Lakota break away from US

[M14 Shooter]

Dare I even remind you of the same kind of apathy circa 1945?

Therapy. Get some. Soon.

 

[Shogun]

You have heard of the US Constitution, haven't you?

I gave you a no, for the reason I stated -- if the states cannot secede, then neither can a 'nation'.

Nothing you posted does anything to counter that.

So, again, Ill ask:

Would you fathom launching rockets into Lakota Territory at civilian populations of these Brand New Lakotans lands? At what point will you accept the right of the Lakota to have a nation of their own? Do 6 million have to die first cause I think we've already hit that milestone.

 

[Annie]

And the actions of Lakota and Pals are NOT moral to other Lakota and pals? We all agree that manifest destiny and the persicution of jews is wrong. BUT, that doesn't solve the problem of ANCIENT INDEGENOUS PEOPLES deciding to claim their ancient heritage out from under the feet of those who have gone on to become, themselves, indegenous to the land. Isn't it just an excuse to say "they were a product of their times" when we sure don't extend the same logic to pals and Lakota who are, quite clearly, the PRODUCT of their times.

I'm not being glib here, the problem of the ancient indigenous people is not going to ever be fairly addressed. There may be some clucks, perhaps some token symbols of restitution, but only out of guilt of many generations past and non-meaningful. Doesn't matter if we are talking China, Europe, Africa, Australia, or the Americas. There is no making up for the past and god knows, no land is going to go back.

However, the problems with the Americas is not ancient, but the result will be the same, no cessation of land. The indigenous ancestors know this, the government knows this. So what solution? I don't think there is a good one. Actually I fail to see a reasonable solution at all.

If you fail to see the correlation then allow me to illustrate. Hopefully, you will make an effort to grasp the connection instead of acting like my Scarlet A buddies and refuse debate that they know they can't win with logic.


Lakota Land was sold by the French, who were busy paying for wars with land deals, not the natives living there. Does this invalidate the Lakota claim to THOUSANDS of years of history? Does this validate creating a new Lakota nation inside the US regardless of how the US takes it?

I think I've already answered this. They can make all the claims they wish, but no more than in the 19th C are they going to make headway, other than perhaps getting some dollars, but that really isn't the point, is it?

Likewise, Israel was sold by Ottomans who were busy paying for war pre-ww1, DESPITE THE NATIVES LIVING THERE.. When Brittain conquered the land and eventually carved out israel does this invalidate the Pal claim to the land? Does this validate creating a new Jewish nation inside Palestine regardless of how the US takes it?


Regardless if the Pals didn't have trains, read engrish or wear shoes they are still similarly guided by the same instinct that M14 conveys. Which, if you don't mind me saying so, proves my point in a timely manner with an excellent example in our own nation.

Actually no. The Balfour Agreement didn't establish Israel, that took the UN after the completion of WWII. I'm not saying that Balfour didn't mess things up, it certainly did, but notice no wars? Well excepting WWII.

Certainly, there is an immediate refusal to accept a comparison between israel and ANY example of similar circumstance if it deflates israels balloon. South African Aparthied? naaaaaaa... Nelson Mandela's TERRORISM? naaaaaaa... Native American's and Manifest Destiny? Naaaaaaaa... The whisper of a Latino Atzlan in our Southwest? Naaaaaaaaa... And now, The Lakota playing the EXACT SAME hand as Israel? naaaaaaaaa...

Shit at the wall and see what sticks. Great job. I made clear the analogies I thought might be argued by American slavery and Palestinian problem, but you want to widen it and the things just don't click, maybe you can explain?

I'm not picking this bone because of hatred, Kath. I see a purposful complete lack of consistency for the sake of one group out of many who would enjoy their autonomy despite the lives destroyed to attain it. My concern for humanity is not stacked according to ethnicities that i have common DNA with. M14's reaction to the news of the Lakota SHOULD help you understand the unpopular perspective of Pals... I'll be interested in seeing how this golden rule is avoided, beyond merely claiming apples and oranges, by my Scarlet A fans out there.

Hey I was the one that tagged neo-Nazi on you and I don't throw those sorts of labels around. Your post here and others today and yesterday make me withdraw that label. I still don't see the connections you are reaching for, between Lakota and Palestinians, but at least we're on rational ground. I'm interested to read you response.

