Decision 2004 and Yales Skull and Bones Society

[Pax]

Imran,
1. The way it's taught is those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.
2. It was always wrong. Our founding fathers fought against tyranny in 1776. So any tyranny by the U.S. exercised after July 4, 1776 is hypocritical and morally corrupt. But this is not tyranny this is eminent domain.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
At the time, no. With today's morality, yes... but you have the problem of putting the square peg of today's morality into the round hole of history... and no matter how much you force it... it don't fit.

And, of course the ends have justified the means.

At the time it should have been wrong, Imran. Amerinds were being treated better elsewhere, by a different sovereign.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The way it's taught is does who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.

So learn from history. I never said any different. Morals change, so you can review your history lessons.

It was always wrong. Our founding fathers fought against tyranny in 1776. So any tyranny by the U.S. exercised after July 4, 1776 is hypocritical and morally corrupt.

Man, did you buy that one hook, line, & sinker. Yes, they fought against 'tyranny'... as long as 'tyranny' means British control. They fought to rule themselves.

And you act shocked that states are hypocritical. Seeing as different parties and leaders ascend to leadership, how can a state NOT be 'hypocritical', unless it is run by one party and every leader agrees 100% with the first one.

It can be morally corrupt to you, but I don't think most people at the time thought so, and that is what counts in deciding what is 'morally corrupt'.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by notyoueither


By your reasoning, the new PM of Canada is corrupt, because his family controls a lot of shipping.

Can you try listening to me?


I'm not saying that having wealth tied to one specific industry AUTOMATICALLY means the person MUST be corrupt, or to just one industry.

I'm saying that the way political leaders can use their wealth, and their ties with industrial leaders, can lead to excessive corruption.

[Imran Siddiqui]

At the time it should have been wrong, Imran. Amerinds were being treated better elsewhere, by a different sovereign.

So simply because other soveriegns treated them different that has any bearing on the morality of the American society? Sorry, at the time it wasn't seen as morally wrong. Legally wrong, perhaps, but not morally.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
I think this is the right forum for discussing conspiracies.

Once again let me state that I am only saying the possibility exists. I have no intent to prove that it does.

Well, good. Too many people go forward from the possibility that a conspiracy could exist and insist that it does. For a moment there, I thought you were doing that.

I guess it must not be so bad that 'people are blind' to what you yourself do not insist exists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm saying that the way political leaders can use their wealth, and their ties with industrial leaders, can lead to excessive corruption.

And you've basically assumed that because certain political leaders have ties to oil they are corrupt.

Seeing as how EVERYONE has interpreted it to mean that way, perhaps you are the one who has written it incorrectly?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

At the time it should have been wrong, Imran. Amerinds were being treated better elsewhere, by a different sovereign.

So simply because other soveriegns treated them different that has any bearing on the morality of the American society? Sorry, at the time it wasn't seen as morally wrong. Legally wrong, perhaps, but not morally.

You made the square pegs and round holes argument, Imran. The morality of dealing with the Amerinds was being decided both above and below the 49th. Your nation, of the same world as mine and with the same information available, made horendous decisions regarding the Amerinds. There were square holes for the square pegs, at the same time that the US acted as if all were round.

Now, we didn't do such a **** hot job ourselves, but campaigns of extermination were never part of the equation up here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You made the square pegs and round holes argument, Imran. The morality of dealing with the Amerinds was being decided both above and below the 49th. Your nation, of the same world as mine and with the same information available, made horendous decisions regarding the Amerinds. There were square holes for the square pegs, at the same time that the US acted as if all were round.

Bull, Canadian/English morality is an entirely different species from American morality. Each society has its own morality which can be as similar or different from the others out there as it chooses. At the time, the decision was not viewed as morally wrong in the US... as seen by President Jackson's popularity.

I'm not sure the English would have considered the action morally wrong anyway, since it wasn't long ago when they were driving the Natives out themselves.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MrFun
Can you try listening to me?

I'm not saying that having wealth tied to one specific industry AUTOMATICALLY means the person MUST be corrupt, or to just one industry.

