Words on War

[Spirithawk]

Not worth the effort

[nw_hunter]

I've read and heard much said about wars. Whether they are just or not, but these are the wisest words I've ever heard on the subject. Though spoken long ago I think they can be applied just as well today as back then;


If my warriors are to fight they are too few; if they are to die they are too many.

Hendrick - Mohawk

Smedley Butler on Interventionism (WAR)
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. (Awarded 2 Medals of Honor)

    War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

    I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

    I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

[SHOOTALL]

I like the Marine's idea best . But the other could be  very true .
But nither were offered in the time of ICBM's .

[Dee]

I liken war now, as it was in the past.
The rich man sits on his horse on some hill, and waves his mighty hand. The little man reacts and does the actual fighting and dying. After enough numbers of the little man have done the adequate amount of suffering and dying, and is about to tell the rich man to do his own fighting, the two rich men, ride down off their prospective hills and become friends again, and all is forgotten until the NEX TIME. The little man on the other hand goes home to lick his wounds, and bury his dead, and waits to be talked into doing the dirty work NEXT TIME..
I have said this before but, several years ago Merle Haggard wrote a song concerning this very topic titled "That's the News". One of the lines in the song is very true when it says: Politicians do all the talkin, and the soldier pays the dues.
The American Indian had a unique, but practical way of looking at war. If the tribe was attacked, they fought, and fought to win. If on the other hand "they" attack another group, they once again, "fought to win". If they were gettin whipped? They disengaged and left, living to fight another day, not seeing it as a defeat, but rather recognizing the present circumstances as "unwise to continue".
If an individual did not agree with the proposed battle, he simply withdrew himself, and was not thought less of.
The English, the French, and other European countries have given us a "false sense of honor", and a "false sense of loyalty", to our country when the "cause" is not worthy of fighting for, nor dying for. Thus, our young follow the directions of lying, conniving politicians to battle, only to walk away, or be carried away, with no real accomplishment, either real, or imagined, while their mothers and fathers swell with pride, that their sons and daughters are dying to support what is eventually found to be a lie. These two present wars, were, and are, based on lies, yet some STILL support the wars, and not one politician has left he busy schedule to go and actually fight for what he so vehemently supports. I support only the men fighting them. In my 60 years of life, I have never seen a politician that believed his cause to the point, that he laid down his political rhetoric, and picked up a rifle to help physically fight for HIS CAUSE.
War is not about honor. War is about killing, and I have seen lots of killing. At the end of the day, the dead, remain dead, and the lie, is still a lie.
As a side note, the Europeans also brought with them the "watch", making "time" a real pain in the ass. Is it not?

[Dee]

Man's nature is to manipulate, manage, and dictate, whether in small increments or world wide. Man's other nature is to follow blindly behind some jackass that appears to know, but may not, what he is doing. The majority of the United States is sadly in the later faze of man's nature, and is at the present following an entire gaggle of jackasses, or herd, for you more politically correct folks.

[Spirithawk]

Gone

[prairiedog555]

Ron Paul is correct in saying that the days of the US being the world's policeman should be over.
I am sad every time I hear of one of our boys dying for Iraqi's or Afghans that don't have enough courage or morals to fight for themselves.

[SHOOTALL]

Lots of good thoughts here . I would add treaties only make the problem larger !

[Spirithawk]

gone

[SHOOTALL]

Its all about profit and NWO. Shame we didn't follow what George Washington said about getting entangled in forgin affairs .

[Pat/Rick]

+1 shootall. Now the morons are bringing up the lithium deposits. Crapola! there are lithium deposits just as if not bigger in Bolivia! And a heck of a lot easier to get to. Just as expensive to develop. The pipeline deal fell through with Yugoslavia, the russians got that one after the klinton and the un made a hash out of that fiasco. Next deep water port was in Georgia and russia said, GIT! SO....... lets conquer crapistan and we can get oil through there maybe, if nothing else we can at least fund this bravo sierra with the money the CIA is making off of the poppy fields. Follow the money. What would the corrupt do if people got out of the military and didn't enlist anymore. And them refuse to report for conscription. The lying fed gooberment cheated the native american indians out of the black hills so hearst could go get the ore, the feds illegally overrun the sovereign nation of Hawaii stole it because big business wanted a go at her resources. Follow the money. The bankers got caught in the BS mortgage crap trying to cheat the system with insider trading and the gooberment paid them off so they didn't call their notes due. War will pay for it, we'll borrow more from japan and china. Follow the money. This nation is being sold to make a few rich. Let them eat cake.