 

[Lookout]

W*O*W*+ Never mind, I'll just stick to the second amendment stuff.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, again, Ill ask:
Would you fathom launching rockets into Lakota Territory at civilian populations of these Brand New Lakotans lands? At what point will you accept the right of the Lakota to have a nation of their own? Do 6 million have to die first cause I think we've already hit that milestone.

I believe you have my positon on this:
You're sick, and you need help.

 

[mattskramer]

You have heard of the US Constitution, haven't you?

I gave you a no, for the reason I stated -- if the states cannot secede, then neither can a 'nation'.

Nothing you posted does anything to counter that.

Yeah. Colonies signed the constitution. I don’t see where the federal government broke treaties with the state or where the state broke treaties with the federal govenrmnet. Yet, the native Americans were were here long before the colonies, the federal government, the Europeans, etc. The Europeans mande deals (treaties). As the US government was being established, it made deals (treaties) with the Indians. The federal govenrmnet broke those treaties – it was powerful enough to do so. I don’t see where the federal government broke treaties with the state or where the state broke treaties with the federal govenrmnet.

 

[Shogun]

Therapy. Get some. Soon.

Is that seriously your rebuttal? an ad hominem? Gosh... a conservative reaching for an ad hominem instead of pouncing on my points with facts, evidence and logic!?!


I'll admit it.. I set out a trap and you walked right into it. Hell, any answer you give regarding the Lakota will only support my position. I won't respond harshly because I am still thanking you for illustrating my point like a master. I would ask, however, that you try to add something a little more profound..

 

[Shogun]

I believe you have my positon on this:
You're sick, and you need help.

For a sick guy I sure as hell was able to predict your reaction, wasn't I?

Indeed, another ad hominem. profound.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Balfour Agreement didn't establish Israel,

You;re right -- Israel's declaratiuon of independence and - far more importantly - its ability to maintan that independence established Israel.

You can "declare" whatever you want, and you can argue that you have some "right" to whatever floats your boat -- but unless you can actually maintain your claims from those you offend with said claims, your arguments dont mean squat.

Israel was able to back its claims up, and now exists as a sovereign state. It has all the rights of same, has the right to defend its rights with force, and has successfuly exercised that right for almost 60 years.
The crackpots in the indian tribes, should they ever actually try to act on their delusions of greandier, will find themselves swinging on the end of a rope, regardless of what any of you might try to argue.

You might not like it, but might so very often does make right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'll admit it.. I set out a trap and you walked right into it.

Dream on, pally.

 

[Annie]

Yeah. Colonies signed the constitution. I don’t see where the federal government broke treaties with the state or where the state broke treaties with the federal govenrmnet. Yet, the native Americans were were here long before the colonies, the federal government, the Europeans, etc. The Europeans mande deals (treaties). As the US government was being established, it made deals (treaties) with the Indians. The federal govenrmnet broke those treaties – it was powerful enough to do so. I don’t see where the federal government broke treaties with the state or where the state broke treaties with the federal govenrmnet.

Wow Matts, thanks for the clarifying post. NOT.

 

[Shogun]

I'm not being glib here, the problem of the ancient indigenous people is not going to ever be fairly addressed. There may be some clucks, perhaps some token symbols of restitution, but only out of guilt of many generations past and non-meaningful. Doesn't matter if we are talking China, Europe, Africa, Australia, or the Americas. There is no making up for the past and god knows, no land is going to go back.


Not going to be fairly addressed so long as they are Native to America and not Israel, eh? Funny, I don't recall Israel settling for clucks and symbols of restitution. So, there is no making up for the past and no land is gong back...

unless we are talking about israel?





However, the problems with the Americas is not ancient, but the result will be the same, no cessation of land. The indigenous ancestors know this, the government knows this. So what solution? I don't think there is a good one. Actually I fail to see a reasonable solution at all. I think I've already answered this. They can make all the claims they wish, but no more than in the 19th C are they going to make headway, other than perhaps getting some dollars, but that really isn't the point, is it?

So if they start setting up shop and DEFENDING aggressive incursions.... Whose side will YOU root for? I realize this will take some fine hair splitting but....


Actually no. The Balfour Agreement didn't establish Israel, that took the UN after the completion of WWII. I'm not saying that Balfour didn't mess things up, it certainly did, but notice no wars? Well excepting WWII.


No wars? the direct similar purchasing of the land from the ottomans (comparale to France selling the US the LA Purchase) is the product of military conflict regardless if it is as important to us as WW2. If FRANCE selling the land to the US means little to the LAKOTA then why should the selling of the land to EUROPE by the OTTOMANS mean anything to the pals?

