On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:16 AM, Anne Pemberton wrote:

> Lyle,
>
> Enter "John Brown slave revolt" in google and you will learn who he  
> was and how he, too, led an unsuccessful slave revolt which was, as  
> I pointed out, well supported by the good-hearted US citizens who  
> were opposed to slavery.
Your phraseology was unclear as it appeared that by your assessment  
John Brown was black. The historic John Brown the abolitionist was  
the person you have now clarified as to identity.
>
> Another, purely racist act that resulted in "mass murder" was  
> Andrew Jackson's enforced removal of the Native Americans from  
> their lush lands in the East to a western desert, with starvation  
> and attrocities against the hapless victims all along the "Trail of  
> Tears". I'm sure you will come up with some sort of justification  
> for that racist act, as you did with the other examples of "mass  
> murder" that I proposed. Yet, if you study the colonial history and  
> pre-contact history of Native Americans, you will learn that it was  
> NOT the Native way of wagin war to kill off women and children.
That is simply not true. Your grounding in history needs to be  
upgraded. For instance, Powhatan, upon the advice of his shamen,  
annihilated a tribe to the east on the grounds that they were going  
to cause him big problems. Just after that, the English sailed into  
view. So again, we have a situation wherein the leadership acted on  
faulty intel with drastic results for the recipients of their  
largess. It was a case of right direction, wrong group. Other  
examples are available.

> The innocents were rounded up and "enslaved" to the victors, such  
> slavery being somewhat less onerous than the slavery enacted  
> against African-Americans in that the "slaves" were allowed to  
> assimilate and marry into the tribe and take their place as members  
> of their new family.
That is an age-old means of widening the gene pool to prevent in- 
breeding, despite it's disruptions to the general peace and order.  
But, each tribe did so against the others in it's interaction area.  
To clarify the point, it is my understanding that adult males were  
killed and that women of childbearing age and children were afforded  
the "opportunity" to be "adopted" into the new tribe. That must have  
been a really pleasant experience for one and all.

> It was only after the white men showed the Indians that warfare was  
> best conducted with mass murder of men, women and chidren, that the  
> Indians adopted that means of warfare to the detriment of those who  
> invaded their lands on the "frontiers".
Again, that simply is not true. During the attack on March 22, 1622,  
men, women and children were slaughtered. Other examples from other  
groups can be documented.
>
> While much deliberation went before the bombing of the Japanese  
> cities, I suspect that more Japanese were killed and maimed than  
> there were American soldiers who were "saved" by this attrocious act.
That is again simply not true. If I remember correctly, the planners  
used historical information from casualty figures from the island  
hopping campaign to arrive at their figure of at least 500,000 to a  
worst-case scenario of 1.7 to 2 million American casualties from  
invasion of the Japanese home islands. I have to wonder at the moral  
compass of those who would allow our people that casualty level when  
more effective means were available to send the message that a war we  
did not start needed to be ended by a leadership that advocated  
fighting to the death of the last human being on those islands.
>
> And, to my way of thinking, bombing and killing innocent Iraqi's
Our military has taken greater pains than any other in the history of  
the world to avoid civilian casualties, to the point where it can be  
argued that it cannot effectively do it's job and to the point where  
we take far more casualties than we should. But your assertion that  
we intend to bomb and kill innocent Iraqi's is simply wrong and  
misleading. Please elevate your level of understanding of the means  
and methods of warfare before you put these statements out in public.

> and raise the death toll above that which Hussein already enacted,
That is not the case. Google Hussein's totals and he's well up there.

> is not a good way to do away with a despot.
The best way was a decapitation strike to take him and his government  
leaders out at once. Unfortunately, he was a bit justifiably paranoid  
and was, despite our best efforts, not findable ahead of the invasion.

> Do a comparison of the numbers, as much as we know them, of the  
> Iraqi killed by Hussein to establish his power, and the number of  
> Iraqis killed by our effort to depose him
  That argument does not hold weight for any objective view.

> (and we are still killing innocents even though the despot is now  
> dead).
We are killing innocents because his henchmen and fellow travelers  
hide behind them; and as the inevitable "collateral damage" that we  
have tried to avoid.
>
> I'm am not nearly as certain as you seem to be that war is  
> "justified" on such a broad basis.
Fine, then you may find yourself or your descendants living under one  
of those dictatorships if we do not engage a determined enemy. If  
that is your wish, so be it. I would not wish that on anyone. It is a  
sad commentary when power comes from the muzzle of a gun and peace  
also comes as a result of power.

Lyle
>
> Anne
>
>
> Anne Pemberton
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.erols.com/apembert
> http://www.educationalsynthesis.org