[Swampman]

If I could reenlist in the US military to go to war, I would.  The pay is better than what I'm making.

[WylieKy]

Interesting,,,I think that stuff came later.  I don't know much about the Native American cultures.  I assume they did not lock teepees and lodges, nor invented the lock; had no fences, and private ownership of land was about nil except for one's personal goods. Was charging 'interest' for borrowing a non-concept, too?

...TM7
.

Native American cultures were for the most part a craftsman culture, like most hunter-gather or nomadic cultures.  You really couldn't steal.  There is not much point in taking someone's spear or bow or shirt when it was a one of a kind and everyone knew who made it and for whom.  Within the tribe that is.  External raiding for goods was fairly common although the outright killing or slaughter of the enemy was more rare (pre white man.)  As far a land ownership goes, most tribes moved on a regular basis due to game shortage and the lack of plumbing.  ewwww

[Dee]

There is much said, and there has been  much said about the Indian not understanding land ownership, and that they thought it was odd that the white man wanted to own land. The American Indian laid claimed to "winter camping" areas, hunting grounds, summer grounds, and if you were foolish enough to drift into them your would be lucky to escape with your life. The only difference is the white man wanted it in writing, and the American Indian wanted it in blood.

[Swampman]

James Fenimore Cooper's "Leatherstocking Tales" and similar works have greatly influnced how we think.  Alas, none are noble but all will do as suits them best under the right conditions.

[Spirithawk]

Won't have you slander their memory.

[Squib]

where are the quotes from spirithawk?  I'd like a link or two if you could provide some to your personal favorites.

[Spirithawk]

gone

[WylieKy]

It also helped that it's pretty much impossible to steal a 1 of a kind item.  It would be like stealing a Letterman Jacket with someones jersey number on it.  You might get a clean get away but the 1st time you wore it to school, everyone would know exactly who's it was.  Native Americans were some of the most accomplished thieves around, they just didn't steal from their tribe.  Many were kind, generous people who would go out of their way to help a stranger in need.  They would share their food, fire, shelter, and some would even share their female slaves. 

Some would cut your throat in your sleep and take everything they could carry and burn the rest.  The Vikings were the same way, as were the Celts, the Russ, the Mongols, and most other ancient nomadic peoples. 

[Swampman]

"The Comanches and Kiowas stayed away: We have too many horses, one chief said, to risk "among such notorious horse thieves as the Lakotas and Crows." The Pawnees also refused to come: they were afraid the Lakotas would kill them."

[Dee]

Who said that Swampy, and when?

[Swampman]

1851 the Lakota (not originally plains Indians) as they have for over 300 years are trying to take land from the plains tribes.  The US Government is trying to get them to stop killing one another over land and to stop attacking wagon trains that are passing through on the way west.~Fort Larime~

[Spirithawk]

gone

[Swampman]

War/fighting isn't what made America into the greatest nation that will ever exist.  Small Pox and a few other pathogens started that in the late 1400s.  Noone knew this at the time or could have done anything about it if they did.

I didn't write history but I've read hundreds of first person accounts.

The Creeks and the Cherokees understood ownership quite well.  They owned lots of farms and slaves.  No race is nobel.  History isn't pretty.  This wan't the Garden of Eden.

[WylieKy]

 No race is nobel.  History isn't pretty.  This wan't the Garden of Eden.

Yeah.  A lot of what SH says is true, but I can't understand the "we were perfect in perfect harmony, loving nature, and only doing kind to others."  mentality.  By denying the crimes and faults of your own people you doom yourself and future generations to repeat them.   I mentioned the Vikings before, and I have a lot of family history there.  They were among the most giving of peoples.  Being a guest in a Jarl's hall meant you wanted for nothing, even if the Jarl himself had to go hungry.  Even if you were an outsider or enemy.  On the other hand, when they came ravening out of the fjord's looking for a good death, they would rape your wife, take your food, and kill your dog (not necessarily in those combination's, lol.)

And yes Tm7, there was no word for me nor I untill the Europeans came and a new language was learned.

First of all, most royal court's also used "we" in place of "I". And I will drop an  there. 

While we're talking of communal language, most tribes referred  to themselves as "people" or "humans" and non-tribe members as "not-people" or "others."  Aniyunwiya (self name of Cherokee) "The Principal People".   Lakota "The People".  Tsistsistas (Cheyenne) The Human Beings.  Many of the other names such as Iroquois and Algonquin were a meta-name for a mishmash of tribes and means "the allies."  For there to be "allies" don't there have to be "enemies?"  I could keep going, but the fact is that just like every other peoples since the tower of Babel the Native Americans consisted of groups of "Us" and "them" and they warred, raided, stole, loved, hated, helped, and hurt each other just liked every other group of people.   