Why the double standard?




Shit at the wall and see what sticks. Great job. I made clear the analogies I thought might be argued by American slavery and Palestinian problem, but you want to widen it and the things just don't click, maybe you can explain?

I've clearly explained. Your refusal to comprehend the obvious similarities isn't my problem. The Jews want a land despite Pals living there and a conflict is produced; The Lakota want a land despite the perspective of people like M14 and conflict is produced. It doesn't take a brainiac to see the same thing happen when Latino's put more heart behond their claim to Atzlan. Trying to narrow the discussion because you won't accept the correlation doesn't make apples and oranges, Kath. A refusal to consider that which soils the home team jersey does that.


Hey I was the one that tagged neo-Nazi on you and I don't throw those sorts of labels around. Your post here and others today and yesterday make me withdraw that label. I still don't see the connections you are reaching for, between Lakota and Palestinians, but at least we're on rational ground. I'm interested to read you response.


Thank you, Kath. I truly appreciate it. I;ll admit, I get very passionate about this issue. Being a sarcastic bastard probably doesn't help!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah. Colonies signed the constitution.

States, not colonies.

I don’t see where the federal government broke treaties with the state or where the state broke treaties with the federal govenrmnet.

And this is relevant, because...?

If the states do not have a right to withdraw from the union and form their own country, then a 'nation' -- which is nothing more than a group of people -- do not have that right.

Yes, you can renouce your citizenship, but trying to establish an independent state within tbe borders of a country is a rebellion, and will be treated as such.

 

[Shogun]

You;re right -- Israel's declaratiuon of independence and - far more importantly - its ability to maintan that independence established Israel.

You can "declare" whatever you want, and you can argue that you have some "right" to whatever floats your boat -- but unless you can actually maintain your claims from those you offend with said claims, your arguments dont mean squat.

Israel was able to back its claims up, and now exists as a sovereign state. It has all the rights of same, has the right to defend its rights with force, and has successfuly exercised that right for almost 60 years.
The crackpots in the indian tribes, should they ever actually try to act on their delusions of greandier, will find themselves swinging on the end of a rope, regardless of what any of you might try to argue.

You might not like it, but might so very often does make right.

So, then you'd accept the Lakota Nation if they were successful in fending off the American Military while holding onto their claim? Does this mean that if they get support from, say China or Russia, like Israel has with the US then their claim would be "more' valid?


I realize you feel like you've been dupped but I think your first 5 posts were more honest than most israel supporters will allow. Hell, Can you chop off three of your fingers and count how many Scarlet Letter fans dared to touch this thread?

 

[Shogun]

Dream on, pally.

I don't have to dream on.. I can scroll up.

 

[Annie]

I'm not being glib here, the problem of the ancient indigenous people is not going to ever be fairly addressed. There may be some clucks, perhaps some token symbols of restitution, but only out of guilt of many generations past and non-meaningful. Doesn't matter if we are talking China, Europe, Africa, Australia, or the Americas. There is no making up for the past and god knows, no land is going to go back.


Not going to be fairly addressed so long as they are Native to America and not Israel, eh? Funny, I don't recall Israel settling for clucks and symbols of restitution. So, there is no making up for the past and no land is gong back...

unless we are talking about israel?





However, the problems with the Americas is not ancient, but the result will be the same, no cessation of land. The indigenous ancestors know this, the government knows this. So what solution? I don't think there is a good one. Actually I fail to see a reasonable solution at all. I think I've already answered this. They can make all the claims they wish, but no more than in the 19th C are they going to make headway, other than perhaps getting some dollars, but that really isn't the point, is it?

So if they start setting up shop and DEFENDING aggressive incursions.... Whose side will YOU root for? I realize this will take some fine hair splitting but....


Actually no. The Balfour Agreement didn't establish Israel, that took the UN after the completion of WWII. I'm not saying that Balfour didn't mess things up, it certainly did, but notice no wars? Well excepting WWII.


No wars? the direct similar purchasing of the land from the ottomans (comparale to France selling the US the LA Purchase) is the product of military conflict regardless if it is as important to us as WW2. If FRANCE selling the land to the US means little to the LAKOTA then why should the selling of the land to EUROPE by the OTTOMANS mean anything to the pals?

Why the double standard?




Shit at the wall and see what sticks. Great job. I made clear the analogies I thought might be argued by American slavery and Palestinian problem, but you want to widen it and the things just don't click, maybe you can explain?

