Vac you have your assumptions wrong again. kennewick man has been shown to be related to the north americans of the area and to be 8.5k-9.5k before now so not preexistent.

Slavery in what became the United States probably began with the arrival of "20 and odd" enslaved Africans to the British colony of Virginia, in 1619. It officially ended with the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865./National Geographic

Athos: O.K., here is a link that should work: https://www.science-frontiers.com/sf109/sf109p02.htm

Kennewick man is a Caucasian "of skeleton" and Caucasian terms have been given to Ainu of northern Japan, so the man may have not been "White" but he sure as heck wasn't "Native American"/Indian, either.

Yes, there may be a "Native American" skull hiding somewhere that we haven't found but with so many people searching to try and delegitimize Kennewick Man as being older than "Native Americans", don't you think we would have found one? Probably means there isn't one! "native Americans" were fairly blood thirsty when it came to rivals: Kennewick Man most likely died at the hands of "Native Americans".

Athos: No, I'll admit: Some 80 years after the creation of the U.S., we did, in fact, continue Slavery AND PROBABLY would have continued it longer if not the Southern States not attempted to succeed from the Union and precipitated The Civil War: The Civil War was a war fought over SUCCESSION, freeing the Slaves was a sidebar and in no way the initiator of the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

No, I'll admit: Some 80 years after the creation of the U.S., we did, in fact, continue Slavery AND PROBABLY would have continued it longer if not the Southern States not attempted to succeed from the Union and precipitated The Civil War: The Civil War was a war fought over SUCCESSION, freeing the Slaves was a sidebar and in no way the initiator of the war.

---

I think you are a little one eyed and still carry the stars and cross bars. The Civil War began when there was succession, this is true, However, the anti-slavery movement precipitated this. Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves because he was as racist as any in america and did not want negros in the US, it became politically expedient to emancipate the slaves in order to pressure the South. The strategy didn't work, the South did not immediately collapse. I personally cannot see why the south could not have been allowed to succeed without the need for war, they were not an industrial economy and eventually would have wanted to rejoin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Yes, there may be a "Native American" skull hiding somewhere that we haven't found but with so many people searching to try and delegitimize Kennewick Man as being older than "Native Americans", don't you think we would have found one? Probably means there isn't one! "native Americans" were fairly blood thirsty when it came to rivals: Kennewick Man most likely died at the hands of "Native Americans".

---

Nonsense.

Quote:

---

The Civil War: The Civil War was a war fought over SUCCESSION, freeing the Slaves was a sidebar and in no way the initiator of the war.

---

Typical "soth'ren" revisionist history.

By the way, to both of you - the word is "secession" NOT "succession".

either way it sucks

Paraclete and Athos: The PRIMARY CAUSE of the Civil War was the Tariff Of Abominations/Tariff Of 1828 that threatened to cripple the Southern economy...this provoked eventual SECCESSION (thank you Athos for straightening me out on the spelling!): The Civil War was not fought for the HIGH MORAL REASON of freeing Slaves! What a joke: White men killing each other for the benefit of Slaves? YOU MUST BE KIDDING! Didn't happen. Northern high-browed ideas floated out there that they did makes them feel "more honorable than the South", is pure fantasy. Ask yourself: Where are RACE relations better today, North or South? Answer who has had RACE RIOTS? Its not the South, its the more "liberal" areas of the country: Detroit, Boston, L.A......you can even go back and research it, the South "gets along" with race better than the North: We grew up with Blacks, worked with Blacks, played with Blacks, eat with Blacks, fought with Black, and prayed with Blacks: I have know MANY, MANY Northerners than did know, play, fight, work, or eat with any Blacks growing up! Yet, those same individuals will be quick to condemn the South and Southern people...to them, I politely say "go to hell."

Paraclete: Stars and Bars in the eyes? That dog won't hunt! I don't have any affiliation to "the South" in terms of heritage: My heritage came to the U.S. after the Civil War, on both sides of the family. I do love the Southern U.S. and wouldn't live anywhere else, by choice.

Athos: "Native Americans" claim as "THE" original INDIGENOUS PEOPLE of the Americas is highly suspect with the finding of evidence that counters that claim....not a sure thing, anymore. I know that the "Native Americans" wanted to monopolize this arena of CLAIM but that is questionable now.

The Civil War started when the confederacy fired on Fort Sumter in 1861, and yes southerners always try to rewrite the history to make it about everything, but slavery, that was the main issue and economics of it. They didn't want it abolished, plain and simple.