[Spirithawk]

not worth the effort

[Spirithawk]

not worth the effort

[Spirithawk]

Not worth the effort

[Dand]

I'm poorly qualified to wade into this discussion but I'll offer a little perspective from what I understand of some Alaskan tribes. I mean no offense to anyone and will be the first to admit my info may not be the most reliable.

I currently live in Yup'ik country in SW Alaska. I think popular convention tends to depict "Eskimos" Yup'ik, Inupiat, Inuit, etc as generally non-waring. I think overall that may have been true but there are instances of serious violence too. We have a little historical program on the radio that digs into old legends and lore. One piece is about the War of the Eye. It started with the accidental blinding of one eye of a village leader's son. That village leader then blinded the eye of a member of the offending family (may have been from another village- I'm not clear on this.) The conflict kind of grew and spread, tit for tat over years I think. If I have it right, this was just pre-contact times and the issue wasn't really stopped until the Russians established their presence. I'm not clear but I think there was some killing, maybe more maiming. But the hostilities dragged for a long time.

Another account of a war, which might be related to the Eye is described; again just before Russians / Europeans came on the scene. A group of far western coastal people were moving along the Bristol Bay coast in a floatilla of kayaks.  Word came to a village on the Nushagak River that this flotilla was coming to do harm. The River villagers laid a trap among some islands at the river mouth.  They strung a long rope(s?) from mainland to islands about 200-300 yards off and sank them. Then laid in wait on the islands and mainland heavily armed. When the flotilla entered the passage moving fast with the inflowing tide, the River people pulled the ropes up, capsizing the kayaks and killing the invaders as they came ashore.  Legend has it that a lot of people were killed and the invasion was repelled.

An account by a European explorer some years later says many skulls and bones were found on those islands. Now whenever I run my boat thru that passage I look at the area much differently than before I heard the legend.

Also, when I worked along the Kuskokwim River, I heard bits and pieces of lore that there has been a long long animosity between up-river and down-river people. If I have it right (??) in the old days the up-river people were a little richer for having trees and wood, moose and more abundant meat supplies, better shelters. The up-river folks would raid the down-river people for seals, seal oil, and women (my memory is real sketchy on this).  Now days, there is more prosperity down river because of govt jobs and commercial fishing. The down-river folks have the money to buy bigger boats and gas.  They come up-river to hunt moose and camp, etc - to the irritation of the very impoverished up-river people.  

The Tlingit, Haida, and Eyaks of South Coastal Alaska were known for raiding villages of opposing clans and tribes for slaves and goods. Its my understanding that there were frequent conflicts and ever-shifting alliances. They had a very fierce fighting reputation and Sitka area people drove out the Russians for a time. I think the Copper River delta area (Eyak?) was never really controlled by Russians until the US bought the territory.

Some human skulls are found on an island in Dutch Harbor/ Unalaska. Research and carbon dating put the skulls at pre-Russian contact. I think there is a legend that the island was the site of a war among Aleut groups. I think the skulls have been viewed as corroborating the story.

Again going on my very sketchy understandings, I have the impression that quite a bit of Native American warfare was often highly ritualized in a manner that much of the time, kept actual mortalities much lower than European and Asian warfare - with exceptions of course.  Boundary challenges may have been common but more of a push and shove affair. Maybe flaring up when food and other resources became short.

Seems I've heard some speculation that with European contact, disease etc, began a long period of disruption and disorder that set off a lot of conflicts.

Bottom line like others here have said: where ever you go, people are still people and seem to be willing to harm others for various reasons or no good reason at all. And who knows, even here some of those wars might have grown from a few hot-heads rallying others to unneeded mayhem.

Certainly many of the recent conflicts world-wide (since 1800's) caused by the machinations of big business and big egos have cost millions of lives untold agony and terrible wastes of resources. It would be nice if we could learn to do better.

[Swampman]

As Spirithawk's only methods have been to insult, and give really long off topic replys I don't know of anything else to say really.  I would encourage folks to study history and stop repeating myths and being biased based on race.  Hollywood and many 19th c writers gave birth to the concept of the "Nobel Savage" and that all was well (a Garden of Eden) before the evil white man got here.  While they are historical novels I would encourage folks to read Allen Eckerts books on the American frontier as they are based on first person accounts. You will then have a fair and balanced view. Live long and prosper.