I've clearly explained. Your refusal to comprehend the obvious similarities isn't my problem. The Jews want a land despite Pals living there and a conflict is produced; The Lakota want a land despite the perspective of people like M14 and conflict is produced. It doesn't take a brainiac to see the same thing happen when Latino's put more heart behond their claim to Atzlan. Trying to narrow the discussion because you won't accept the correlation doesn't make apples and oranges, Kath. A refusal to consider that which soils the home team jersey does that.


Hey I was the one that tagged neo-Nazi on you and I don't throw those sorts of labels around. Your post here and others today and yesterday make me withdraw that label. I still don't see the connections you are reaching for, between Lakota and Palestinians, but at least we're on rational ground. I'm interested to read you response.


Thank you, Kath. I truly appreciate it. I;ll admit, I get very passionate about this issue. Being a sarcastic bastard probably doesn't help!

Ok, so you are equating the Balfour agreement with the Louisiana Purchase? I'm asking for clarity, then I'm going to have to consider that, which is very different than what I originally took as your argument.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, then you'd accept the Lakota Nation if they were successful in fending off the American Military while holding onto their claim?

Um... that's how the US was created. You knew that, right?
IF they can successfully rebel, then more power to them.
Not a chance in hell of that happening, however.

I realize you feel like you've been dupped

Horse shi'ite. Yours is hardly the first time I've seen this, and it was obvious where you were going -- you're as clever as the lint between my toes.

 

[Annie]

Not going to be fairly addressed so long as they are Native to America and not Israel, eh? Funny, I don't recall Israel settling for clucks and symbols of restitution. So, there is no making up for the past and no land is gong back...

unless we are talking about israel?





However, the problems with the Americas is not ancient, but the result will be the same, no cessation of land. The indigenous ancestors know this, the government knows this. So what solution? I don't think there is a good one. Actually I fail to see a reasonable solution at all. I think I've already answered this. They can make all the claims they wish, but no more than in the 19th C are they going to make headway, other than perhaps getting some dollars, but that really isn't the point, is it?

So if they start setting up shop and DEFENDING aggressive incursions.... Whose side will YOU root for? I realize this will take some fine hair splitting but....


Actually no. The Balfour Agreement didn't establish Israel, that took the UN after the completion of WWII. I'm not saying that Balfour didn't mess things up, it certainly did, but notice no wars? Well excepting WWII.


No wars? the direct similar purchasing of the land from the ottomans (comparale to France selling the US the LA Purchase) is the product of military conflict regardless if it is as important to us as WW2. If FRANCE selling the land to the US means little to the LAKOTA then why should the selling of the land to EUROPE by the OTTOMANS mean anything to the pals?

Why the double standard?




Shit at the wall and see what sticks. Great job. I made clear the analogies I thought might be argued by American slavery and Palestinian problem, but you want to widen it and the things just don't click, maybe you can explain?

I've clearly explained. Your refusal to comprehend the obvious similarities isn't my problem. The Jews want a land despite Pals living there and a conflict is produced; The Lakota want a land despite the perspective of people like M14 and conflict is produced. It doesn't take a brainiac to see the same thing happen when Latino's put more heart behond their claim to Atzlan. Trying to narrow the discussion because you won't accept the correlation doesn't make apples and oranges, Kath. A refusal to consider that which soils the home team jersey does that.

Actually here is the difference. The Palestinians cannot militarily evict the Jews, perhaps their allies can, but what would be the outcome? The US government would have zero problems putting down the Lakota, but my guess would rather accomodate. Do you not see the difference? When you speak of Atzlan you must recognize the reason the Spanish were able to conquer was the enemies of that state? Much the same here.


Hey I was the one that tagged neo-Nazi on you and I don't throw those sorts of labels around. Your post here and others today and yesterday make me withdraw that label. I still don't see the connections you are reaching for, between Lakota and Palestinians, but at least we're on rational ground. I'm interested to read you response.


Thank you, Kath. I truly appreciate it. I;ll admit, I get very passionate about this issue. Being a sarcastic bastard probably doesn't help![/QUOTE]

 

[Annie]

This is very confused, while I believe an important topic. Could a mod/admin please expend the time to clear up who is saying what? Thank you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is very confused, while I believe an important topic. Could a mod/admin please expend the time to clear up who is saying what? Thank you.

I'll help:
Shogun doesnt -really- give a hoot about the Lakota, he's simply using them and their "plight" as yet another way to attack Israel.