We can update the white boy skeleton story a bit with subsequent facts being revealed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Paraclete and Athos: The PRIMARY CAUSE of the Civil War was the Tariff Of Abominations/Tariff Of 1828 that threatened to cripple the Southern economy...this provoked eventual SECCESSION (thank you Athos for straightening me out on the spelling!):

---

You still don't have the spelling right - one "C".

The rest of your rant is just that - a rant.

Quote:

---

Athos: "Native Americans" claim as "THE" original INDIGENOUS PEOPLE of the Americas is highly suspect with the finding of evidence that counters that claim....not a sure thing, anymore. I know that the "Native Americans" wanted to monopolize this arena of CLAIM but that is questionable now.

---

Your "caucasian skull" has been definitively identified via DNA as North American Indian heritage. The courts affirmed this and the remains were handed over to the Native Americans for burial. See Tal's link.

So, no more "questionable". Easily found via an internet search. It's becoming more and more apparent you're less interested in the truth than in your own fantasies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

You still don't have the spelling right - one "C".

The rest of your rant is just that - a rant.


.

---

You see they will just have to face it, there were native peoples indigenous to the americas before they were " liberated " using tactics somewhat familiar in the twentieth century. What you call manifest destiny, Hitler called living space

Paraclete: The U.S., like Australia, has plenty of lebensraum. Population density is not a problem…..arable land is not a problem in the U.S., either.....there may have been a lust for more land by people but lebensraum was not the driving force. Germany had a desire for lebensraum based of the factual population densities of the time and the projected growth expectations of the Reich going forward and they looked eastward. However, in one of the most boneheaded decisions in history, the Wehrmacht entered a very Germanic seeded Ukraine, where people were overjoyed to have them come in and liberate them from the Bolsheviks, and immediately sealed their fate by the wholesale slaughter of the people there by the S.S. units that followed up the rear.....these stupid actions turned even German blooded Ukrainians against German occupation and effectively invited partisan efforts against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Paraclete: The U.S., like Australia, has plenty of lebensraum. Population density is not a problem…..arable land is not a problem in the U.S., either.....there may have been a lust for more land by people but lebensraum was not the driving force. Germany had a desire for lebensraum based of the factual population densities of the time and the projected growth expectations of the Reich going forward and they looked eastward. However, in one of the most boneheaded decisions in history, the Wehrmacht entered a very Germanic seeded Ukraine, where people were overjoyed to have them come in and liberate them from the Bolsheviks, and immediately sealed their fate by the wholesale slaughter of the people there by the S.S. units that followed up the rear.....these stupid actions turned even German blooded Ukrainians against German occupation and effectively invited partisan efforts against them.

---

Well you might think we have plenty but we actually don't, we have lots of desert and little water, towns and cities are running out of water, so please don't come unless you bring your own. Noone doubts the nazi were stupid, but you are a denyer that the same policies once had favour in your nation

Paraclete: The U.S. used to fight TOTAL WAR before bastard politicians involved themselves in military affairs: It was much cleaner and very decisive in terms of the U.S. WINNING THE WAR. Once the politicians got involved, the U.S. was satisfied with police actions and conflicts: not decisive actions where the enemy was brutally beaten into UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER so that their mindsets would be forever changed and their aggressive behaviors eliminated (i.e. threat removed): IT WAS CALLED FINISHING THE JOB so there was no debate about who won the damn war. We fought TOTAL WAR against the "Native Americans", that's what you are referencing. Hitler fought TOTAL WAR. However, the similarities between Nazi Germany and The U.S. stop right there: The U.S. didn't build extermination camps or slave labor camps like the Germans....or the Italians....or the Soviets.....or the Japanese....or the North Koreans....or the ChiComs: You do see the difference, don't you?

Like Veit Nam Korea and Africa, Iraq? Naw we didn't even win WWII without a lot of help from others Vac. Stop trying to rewrite history like we can just go and take over. America is great because we have great alliances, and that's the truth. It's still not a slam dunk!

V7, you conveniently forgot you had to be dragged kicking and screaming into WWII. Until Pearl Harbour it was just a profitable opportunity for you while the rest of us did the heavy lifting and even in 1945 it was the Russians who brought Germany to unconditional surrender. Back then that difference existed, I'm unsure it still does

Paraclete: America should be dragged KICKING AND SCREAMING into ANY WAR! We should avoid war whenever possible and not be so happy to rush into wars or other conflicts. The world's problems are not always the U.S.'s problems.....and we should be very selective about the fights that we engage in: Any conflict that the U.S. enters into should be based upon a decision of whether or not the U.S. getting into that particular conflict is in the best NATIONAL INTEREST of the U.S.....and that should be the only determinant for entry. The world has proven, time and time again, that it doesn't much like the U.S. and, so, the U.S. should not volunteer itself or avail itself of its most precious of resources so easily.

