America's First War

[ogibillm]

No.


But, you may be interested in this, which does identify 'national character:'


1. In 1982, Ronald Reagan asked his arms control advisory committee to conduct a review of Soviet compliance in the 25 years of arms control treaties. It was the first such concerted review ever. The answer to the question of Soviet arms controls compliance was that there was none.
West, "American Betrayal," p. 198.

You might recall, the great man, understanding this about the Soviet 'national character,' famously said: "Trust- but verify."


2. "The Soviet Union repeatedly violates treaties, and the rest of the world turns their heads and proceeds to enter into still more treaties, which the Soviets violate with impunity."
Joseph D. Douglass, Jr., "Why the Soviets Violate Arms Control Treaties," vii, 83.



3. Suggests a question about the naïveté. of Franklin Roosevelt:

Shortly after Roosevelt's first election, he met with Stalin's emissary, to sign a formal agreement with the Soviets.

Roosevelt signed the recognition agreement, and Litvinov "returned to the Soviet embassy.....all smiles....and said 'Well, it's all in the bag; we have it.'"
On September 23, 1939, as Dr. D. H. Dombrowsky testified before the Dies committee. The Winona Republican-Herald ? 20 October 1947 ? Page 12 - Newspapers.com
quoting Litvinov's chortling:

" "Well, it's all in the bag. They wanted us to recognize the debts we owed them
and I promised we were going to negotiate. But they did not
know we were going to negotiate until doomsday. The next one
was a corker; they wanted us to promise freedom of religion
in the Soviet Union, and I promised that, too. I was very much
prompted to offer that I would personally collect all the Bibles
and ship them over."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.33.




If there is any other area in which you require instruction, please don't hesitate to ask.

why do you believe that one potentially broken treaty more than a millennium ago is more relevant to a people's character than a multitude of broken treaties in relatively recent times?

genesis 34

If we were to put a lens in each of your ears we'd have a telescope.



Then, you'd have some utility.

is that all you're going to bring to the conversation? again, i am having difficulty discerning what point your thread is trying to make but i believe you are saying that the united states can't trust muslim or muslim countries because they have broken treaties in the past - does that sum it up?

if that is your position i'd say that the united states is guilty of the same crime - so if they are not to be trusted neither are we.

do you have a reason why your logic applies to muslims and not to the united states?

 

[PoliticalChic]

why do you believe that one potentially broken treaty more than a millennium ago is more relevant to a people's character than a multitude of broken treaties in relatively recent times?

genesis 34

If we were to put a lens in each of your ears we'd have a telescope.



Then, you'd have some utility.

is that all you're going to bring to the conversation? again, i am having difficulty discerning what point your thread is trying to make but i believe you are saying that the united states can't trust muslim or muslim countries because they have broken treaties in the past - does that sum it up?

if that is your position i'd say that the united states is guilty of the same crime - so if they are not to be trusted neither are we.

do you have a reason why your logic applies to muslims and not to the united states?

As long as you continue to pretend that you don't understand the essential characteristic of the culture identified in the OP:

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they inquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."



...I will treat you the way you deserve to be treated:

You qualify for the mental express line of life -- five thoughts or less.

 

[ogibillm]

If we were to put a lens in each of your ears we'd have a telescope.



Then, you'd have some utility.

is that all you're going to bring to the conversation? again, i am having difficulty discerning what point your thread is trying to make but i believe you are saying that the united states can't trust muslim or muslim countries because they have broken treaties in the past - does that sum it up?

if that is your position i'd say that the united states is guilty of the same crime - so if they are not to be trusted neither are we.

do you have a reason why your logic applies to muslims and not to the united states?

As long as you continue to pretend that you don't understand the essential characteristic of the culture identified in the OP:

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they inquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."



...I will treat you the way you deserve to be treated:

You qualify for the mental express line of life -- five thoughts or less.

how is that any different than the way america christians treated the american indian?

 

[elektra]

is that all you're going to bring to the conversation? again, i am having difficulty discerning what point your thread is trying to make but i believe you are saying that the united states can't trust muslim or muslim countries because they have broken treaties in the past - does that sum it up?

if that is your position i'd say that the united states is guilty of the same crime - so if they are not to be trusted neither are we.

do you have a reason why your logic applies to muslims and not to the united states?

As long as you continue to pretend that you don't understand the essential characteristic of the culture identified in the OP:

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they inquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."



...I will treat you the way you deserve to be treated:

You qualify for the mental express line of life -- five thoughts or less.

how is that any different than the way america christians treated the american indian?

america christians and the american indian, maybe you should explain the similarities as a starting point to your premise.

 

[elektra]

is that all you're going to bring to the conversation? again, i am having difficulty discerning what point your thread is trying to make but i believe you are saying that the united states can't trust muslim or muslim countries because they have broken treaties in the past - does that sum it up?

if that is your position i'd say that the united states is guilty of the same crime - so if they are not to be trusted neither are we.

do you have a reason why your logic applies to muslims and not to the united states?

As long as you continue to pretend that you don't understand the essential characteristic of the culture identified in the OP:

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they inquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."



...I will treat you the way you deserve to be treated:

You qualify for the mental express line of life -- five thoughts or less.

how is that any different than the way america christians treated the american indian?

america Christians and the american Indian, maybe you should explain the similarities as a starting point to your premise.

 

[ogibillm]

As long as you continue to pretend that you don't understand the essential characteristic of the culture identified in the OP:

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they inquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."



...I will treat you the way you deserve to be treated:

You qualify for the mental express line of life -- five thoughts or less.

how is that any different than the way america christians treated the american indian?

america christians and the american indian, maybe you should explain the similarities as a starting point to your premise.

well christian in the broad sense, in that most of the non-indians involved in any treaty would have been christian.

those treaties were broken so we could steal land, round their people up, slaughter them, take their property...with a good lot of the justification coming from the belief that they were savages and outside of the sight of God.

here's a couple quotes to ponder

"Treaties were never made to be kept, but to serve a present purpose, to settle a present difficulty in the easiest manner possible, to acquire a desired good with the least possible compensation, and then to be disregarded as soon as this purpose was tainted and we were strong enough to enforce a new and more profitable arrangement."

“The more Indians we kill this year, the fewer we will need to kill the next.”

General William Tecumseh Sherman

“Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians. I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God’s Heaven to kill them.”
Colonel John Chivington

"No state can achieve proper culture, civilization, and progress ... as long as Indians are permitted to remain."

President Martin Van Buren

in substance are those any different than the quote PC attributes to Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman

 

[elektra]

how is that any different than the way america christians treated the american indian?

america christians and the american indian, maybe you should explain the similarities as a starting point to your premise.

well christian in the broad sense, in that most of the non-indians involved in any treaty would have been christian.

those treaties were broken so we could steal land, round their people up, slaughter them, take their property...with a good lot of the justification coming from the belief that they were savages and outside of the sight of God.

here's a couple quotes to ponder

“Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians. I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God’s Heaven to kill them.”
Colonel John Chivington

"No state can achieve proper culture, civilization, and progress ... as long as Indians are permitted to remain."

President Martin Van Buren

in substance are those any different than the quote PC attributes to Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman

Christians in the broad sense, correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds like "Christians in a bigoted sense".

War, were we with War with the Indians?

Did Indians commit atrocities?

What Did President Martin Van Buren know of these atrocities as compared to lets say, ogibillm.

Colonel John Chivington, did Chivington ever see the body of Christian, raped, murdered, tortured and mutilated by Indians?

So, if you may I think your post did not address my question of you. If this was your explanation I say you prove you have a very narrow view of our history.

 

[ogibillm]

america christians and the american indian, maybe you should explain the similarities as a starting point to your premise.

well christian in the broad sense, in that most of the non-indians involved in any treaty would have been christian.

those treaties were broken so we could steal land, round their people up, slaughter them, take their property...with a good lot of the justification coming from the belief that they were savages and outside of the sight of God.

here's a couple quotes to ponder

"No state can achieve proper culture, civilization, and progress ... as long as Indians are permitted to remain."

President Martin Van Buren

in substance are those any different than the quote PC attributes to Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman

Christians in the broad sense, correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds like "Christians in a bigoted sense".

War, were we with War with the Indians?

Did Indians commit atrocities?

What Did President Martin Van Buren know of these atrocities as compared to lets say, ogibillm.

Colonel John Chivington, did Chivington ever see the body of Christian, raped, murdered, tortured and mutilated by Indians?

So, if you may I think your post did not address my question of you. If this was your explanation I say you prove you have a very narrow view of our history.

i think it's fair to say that the united states made and broke treaties with the american indian rather routinely, and not recognizing that is an even narrower view of history.

and i don't consider that a Christian trait, however i do recognize that a lot of the bigotry and justification for the treatment of the american indian was rooted in religious bias.

and the point of the quotes was to show the disregard for the american indian, regardless of circumstance, with the emphasis being on Sherman's quote where he flat out says that treaties are only to be kept as long as it isn't more beneficial to disregard them.

the sentiments expressed then are in my opinion the same as those pc is trying to use to paint all muslims as untrustworthy.

 

[elektra]

well christian in the broad sense, in that most of the non-indians involved in any treaty would have been christian.

those treaties were broken so we could steal land, round their people up, slaughter them, take their property...with a good lot of the justification coming from the belief that they were savages and outside of the sight of God.

here's a couple quotes to ponder







in substance are those any different than the quote PC attributes to Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman

Christians in the broad sense, correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds like "Christians in a bigoted sense".

War, were we with War with the Indians?

Did Indians commit atrocities?

What Did President Martin Van Buren know of these atrocities as compared to lets say, ogibillm.

Colonel John Chivington, did Chivington ever see the body of Christian, raped, murdered, tortured and mutilated by Indians?

So, if you may I think your post did not address my question of you. If this was your explanation I say you prove you have a very narrow view of our history.

i think it's fair to say that the united states made and broke treaties with the american indian rather routinely, and not recognizing that is an even narrower view of history.

and i don't consider that a Christian trait, however i do recognize that a lot of the bigotry and justification for the treatment of the american indian was rooted in religious bias.

and the point of the quotes was to show the disregard for the american indian, regardless of circumstance, with the emphasis being on Sherman's quote where he flat out says that treaties are only to be kept as long as it isn't more beneficial to disregard them.

the sentiments expressed then are in my opinion the same as those pc is trying to use to paint all muslims as untrustworthy.

Actually, stating the the USA routinely broke treaties is a narrow view of a historical period. Is your premise even correct, hell, prove your premise. Qualified with a statement stating if I disagree I have a "narrower view of history", is a straw-man argument.

Bigotry is rooted in religious bias, I see your premise as being bigoted, you keep stating it was Christians and Religion that were the aggressors, bigots, yet you offer zero proof other than one small paragraph. You keep repeated the same premise, "christians bad".

Religious bias?

Your examples show you view our history through a bias, that it was the belief in God that killed the Indians.

You are simply wrong and your simple response to the OP fails to show any similarities, I think your posts simply show you blame God and Christians.

You do not know history, I think you read too much of Howard Zinn.

 

[elektra]

And there you have it, ogibillm is quoting Howard Zinn the Marxist teacher who wrote, "The Peoples History of the United States".

And now I will ask you to link, to your quotes, where are your links ogibillm?

No links, come on? Who are you that you do not link your quotes.