I'm saying that the way political leaders can use their wealth, and their ties with industrial leaders, can lead to excessive corruption.

OK, so that there are oil companies making profits in the US and abroad while bush is president, and there are others who come from the oil industry within his administration makes him corrupt?

I'm waiting for the dots to be connected here.

[Pax]

NYE,
I choose not push the issue based on the fact that as a member of the military I am not permitted to critique the commander in chief.

Just know that the only way you're going to find out about the true power of an organization is when it no longer has power. Just like what the Radiation experiments the truth did not come out until 1996. Even then it was buried by glossier trivial news.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You made the square pegs and round holes argument, Imran. The morality of dealing with the Amerinds was being decided both above and below the 49th. Your nation, of the same world as mine and with the same information available, made horendous decisions regarding the Amerinds. There were square holes for the square pegs, at the same time that the US acted as if all were round.

Bull, Canadian/English morality is an entirely different species from American morality. Each society has its own morality which can be as similar or different from the others out there as it chooses. At the time, the decision was not viewed as morally wrong in the US... as seen by President Jackson's popularity.

I'm not sure the English would have considered the action morally wrong anyway, since it wasn't long ago when they were driving the Natives out themselves.

And that is an indictment on the US body politic. Different people at the very same time, elsewhere, were making different decisions about how to deal with Amerinds.

PS, it was European colonists that were driven out by the British. The Acadians were driven out, and it is something that is mourned in Canadian history, not celebrated nor defended.

Similarly, our mistreatment of some Amerind bands and tribes is likewise mourned. There was a tribe native to Newfoundland when the British first colonised. The last of them died during the ealry 20th century, after having their population hunted and starved out many years previous.

Saying that the US was seperate from the the rest of the world in morality would have the same basis that the German nation was seperate from all of us in 1943. It is a bull **** argument that abuses historigraphic understanding, pure and simple.

[Pax]

Imran,
Your argument about morality justifies the holocaust, idi Amin, and all the ills of society.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
NYE,
I choose not push the issue based on the fact that as a member of the military I am not permitted to critique the commander in chief.

Just know that the only way you're going to find out about the true power of an organization is when it no longer has power. Just like what the Radiation experiments the truth did not come out until 1996. Even then it was buried by glossier trivial news.

Well, if you have some evidence that you are unable to comment on, then I would suggest the NY Times.

In the mean time, it looks like more of the assumption of conspiracy because there have been other conspiracies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And that is an indictment on the US body politic.

Indeed it may be, but that's not the issue, now is it?

Different people at the very same time, elsewhere, were making different decisions about how to deal with Amerinds.

Indeed... but it really only the Canadians wasn't it? I mean, the French influence really hit home. The Spanish weren't that nice about dealing with Amerindians at the same time and neither were the Portugese.

Simply because the French and their offspring were a bit more enlightened doesn't mean the general morality of the time was what your little group did. If you don't believe me see what the Brits were doing in India at the time, and other evidence of colonial conquest.

it was European colonists that were driven out by the British

Not exactly. Look at the Pequod Wars and King James War to see where the Brits were driving out Native Americans from the 13 colonies.

Saying that the US was seperate from the the rest of the world in morality would have the same basis that the German nation was seperate from all of us in 1943.

Yes, it is. And it was. I mean really, do you ACTUALLY think the German nation in 1943 had the same morality as Britain and France? Obviously it didn't. It had it's own morality at the time, which it justified to itself. I don't see why that is a horrible thing to admit. You may not like their morality (and I'm sure no one on this forum does), but you cannot deny it was a totally seperate morality.

The 'world' morality of the time (world being Europe for the context of the discussion, naturally) 1943 Germany was incorrect, but 1830 America was not. Like I said, colonies.

Your argument about morality justifies the holocaust, idi Amin, and all the ills of society.

Well they all morally justified it to themselves, didn't they? I mean they didn't sit there and say let's do something which we believe is morally wrong! No one does that. So they, themsleves, obviously believed it was morally correct.

They did 'wrong' to us because they lost, plain and simple. If they won, you'd have many people justifying what was done. You wonder what future generations will say about what things we did which is morally unjustifiable.