Paraclete: You may have also forgot the U.S. got TRICKED into joining WWI by Mr. Winston Churchill, who was Minister Of War at the time: He publicly broadcast that the Lusitania was carrying armaments when he knew that it wasn't but he knew it was carry U.S. citizens....this ploy was so that Germans would torpedo the Lusitania and the U.S. would enter WWI. This is the kind of sh&$ that we have to be on guard for: WE WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!

I think Iraq screwed up our minds and the terrorists attacks didn't help either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Paraclete: America should be dragged KICKING AND SCREAMING into ANY WAR! We should avoid war whenever possible and not be so happy to rush into wars or other conflicts.

---

Those two sentences negate each other.

Vac, I was calling your hypocrasy, you cannot play the good guy and sit on the fence

W.G.: How do you figure that those two sentences negate one another? When I say "America SHOULD BE dragged kicking and screaming into wars" I mean that we should debate, protest, and fight not to go to war FIRST before we actually go to war! Its better to really examine the issues and the stakes before blindly walking into something from which you cannot so easily extract yourself......it means we SHOULD AVOID WARS if possible.

Paraclete: No, the U.S. needs to change tactics and change its WORLDVIEW: We don't have to be the "GOOD GUYS" any more than any other nation needs to be the "GOOD GUYS"....and, we have every right to sit on the fence for eternity, if we wish: If being the "GOOD GUYS" means getting involved in every violent conflict around the world, we certainly don't need to be the "GOOD GUYS"......The U.S. needs to break the cycle of pain that the Military-Industrial Complex has involved us in: Just because we HAVE NICE WEAPONS doesn't mean we have to use them.....and involving yourself in a conflict and having nice weapons but not using them is entirely RETARDED: If we do fight, the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT should be such that preserving every U.S. Service Member should be the ultimate goal: To hell with fighting fair!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

W.G.: How do you figure that those two sentences negate one another? When I say "America SHOULD BE dragged kicking and screaming into wars" I mean that we should debate, protest, and fight not to go to war FIRST before we actually go to war! Its better to really examine the issues and the stakes before blindly walking into something from which you cannot so easily extract yourself......it means we SHOULD AVOID WARS if possible.

---

They are two different things. Your explanation makes no sense.

W.G.: No, it means the same thing: RESIST THE URGE TO GO TO WAR! War is a last resort, not the first choice but the last choice! And war should not be used as an acceptable means of achieving the goals of statecraft: What I said first was the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

W.G.: No, it means the same thing: RESIST THE URGE TO GO TO WAR! War is a last resort, not the first choice but the last choice! And war should not be used as an acceptable means of achieving the goals of statecraft: What I said first was the same thing.

---

Nope, you didn't. "Should be dragged into" does NOT mean "debate, protest, and fight not to go to war."

War should be the last resort, after you have exhausted every other avenue to avoid it. We have avoided a few wars though, like with Russia over Crimea, and Ukraine, using sanctions and such, didn't stop the their military not one bit, but no war with Vlad. Didn't work so good with Iraq, but Bush and the boys didn't look for anything other than a military solution, so what about NOW? What specifically are you talking about? If you mean not sending troops for those skirmishes and conflicts with criminals and terrorists or not answering the call for help by some of those people fighting them I don't know but let's be fair, it's our own government that allows the president to act with no oversight or check and balances.

That's the lesson Bush taught us, the congress gave him the greenlight and he ran with it. Now we got this dufus who isn't even asking for permission or advice. He just makes a phone cal to a murderous dicator(S), and they start the tanks rolling.

W.G.: You don't honestly not know what I meant, do you? You are nailing me on this....O.K., I went back and looked at what I wrote: You are right: What I should have said was "We should never be dragged into a war UNLESS WE ARE kicking and screaming", as in: "Don't gleefully and happily proceed into war"...that's what I meant.

Using Syria as an example, I would have blown the Syrian Army to non existance for gassing it's own people, and no way would I have invaded Iraq, but would have exposed and revamped the plan of oil for food which was rife with huge abuses. For sure folks I wouldn't just fire off 48 Tomahawk missles and blow up an empty building and put some holes in an airstrip! That was silly and costly and made no difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

W.G.: You don't honestly not know what I meant, do you? You are nailing me on this....O.K., I went back and looked at what I wrote: You are right: What I should have said was "We should never be dragged into a war UNLESS WE ARE kicking and screaming", as in: "Don't gleefully and happily proceed into war"...that's what I meant.

