CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6980

Kmarion wrote:

Grossly underpopulated? I think not. We have no desire to have the same population density problems Europeans have. Search minuteman articles if you would like. I will simply counter with the real State sponsored historical actions in Europe over the last century. This whole discussion was worth it just to see you liken yourself to the American right wing..lol
I am extremely right wing when it comes to immigration. My forefathers didn't die at the hands of the British to preserve my culture, language and heritage for them later just to be assimilated by immigrant cultures. Ireland is a country for Irish people and those immigrants who meet our entry requirements and who have a desire to blend in to and embrace the Irish culture or at the very least not attempt to alter it. 

I see lots of flags but no independence movement. Are you suggesting that the US are that tolerant of different cultures? Were black people not treated like second class citizens not 40 years ago? Is anti-Spanish language sentiment at an all time high there? Do Muslims not constitute subject matter for a massive proportion of negative airtime? Have Sikhs not been attacked after being mistaken for Muslims? No mass graves but then again no western European nation has been responsible for one in over 60 years. The US was responsible for the deaths of 1.2 million innocents in Vietnam however. We both have murky pasts - to pretend otherwise is just burying ones head in the sand.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6980

ATG wrote:

mexicans populated " their " northern territories post 1600's when the Spanish were booted out. Los Angeles was a empty flood plain surrounded by hundreds of miles of desert. When the Mexicans started coming up, they found Indians trying to work the Spanish farms near the missions. They claim wides swaths of these lands, but had as much historical claim as the Clovis people who were just passing through. Unless you claim the Serrano, Chemehuevi and Cahuilla Indian tribes are Mexicans, this part of your point is vacuous. And if you do claim that, don't say it to a indian as they would be offended.
Legally speaking it was part of Mexico. The US took it by force. QED
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6954|Global Command

CameronPoe wrote:

ATG wrote:

mexicans populated " their " northern territories post 1600's when the Spanish were booted out. Los Angeles was a empty flood plain surrounded by hundreds of miles of desert. When the Mexicans started coming up, they found Indians trying to work the Spanish farms near the missions. They claim wides swaths of these lands, but had as much historical claim as the Clovis people who were just passing through. Unless you claim the Serrano, Chemehuevi and Cahuilla Indian tribes are Mexicans, this part of your point is vacuous. And if you do claim that, don't say it to a indian as they would be offended.
Legally speaking it was part of Mexico. The US took it by force. QED
Right.
Why did we give them the equivilent of $313 million dollars then. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ftw.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7069

CameronPoe wrote:

ATG wrote:

mexicans populated " their " northern territories post 1600's when the Spanish were booted out. Los Angeles was a empty flood plain surrounded by hundreds of miles of desert. When the Mexicans started coming up, they found Indians trying to work the Spanish farms near the missions. They claim wides swaths of these lands, but had as much historical claim as the Clovis people who were just passing through. Unless you claim the Serrano, Chemehuevi and Cahuilla Indian tribes are Mexicans, this part of your point is vacuous. And if you do claim that, don't say it to a indian as they would be offended.
Legally speaking it was part of Mexico. The US took it by force. QED
you could also say they (mexicans) took it from the spanish by force.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-04-07 11:36:09)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6980

ATG wrote:

Right.
Why did we give them the equivilent of $313 million dollars then. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ftw.
I wonder what forced them to the bargaining table eh? It's like telling someone you'll give them $1000 for their house with a gun pointed at their head!
SEREVENT
MASSIVE G STAR
+605|6532|Birmingham, UK

Mek-Izzle wrote:

Hey that's fucked up, it's a shame that European countries have so many neo-Nazi's etc.. Yet they claim to be doing it for their country. These people don't realise that they would've been, and rightly so, rounded up and shot, during the time of warfare.
Simply for being French?

What we are forgetting is that these guys will do the same to the Muslims, either way, someone shoots and someone falls
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6954|Global Command
Least we Americans made a gesture at compensation for our conquests. Unlike certain European entities.

