Lakota break away from US

[Gunny]

So then you have no problem accepting Atzlan as long as they have enough fire power to repel the US military? This might makes right arguement is kinda silly. And yes, 150 + years of warring with the natives, making a mere 50 in israel tiny in comparison, indicates that it's not just a matter of whose got the bigger guns.

The US didn't just CLAIM the land, Gunny. France sold it after just CLAIMING the land. Didn't I shoot a similar analogy your way regarding me squatting on your personal yard the other day? Are you telling me that If I have enough weaponry to force your compliance then IM the one in theright?

No, Gunny, this isn't a simple matter of who has the bigger military balls. the Natives and the Pals didn't come a looking for this conflict and planting a flag with one hand while holding a gun in the other is not a valid claim in this western nation of LAWS. You know, LAWS like how we make and break TREATIES? If we can ignore the treaties we've made then why can't everyone else ignore the treaties that WE champion?

Throughout history, the strong have pushed out the weak. You don't have to agree with the argument, nor like it, but THAT is the way it is.

If you come and try to take my yard I'm going to fight. If you kill me, you can have it for all I care. But if you're determined to take it, then you'll stop at nothing less and neither will I. Winner gets the yard.

Sure it's the same as the Pali argument, and you and I agree on neither. My standard is the same. It's the standard of the history of the world. Nobody's going to give anything back.

And no, it's NOT okay with me. Personally, I think it's a joke. They're not going to win. You know it, and I know it.

 

[Lookout]

Gunnyl threatens shogun that he will kick his ass and force him to mow his lawn

 

[Shogun]

Only in your world. That's why you are not respected. If you want to mod, you got to get with reasoning, IMO. Of course, Scooter has a different parameter, so maybe you are cool in any case.

I was never looking for respect when I was drafted into this role. If being a mod means that I cannot debate issues that chaffe your loyalties then I'll thank Gunny for the opportunity and turn in my badge.

did you ever explain the Difference between the Lakota and the Jews or is this where your logic hiccups? One would think consistency would be respectable. Especially when the price in humanity is explained by the very bitter refusal on this thread to reject a Lakota nation carved from our own country. If you can't figure out how to give the pals a little human consideration by the testement of our very own AMERICAN reaction to usurped land then I'm pretty sure it's not logic motivating your opinion of these muslims. Hell, it's not as if generations of Americans thought natives were MERELY evil savages too, eh?

 

[Lookout]

Shogun takes the challenge but exclaims he is chaffed and starts to do an indian war dance

 

[Gunny]

Oh, you mean like that ancient claim of the Jews to Israel? NOW it's not worth anything? How to you come to that conclusion, Gunny? Se sure to let me know why Natives and their 10k years and historic evidence is less moving to you than the 5k jewish claim.

Show me where the Constitution applies to NON-STATES. show me how any state was involuntarily drafted into the union. THE LAKOTA ARE NOT A STATE. THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE UNION. IF THEY WERE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO TREATIES IN THE 150 YEARS OF WARRING WITH THEM AS A RECOGNIZED TRIBAL NATION.


Sure, the troops will go in and kill. Shall I extend this question further to ask what is different about death from US Troops rebuking a historic claimi to a homeland in the US and the very same thing against jews in israel? AGAINST CIVILIAN LAKOTAS, even? Is Palestine RIGHT then if they muster the muslim nations and FORCE the jews out of Israel?

The Jews ancient claim to Israel doesn't mean shit. The Balfour Agreement of 1924 partitioned Palestine and provided the Jews with a homeland; which, had it been acted upon then, might have saved 6m Jews.

The precedent set by the US Civil War was that all US land is owned and controlled by the US Federal Gov't. Regardless, you are missing my point.

The Constitution did not preclude Southern states from seceeding either, but the US decided otherwise and used force of arms to keep them in the Union.

If the Lakota or the Pali's want to die in lost causes, they can waste their lives on hopeless efforts all they want.

 

[Lookout]

I'm Fucking laughing so hard I cant continue!!!!!

 

[Shogun]

Throughout history, the strong have pushed out the weak. You don't have to agree with the argument, nor like it, but THAT is the way it is.

If you come and try to take my yard I'm going to fight. If you kill me, you can have it for all I care. But if you're determined to take it, then you'll stop at nothing less and neither will I. Winner gets the yard.

Sure it's the same as the Pali argument, and you and I agree on neither. My standard is the same. It's the standard of the history of the world. Nobody's going to give anything back.

And no, it's NOT okay with me. Personally, I think it's a joke. They're not going to win. You know it, and I know it.

well, what IS and what we think IS IS probably dependand upon what the defini.. hehehe.. nevermind.

No, Gunny, I don't know that they wont have their lakota nation. People thought the same thing about Israel back in the day. People think the same thing about Atzlan right now. I cannot predict the futre and neither can you. Life is not static and neither are borders. I defy you to name one nations whose borders never change.

