full of shit.

 Quote:
What do you think it is that forms that common sense of yours? It's the context of the time-frame that even begins to form a common sense structure of logic. It's only because the Europeans brought over philosophy that there is any perception of common sense and concept of ownership in the first place. It's only because of the Anglos that the Indians were even able to develop concept of ownership over land in the first place.


God bless those anglos. If not for them the world would still be flat and barren.


 Quote:
I'm not sure wha "fake patriot" means, but...Well, you're wrong. As I said, I do believe America has done bad things as a country in the past. This just isn't one of them.


Is it really that hard to figure out? And if it is you truly are a moron.

I do believe your full of shit. But that's just a hunch.