Seems to me that mass graves are still turning up in Europe.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6980

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

you could also say they (mexicans) took it from the spanish by force.
Aztecs owned that land by right. The Spanish were the conquistadors.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7026|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Grossly underpopulated? I think not. We have no desire to have the same population density problems Europeans have. Search minuteman articles if you would like. I will simply counter with the real State sponsored historical actions in Europe over the last century. This whole discussion was worth it just to see you liken yourself to the American right wing..lol
I am extremely right wing when it comes to immigration. My forefathers didn't die at the hands of the British to preserve my culture, language and heritage for them later just to be assimilated by immigrant cultures. Ireland is a country for Irish people and those immigrants who meet our entry requirements and who have a desire to blend in to and embrace the Irish culture or at the very least not attempt to alter it.
That's what I like to see. That's been my point from the beginning.

CameronPoe wrote:

I see lots of flags but no independence movement. Are you suggesting that the US are that tolerant of different cultures? Were black people not treated like second class citizens not 40 years ago? Is anti-Spanish language sentiment at an all time high there? Do Muslims not constitute subject matter for a massive proportion of negative airtime? Have Sikhs not been attacked after being mistaken for Muslims? No mass graves but then again no western European nation has been responsible for one in over 60 years. The US was responsible for the deaths of 1.2 million innocents in Vietnam however. We both have murky pasts - to pretend otherwise is just burying ones head in the sand.
You see no difference in the motivation between murdering millions of innocents on your own soil (within this lifetime) and wars fighting political ideology in foreign lands? We weren't at war in Vietnam because their ethnic background was infringing on Americans. Your attempt to compare segregation and genocide is also mis-proportioned. Muslims constitute more attention now because it was Muslims who flew planes into buildings seven years ago. We didn't see the coverage or ever hear the word Islamaphobe uttered prior to that. Even after the first WTC bombing.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6980

ATG wrote:

Least we Americans made a gesture at compensation for our conquests. Unlike certain European entities.

Seems to me that mass graves are still turning up in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparation … st_Germany
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7187

yes because we had maps and well established borders back then.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7069

CameronPoe wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

you could also say they (mexicans) took it from the spanish by force.
Aztecs owned that land by right. The Spanish were the conquistadors.
I would hardly call any mexican a descendant of aztecs.  truth is, once the spanish left, the mexicans didnt change a bit.  they still lived with the "land owner-indentured farmer" near serfdom model.  only indians left in mexico are in chiapas.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-04-07 11:43:47)

Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7046|London, England

Bf2-GeneralArnott wrote:

Mek-Izzle wrote:

Hey that's fucked up, it's a shame that European countries have so many neo-Nazi's etc.. Yet they claim to be doing it for their country. These people don't realise that they would've been, and rightly so, rounded up and shot, during the time of warfare.
Simply for being French?
I'm saying the Neo-Nazi's (or German conspirators if you're talking WW1, or basically anti-Allied soldier) would've been rounded up and shot by the ALLIES in the war, and rightly so.

Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-04-07 11:45:18)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6980

Kmarion wrote:

You see no difference in the motivation between murdering millions of innocents on your own soil (within this lifetime) and wars fighting political ideology in foreign lands? We weren't at war in Vietnam because their ethnic background was infringing on Americans. Your attempt to compare to segregation and genocide is also mis-proportioned. Muslims constitute more attention now because it was Muslims who flew planes into buildings seven years ago. We didn't see the coverage or ever hear the word Islamaphobe uttered prior to that. Even after the first WTC bombing.
None whatsoever. Killing hundreds of thousands just because you don't like their political stance is pretty disgusting if you ask me. It's basically 'I don't like your opinion, I think I'll shoot you in the head, OK?'. Did Vietnam ever threaten the US? Does it really matter what drives death sprees of such shocking magnitudes?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-07 11:47:28)

jord
Member
+2,382|7103|The North, beyond the wall.