---

Those nevers and nots are very important. Adding them totally changes what the sentences say. Grammar 101.

W.G.: Yes, Mrs. Teacher, I will do better next time, Mrs. W.G.-:) No, seriously and sincerely, thank you for the correction: I needed to clarify that....once again, I let my fingers run past my little mind!

Talaniman: Its the "little skirmishes" that are demoralizing to the military.....and the I am in full support of the U.S. staying out of these conflicts.....There is a strong possibility that the Syrian Gas Attacks were "FALSE FLAG" initiative of the terrorists in Syria who got ahold of poisonous gas and made it look like Assad did the attacks (I know you can't stand Assad but this is something I heard).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

W.G.: Yes, Mrs. Teacher, I will do better next time, Mrs. W.G.-:) No, seriously and sincerely, thank you for the correction: I needed to clarify that....once again, I let my fingers run past my little mind!

---

You may now get off the naughty chair and go out to the playground with the other students. And please don't pull little Sally's pigtails!

You better keep an eye on that one, he's a NUT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

..There is a strong possibility that the Syrian Gas Attacks were "FALSE FLAG" initiative of the terrorists in Syria who got ahold of poisonous gas and made it look like Assad did the attacks (I know you can't stand Assad but this is something I heard).

---

This was reported by a far right fringe source. It had no facts behind it and was soon dropped. Stop reading those crazy websites. Or, at least, temper it with normal sites.

You know how it goes Athos only a right wing fruitcake could even go for right wing loony TV. Most people can tell the diffrence between crazy stuff and real stuff, no matter what a liar tells them. The normal reaction to constant lying as much as the dufus does is to ignore him, or be PO'd enough to tell hiim to shut the heck up, but noooo! Fringers on the right just gobble that stuff up and beg for more and the dufus hasn't dissapointed them yet.

Is that downright insane or what?

Athos & Talaniman: Well, there may have been some fringe Right Wing sites espousing the idea that the Syrian gas attacks were False Flags but I got this information not from one of those sites, I got it from RT World News! I know what you guys think of RT now, but I didn't know any of that when I saw it...I thought they were straight-shooters! You didn't enlighten me about this bunch until earlier this week!

Which brings me to another question: Do you consider RUSSIA, today, to be left or Right? I consider them to be on the Right but I could be wrong. Seems that Russia is closer to a Fascist state now.....I know that they have a neo-Nazi element going strong there and the Russian Government has not done much to stem its growth....This Russian neo-Nazi group filmed themselves beheading Chechen Muslims in a forest a few years ago: vile, nasty bunch of SOBs.

Left or right leaning doesn't matter I just don't TRUST the Russian government. I think they will lean in whatever direction that gives them what they want, and have used ideology to target specific groups in specific places. Weaponizing the air waves is what they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Do you consider RUSSIA, today, to be left or Right?

---

Russia today, like Soviet Russia, is a totalitarian society. Totalitarianism, left or right, has some minor differences but is essentially the same.

Like Tal said, Russia will be whatever it has to be for the current crop of rulers to stay in power. Its promotion of the US right wing and its documented interference in US elections help to support Trump who has been an enormous boon to Putin and the Russians.

The Russian neo-Nazi crowd likes Trump because they see him as one of their own.

Yuck! This whole neo-Nazi element in everything today is getting to be overwhelming: Just heard today where Dresden, of all places, has declared a "Nazi Emergency"! Not making this up! Didn't we beat these bastards about 74 years ago? How can they STILL be hanging around? And, in Russia, too, where they were responsible for about 21,000,000 deaths! WORLD HAS GONE CRAZY!

The pendulum has swung back to that sort of thinking across the world, Vac, and those sneaky neo Nazis are able to comeback and make noise to take advantage of that conservative reaction to liberal policy making the last few years. Like the dufus has done here through stoking fear and blaming that fear of those who are successfully labeled the others. Of course conservative politicians are capitalizing on that fear and gaining power and influence on the promise of fighting for their frustrated and afraid of change constituents.

It is not surprising Tal with Trump channelling his inner Hitler with the echos of making "america" great again

As much as I have blasted the dufus for his words, antics and behavior I have stayed away from that specific comparison with Hitler, though I certainly do draw parrallels to his racist tendencies. You have actually put into words what many actually have been thinking everytime we hear that MAGA proclamation from the dufus. He does reach and excite the racists in his base with such language doesn't he?

Yes it is such a grab from the fiery rhetoric employed in the Reich, whether it is MAGA or threatening to rain destruction still you haven't reached the night of the long knives yet