HAWAII is one more example I forgot to toss onto the pile... But, the bonfire seems toasty enough so I'll save that one.


My point in this thread was to convey how perception to usurped land will cause a predictable reaction. I'll let you go ahead and connet the dots between your willingness to use force to evict me from your yard, willingness to use force to retain lakota lands and palesinian use of kassam rockets. For the record, I don't agree with the violent reaction from any side BUT if you can rationalize israel then you have to do the same with the lakota if you wish to remain consistant and not convey a double standard based on racism.

 

[Lookout]

Thanks for the fun guys...When you get a chance after you all have a beer and cool down, take a look back at this thread, its some funny stuff

 

[Gunny]

Gunnyl threatens shogun that he will kick his ass and force him to mow his lawn

Even *I* am not THAT mean. Having to mow the lawn to the wife's satisfaction is a fate worse than death.

 

[Shogun]

The Jews ancient claim to Israel doesn't mean shit. The Balfour Agreement of 1924 partitioned Palestine and provided the Jews with a homeland; which, had it been acted upon then, might have saved 6m Jews.

The precedent set by the US Civil War was that all US land is owned and controlled by the US Federal Gov't. Regardless, you are missing my point.

The Constitution did not preclude Southern states from seceeding either, but the US decided otherwise and used force of arms to keep them in the Union.

If the Lakota or the Pali's want to die in lost causes, they can waste their lives on hopeless efforts all they want.

Wooaaaa.. are you sure you want to admit that?

And, had the Lakota and other tibal nations HAD A HOMELAND ISNTEAD OF BEING KILLED OFF AT A RATE much MUCH HIGHER THAN 6 MILLION.....

Im not missing the point. If we were to give Texas to the jews for a new israel then TEXAS WOULD LEAVE THE UNION RATHER THAN GIVE UP THEIR LAND. and then FIGHT tooth and nail to remember the fricking alamo.


and, if US history serves me, fighting for your rights isn't a lost cause. Give me liberty or give me death, right? Dont tread on me? Remember that stuff?

 

[Gunny]

well, what IS and what we think IS IS probably dependand upon what the defini.. hehehe.. nevermind.

No, Gunny, I don't know that they wont have their lakota nation. People thought the same thing about Israel back in the day. People think the same thing about Atzlan right now. I cannot predict the futre and neither can you. Life is not static and neither are borders. I defy you to name one nations whose borders never change.

HAWAII is one more example I forgot to toss onto the pile... But, the bonfire seems toasty enough so I'll save that one.


My point in this thread was to convey how perception to usurped land will cause a predictable reaction. I'll let you go ahead and connet the dots between your willingness to use force to evict me from your yard, willingness to use force to retain lakota lands and palesinian use of kassam rockets. For the record, I don't agree with the violent reaction from any side BUT if you can rationalize israel then you have to do the same with the lakota if you wish to remain consistant and not convey a double standard based on racism.

No, actually if I can rationalize Israel, to remain consistent, I can rationalize the United States.

Israel exists. Some can't get over that, but it does. The Pali's are trying to destroy what is there. The US exists. The Lakota are trying to destroy what is there.

Both wars were lost LONG ago. Time to get over it and move on. Some people can't it seems.

When you start giving shit back and you take all the way back to the beginning of mankind, do we all (mankind) try to stand on the same chunk of land?

 

[Shogun]

Even *I* am not THAT mean. Having to mow the lawn to the wife's satisfaction is a fate worse than death.

Id make a horrible lawnmower man anyway!

Im out for the weekend! You all have a good one!


Even You, M14.

 

[Shogun]

No, actually if I can rationalize Israel, to remain consistent, I can rationalize the United States.

Israel exists. Some can't get over that, but it does. The Pali's are trying to destroy what is there. The US exists. The Lakota are trying to destroy what is there.

Both wars were lost LONG ago. Time to get over it and move on. Some people can't it seems.

When you start giving shit back and you take all the way back to the beginning of mankind, do we all (mankind) try to stand on the same chunk of land?

60 year old nations are not as concrete as you may think. Israel has existed before and may not in another hundred years. Neither may the US for that matter. 200 years is HARDLY an achievement.

And it's probably easy to say move on from this vantage point as the dominators instead of the dominated. I'll be interested to see if the UN makes waves about Americas refusal to accept a nation for an indigenous population while insisting the pals to the same for israel. Hopefully, at the very least, you can understand how a common REACTION accross cultures probably doesn't make pals any more EVIL than any other marginalized group of people being flung around by the whims of those with bigger guns.

It's just a shame that my lil Scarlet A flinging buddies decided to skip a thread like this. I can't say that it's surprising though.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Might makes right. Always has, aways will.
If you have ever thought otherwise, you're simply deluding yourself.
(Not that that's not obvious)

Might makes legal. Not right. Remember that when a democrat president goes back to doing things like ruby ridge and Waco.

 

[Lookout]

That will wrap it up for tonight. Be sure to come back next week to find out just where this whole thing ends up. Also, next month you can catch all the action of your favorite stars and a special, no holds barred, barbwire and handcuff cage match...Only on Pay Per Text.

Did you see the ferocity of shogun tonight?

Yeah, did you see M-14 scoot on out of here like his pants were on fire?

I think he might have been going to get something or someone...Guess we'll find out next week.

On behalf of U.S Message board sports this has been a free presentation.

Peace...Out

Sit ooboo Sit

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually the Indian "tribes" have some standing as Independent entities. The Constitution recognizes them and authorizes Congress the power to deal with them on trade issues.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Though as one can see the same clause grants the same power to the Congress for States.

There is no legal document that establishes that the United States does NOT consider Indian Territories as part and parcel of the United States. Further since the clause specifically mentions foreign Nations it is clear the Constitution did NOT mean for Indian tribes to be classed as foreign nations.

The Civil War is an apt example of what will happen if the Indian tribes rebel.

Now so some one doesn't accuse me of posting with out a link, here is the millionth link to the US Constitution...

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Shogun your analogy fails miserably. You realize that if the Lakota start a "war" with the US it won't be the US resorting to terror by lobbing mortors into peaceful towns, nor missiles, nor kidnapping Indians. The Indians will become as despised as the Pals are because they will have to resort to terror or accept surrender.

Your comparing them to Israel fails miserably. And they wouldn't even have any legit claim to being a "country" to boot. They lost that claim over 100 years ago. They are part of the United States. They are granted autonomy like a State is. Further they get more than a State does because the US Government does not tax them, allows them to run their own commerce and pays them. The US considers them citizens of this country and they get to chose to either live on the reservation with no right to vote but with other rights OR to move into the mainstream US population with all rights of what ever State they live in. Further they get the right to revert to the reservation at will.

 

[Annie]

I was never looking for respect when I was drafted into this role. If being a mod means that I cannot debate issues that chaffe your loyalties then I'll thank Gunny for the opportunity and turn in my badge.

did you ever explain the Difference between the Lakota and the Jews or is this where your logic hiccups? One would think consistency would be respectable. Especially when the price in humanity is explained by the very bitter refusal on this thread to reject a Lakota nation carved from our own country. If you can't figure out how to give the pals a little human consideration by the testement of our very own AMERICAN reaction to usurped land then I'm pretty sure it's not logic motivating your opinion of these muslims. Hell, it's not as if generations of Americans thought natives were MERELY evil savages too, eh?

Again, time and place. The Jews did not carve their nation out of Palestinian land. The land belonged to neither, but to others, that willingly ceded the land to UN, for two states, one of which was rejected.

I can see why you'd say the Plains Indians should have their own state, as it was basically the lands that most larger reservations were located. However with Manifest Destiny, the trains, farming and ranching, the culture of the Plains Indians was destroyed, even by the Native Americans themselves. The Indians never 'owned' the land, the concept wasn't part of their culture. Even if there were, the government is never going to establish a 'Indian State' any more than a 'Black State' after the Civil War.

Before you jump in and say 'aha! That's what the Jews do,' No, it's not. They are unwilling to be over run by the Right of Return, by people generations later saying they have the 'right.' Europe itself has started looking at their immigration problems, for the same reason. The Middle East, where Israel happens to be located, it's very common to refuse citzenry to any immigrants, in fact they are forced to pay dhimmi if employed and not Muslim, on top of any normal taxes.

This thread grew while I was gone, I've not read all the way through, sorry if I duplicate others.

 

[Annie]

...

HAWAII is one more example I forgot to toss onto the pile... But, the bonfire seems toasty enough so I'll save that one.


My point in this thread was to convey how perception to usurped land will cause a predictable reaction. I'll let you go ahead and connet the dots between your willingness to use force to evict me from your yard, willingness to use force to retain lakota lands and palesinian use of kassam rockets. For the record, I don't agree with the violent reaction from any side BUT if you can rationalize israel then you have to do the same with the lakota if you wish to remain consistant and not convey a double standard based on racism.

Hawaii may end up being the one that reverts back. We 'took' it during the 18th Century Imperialism mode, we gave everyone else some measure of autonomy, but not Hawaii. Granted statehood after the war, but annexed after a faked rejection of the monarchy, it stayed as a possession of the US until being made a state. Imperialism in the 19th C was not popular as it was in Europe, it embarrassed many Americans.

Shogun, I do recognize that same embarrassment was not shared by most regarding the Native Americans, with the few exceptions of folks like William Penn, there weren't many voices.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Lakota break away from US

Russell Means has no legal authority to do any of this. He's an activist, and this is likely a PR stunt. No tribal chiefs or council members were part of the "delegation" to washinton. As far as I can tell, none of this was sanctioned by the Indian tribal government officials.