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You see no difference in the motivation between murdering millions of innocents on your own soil (within this lifetime) and wars fighting political ideology in foreign lands? We weren't at war in Vietnam because their ethnic background was infringing on Americans. Your attempt to compare to segregation and genocide is also mis-proportioned. Muslims constitute more attention now because it was Muslims who flew planes into buildings seven years ago. We didn't see the coverage or ever hear the word Islamaphobe uttered prior to that. Even after the first WTC bombing.
None whatsoever. Killing hundreds of thousands just because you don't like their political stance is pretty disgusting if you ask me. It's basically 'I don't like your opinion, I think I'll shoot you in the head, OK?'. Did Vietnam ever threaten the US? Does it really matter what drives death sprees of such shocking magnitudes?
Normally I'd agree, but I see myself wishing harsher punishments for people more and more. Nazi's, in my opinion deserve to die in their thousands.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6980

jord wrote:

Normally I'd agree, but I see myself wishing harsher punishments for people more and more. Nazi's, in my opinion deserve to die in their thousands.
Killed because you were a jew, killed because you were a red. Only difference was in the technique of death administration. It's true though - they are different on a certain level - the Americans didn't want to eradicate the Vietnamese, they just wanted to bomb them into dropping their principles and adopting American ones. If they had continued in the war would they have kept bombing until every last person with those principles no longer existed? Who knows?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-07 11:53:41)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7026|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You see no difference in the motivation between murdering millions of innocents on your own soil (within this lifetime) and wars fighting political ideology in foreign lands? We weren't at war in Vietnam because their ethnic background was infringing on Americans. Your attempt to compare to segregation and genocide is also mis-proportioned. Muslims constitute more attention now because it was Muslims who flew planes into buildings seven years ago. We didn't see the coverage or ever hear the word Islamaphobe uttered prior to that. Even after the first WTC bombing.
None whatsoever. Killing hundreds of thousands just because you don't like their political stance is pretty disgusting if you ask me. It's basically 'I don't like your opinion, I think I'll shoot you in the head, OK?'. Did Vietnam ever threaten the US? Does it really matter what drives death sprees of such shocking magnitudes?
Considering the topic of the discussion it does matter. I understand your need to link the two. But the fact is there is a difference in wars based around political ideology, and ridding your land of people based upon their genetic makeup.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6980

Kmarion wrote:

Considering the topic of the discussion it does matter. I understand your need to link the two. But the fact is there is a difference in wars based around political ideology, and ridding your land of people based upon their genetic makeup.
There is a difference of course but the basis is the same - you don't like a particular group of people so you get rid of them. Why does it matter about which soil such crimes are perpetrated on?
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7161|Salt Lake City

Look guys, the fact is that most, if not all, of the inhabited spots on this planet have been invaded and forcefully taken from a group of people that lived there.  The who, where, and why have changed over time, but the fact is, it happened.  To say that any one group of people were more entitled to it than another would almost come down to determining exactly who first established a human population in that area.  Since those people are no longer around as a single culture, and so intertwined with other cultures, which are now cultures in and of themselves, saying it belonged to some one because they were here first doesn't accomplish anything at this point.

What matters now is that we do have borders that most people recognize.  The days of imperialistic conquests are over, or are nearly extinct.  The cultures of these countries have a right to preserve their culture.  Even the US has a culture.  Yes, it's comprised of numerous cultures, baking for a few hundred years, but the US does now have a culture.  If people want to move here from other nations, they need to adapt and assimilate into that culture, as they should anywhere they go outside of the country of their native culture.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7026|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Considering the topic of the discussion it does matter. I understand your need to link the two. But the fact is there is a difference in wars based around political ideology, and ridding your land of people based upon their genetic makeup.
There is a difference of course but the basis is the same - you don't like a particular group of people so you get rid of them. Why does it matter about which soil such crimes are perpetrated on?
I thought we were talking about accepting diversity in our society. If you are going to expand it to wrongful actions in general than yes, we are very similar. I'm saying that America would have never become the power it is if our ancestors didn't quickly relinquish the old world ideology. Our willingness to accept each other (on the whole) was expedited... out of necessity mind you. It is the only way we could have competed against the established superpowers at the time.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7069

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Look guys, the fact is that most, if not all, of the inhabited spots on this planet have been invaded and forcefully taken from a group of people that lived there.  The who, where, and why have changed over time, but the fact is, it happened.  To say that any one group of people were more entitled to it than another would almost come down to determining exactly who first established a human population in that area.  Since those people are no longer around as a single culture, and so intertwined with other cultures, which are now cultures in and of themselves, saying it belonged to some one because they were here first doesn't accomplish anything at this point.

What matters now is that we do have borders that most people recognize.  The days of imperialistic conquests are over, or are nearly extinct.  The cultures of these countries have a right to preserve their culture.  Even the US has a culture.  Yes, it's comprised of numerous cultures, baking for a few hundred years, but the US does now have a culture.  If people want to move here from other nations, they need to adapt and assimilate into that culture, as they should anywhere they go outside of the country of their native culture.
I think American culture is defined by its diversity more so than any other nation in the world.
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7161|Salt Lake City

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Look guys, the fact is that most, if not all, of the inhabited spots on this planet have been invaded and forcefully taken from a group of people that lived there.  The who, where, and why have changed over time, but the fact is, it happened.  To say that any one group of people were more entitled to it than another would almost come down to determining exactly who first established a human population in that area.  Since those people are no longer around as a single culture, and so intertwined with other cultures, which are now cultures in and of themselves, saying it belonged to some one because they were here first doesn't accomplish anything at this point.

What matters now is that we do have borders that most people recognize.  The days of imperialistic conquests are over, or are nearly extinct.  The cultures of these countries have a right to preserve their culture.  Even the US has a culture.  Yes, it's comprised of numerous cultures, baking for a few hundred years, but the US does now have a culture.  If people want to move here from other nations, they need to adapt and assimilate into that culture, as they should anywhere they go outside of the country of their native culture.
I think American culture is defined by its diversity more so than any other nation in the world.
Yes, that is likely true, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a culture.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6980

Kmarion wrote:

I thought we were talking about accepting diversity in our society. If you are going to expand it to wrongful actions in general than yes, we are very similar. I'm saying that America would have never become the power it is if our ancestors didn't quickly relinquish the old world ideology. Our willingness to accept each other (on the whole) was expedited... out of necessity mind you. It is the only way we could have competed against the established superpowers at the time.
Europeans hold their history, culture, heritage and differences dear to their heart and rejoice in them. We value them and we will always value them. The culture of America is one of diversity by necessity as you stated - but it did not arrive there easily. America did have to cross that bridge of pummelling fellow American into submission in your civil war to mould the modern America. You just crossed that bridge about 80 years before Europe did.

The US seems intolerant of political positions whereas Europe tends to be intolerant of ethnic minorities getting too large or influential (politically/economically).

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-07 12:37:39)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7026|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I thought we were talking about accepting diversity in our society. If you are going to expand it to wrongful actions in general than yes, we are very similar. I'm saying that America would have never become the power it is if our ancestors didn't quickly relinquish the old world ideology. Our willingness to accept each other (on the whole) was expedited... out of necessity mind you. It is the only way we could have competed against the established superpowers at the time.
Europeans hold their history, culture, heritage and differences dear to their heart and rejoice in them. We value them and we will always value them. The culture of America is one of diversity by necessity as you stated - but it did not arrive there easily. America did have to cross that bridge of pummelling fellow American into submission in your civil war to mould the modern America. You just crossed that bridge about 80 years before Europe did.

The US seems intolerant of political positions whereas Europe tends to be intolerant of ethnic minorities getting too large or influential (politically/economically).
It was actually around the civil war that we had the first confrontations with the influx of immigrants. This is about the time Americans started to take issue with the continuous flood of immigrants. The civil war actually detracted from (the native) cause. The Irish and others were literally taken off the ships in New York and told to sign (or mark) two papers. One for citizenship, and one to enlist in the Union. They were immediately shipped to the front lines. Watch Gangs of New York if you ever get the chance. It contains a good amount of historical accuracy tbh.

Or better yet: http://www.amazon.com/Five-Points-Tyler … y_b_text_b
http://www.amazon.com/Gangs-New-York-In … 1560252758
Xbone Stormsurgezz
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7197|PNW

I wonder if they had to sanctify themselves after handling pigflesh. Perhaps the French should get together and donate about fifty crates of SPAM to mosques nationwide.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-07 13:03:46)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard