JFlosumie,

Thanks for understanding, and for the comments.

I'm trying to be as open as possible to allow things to continue but at the same time I want to avoid problems before they start.

I hope that makes sense!

Have a great day everyone,

Webmasterie

I continue to be amazed at how those who disagree with my opposition to an invasion and occupation of Iraq not only want to discredit my opinion and the
evidences cited for that opinion -- I have left references in recent days to websites and newspaper pieces readily available to and to those that live in the Tomahawk area -- but they also work very hard to put words in my mouth and attribute all sorts of attitudes and assumptions to me. I've never heard of Dave's military record, and I wouldn't think of dismissing it out of hand. I would point out that, in recent weeks, other major military figures have spoken out in opposition to the proposed invasion and occupation of Iraq. They, too, are experienced and well-educated military people with considerable exposure to combat. I don't react well to people who, because they don't like my views, say that I "don't read well" or that I'm
given to "flights of fancy." That is uninformed and dismissive. I wanted those who favor an invasion and occupation to lay out their case in
a very specific way. Its clear that I'm not going to get that kind of a case spelled out here.
I'm afraid that the Bush Administration will get the war it has been pushing for based on a well-orchestrated campaign intended to justify war and occupation based on the POSSIBILITY that Saddam Hussein will someday pose a credible threat to his neighbors and ultimately the United States.

I watched as some of you may have a CBS News report that showed literally hundreds of illegal aliens streaming across our borders through national parks in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. The CBS report said that a similar problem existed on our border with Canada. A former park ranger said that tens of thousands of such illegal aliens pass through our national parks unimpeded each month. No one knows who they are or what they're carrying. They could be from Mexico, South America, or terrorists from any where in the world. I consider the danger to this country from that problem much more serious than a hemmed-in, heavily-scrutinized, daily-inspected Iraq. President Bush has said an awful lot about Home Security but failed to fund a substantial part of what was promised. There's no money to hire the numbers of park rangers and INS personnel to control our borders partly because all eyes and funds are fixed on Saddam Hussein. With all of your military experience, DAVE, tell me that I'm wrong to worry more about a potential terrorist threat from tens of thousands of illegal aliens streaming into this country every month as opposed to the threat from Iraq. Look what two snipers did to the Washington, D.C. area last fall. Imagine a group of 50 to 100 (or more) terrorists who simply walk across our borders with hundreds of others, spread out to major cities across the country and begin to do what the D.C. snipers did. It is horrible to contemplate. Much more of a potential threat in my mind to Iraq. And, let's not forget about North Korea? Any thoughts on an appropriate military response there?
snipers did?

Bob you are already beginning to come around by concentrating on POTENTIAL threats. This is a very necessary first step in coming to grips with the new order of things. The American tradition of warfare has always involved us being dragged kicking and screaming into conflict. This must change if we are to survive, in my opinion. We must respond vigorously to potential threats or be ready to deal with those threats after they become a reality. The result of being noble and waiting for our enemies to strike the first blow in an age of chemical, biological, and nuclkear proliferation will ultimately result in the death of millions and the end of our way of life. You have laundry listed a number of potential threats which must be dealt with and you appear to be keen on doing something about each of them. I wonder, though, if you are any more ready to deal with the militarization of the Canadian and Mexican borders and the pre-emptive destruction of North Korean weapons facilities than you are to deal with the very real problem of Iraq. I say this only because the obvious end point of dealing with the problems you list include all of these items. Iraq is most certainly on the list of potential threats to our security. The real arguement, however, is not over Iraq or Korea or how many migrant workers illegaly enter the US. The real problem we must deal with is how the United States will deal with the very real threats to our very existance in the future. I happen to prefer the Roosevelt approach (Teddy that is). What is you solution?

Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders, the Spanish American War."Remember the Maine" was the battle cry of that war. Only problem was that it was later proven that Spain had nothing to do with the destruction of the battleship. The war was to protect U.S investments, primarily in Cuba. In the process of the war we also took over the Philippines and killed thousands of Filipinos. We wanted the Philippines to guard our investments in Hawaii as well as to have a military site in the Pacific.

Neither the Spanish-American War or war in Iraq,when it comes, meets the moral guidelines for a "just war." Until it does I'm praying for peace.

I should be clear however, as a former Naval officer, if I was called back to duty I would go. Officers can be called back until they reach 65 and that was explained to us in OCS. I would serve on the USS Comfort in a New York minute.

I find it interesting that at last week's National Prayer Breakfast President Bush said: "I especially feel that because I believe in prayer. I pray. I pray for strength, I pray for guidance, I pray for forgiveness. And I pray to offer my thanks for a kind and generous Almighty God." No where did he say he prays for peace. That should be the first thing we all pray for at this moment in time.

Nell

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.

Bob, once again you are dead wrong. I have the utmost respect for you opinion and your right to have it, I just totally disagree with it. At the same time you show a total disrespect for mine and others who voice opinions just because they do not agree with yours.

Nell:

If you want to know the real story about the Spanish American War I can give you a number of very interesting references that will explain the real reasons for the conflict. Not that any of them will be relevant but I am a student of the period and love to share with others who are interested. As far as the peace praying I could not agree with you more. I do not desire to see conflict, but I consider it unavoidable under the circumstances. My major concern, then, is that once battle is drawn we will be crushingly victorious. Like you, I am subject to call and would gladly go...I have even called to see if they want me but with negative result. My point with regard to T.R. is that we need leadership in these times that is bold and that will seek out our enemies and destroy them. This is not necessarily what any of us wants but what is demanded if we are to survive. Remember the spirit of the Maine if the truth of the matter does not serve as enough.

DAVE: We may, at last, be getting somewhere. The base issue is that in a new age, when terrorism is our major concern, we have to pick carefully where and how we will conduct our defense activities. There is no question that Iraq possesses some potential hazards to its neighbors in the Middle East and considerably less direct hazard to us. Indeed, Iraq attacked Kuwait, but that was twelve years ago and there is, at least, some evidence that Saddam Hussein believed, on the basis of a conversation with our ambassador to Iraq, that the U.S. would not oppose him in what he argued was a
"border dispute." Yes, he has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people -- again some twelve years ago and not since. (The U.S. cavalry used smallpox infected blankets on American Indians but that does not describe our policy or activities today.) Saddam Hussein may still possess WMD, and there is no question that he is evil. But....and here's the rub...there are other bloody dictators in the world who have expressed serious hostility to us. Iraq is the only nation among those on whom we impose "no fly zones," and
on-site inspections that, at least at present, are proceding unimpeded. Unlike other nations hostile to us and our interests, we cannot show that Iraq has directly supported al-Quaida. Sudan, for example, openly supplied funds and arms to the Taliban and al-Quaida and has slaughted over 2 million Christians in its "jihad" against those who oppose that radical Islamic regime. I could cite a laundry list of other regimes that pose potential hazards to us and our allies around the world. The bottom line is that, in the new age of terrorism, we must husband our defensive capabilities carefully. I would argue further that ensuring the safety of our population in this country is the first order of business. The trick is to do that without becoming an isolated fortress in the world -- but 9/ll certainly exposed our vulnerabilities and the concern of Americans for their safety. Further (and finally) I see adverse "unintended results" from an invasion and occupation of Iraq. An invasion will result in considerable loss of civilian lives. (See my earlier posts about plans for 200-300 cruise missiles per day directed at Baghdad for the first two days of the invasion.) Those casualties will most certainly be used by the al-Quaida and other radical Islamic regimes to foment still more intensive hatred of the U.S. and its allies. Occupations are always hazardous. We are still in a dangerous situation in Afghanistan -- although it is receiving very little attention in our media. I simply don't see how the level of threat from Iraq justifies such risks given the other and much more serious risks we face from terrorists in this country and abroad. We are expending enormous resources to swat a gnat while tigers roam freely at home and abroad.

<small>[ February 10, 2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Bob Doolittle ]</small>

Bob: I did not answer right away because it took me so long to get through your post and I only have a finite amount of time to devote to this. Just as an aside I would like to see the historical reference data on that stuff about smallpox infested blankets. I think I saw the movie you might have retrieved that from but would like to study up on the actual history behind it. Since you have the information, please let me have it.

On the basic issue, we can no longer afford to be on the defensive. You used that word several times in your post and it appears to characterize your approach to the future. Being on the defensive means that the opposition gets the first move. If you are willing to accept future 9-11 type incidents, defense will be fine. This is the way we have always handled ourselves in the past and Americans are comfortable with this more noble approach. Real prevention can only happen if we change the way we think and the way we act as a nation. Our response must be proactive and get us out in front rather than reactive and bringing up the rear. Americans don't like preemptive military actions and never have. This attitude, unfortunately, is going to get a lot of people killed. Iraq is in the crosshairs right now and we have good reason to have it there. There will be others in the crosshairs tomorrow. If we do not have the resolve to pull the trigger we will pay dearly.

Bob,

You seemed kind of hung up on the fact that Iraq hasn't done anything in 12 years and that it is the only country that we enforce no-fly zones.

It seems to me that as part of the ending of the war in Iraq it was made pretty clear that Iraq had to give up ALL of its weapons of mass destruction. We also decided to create no-fly zones to protect the Iraqi's from Saddam. As the winner of a war we were able to make these demands.

Also based on this it could be argued that Iraq has simply violated the terms that ended the war and therefore it is simply a continuation of the previous action.

It's really late and I just finished work so I hope that makes sense.

Sure Dave, send them. I have read a few sites as well as print material. It is a fascinating time period to study.

Nell

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.

DAVE: I wish I could put my hands on a particular text regarding our early "germ warfare" against American Indians -- and the resident expert on treatment of Indians is on sabbatical. Nonetheless, I'll get a reference or two for you.
We do speak of a Dept. of DEFENSE. Our military policy has been that we are not an aggressive nation seeking to impose our will -- or even our way of governing -- on other peoples and nations of the world. But that is not to say that we are committed to a policy of waiting to be struck before we act. The base issue is still a difficult judgment of determining when POTENTIAL THREAT becomes CREDIBLE AND IMMINENT THREAT. Presumably we act militarily only in the face of credible and imminent threat (and usually after other options no longer exist.) To pursue a policy of defense is not tantamount to turning the other cheek or not being vigilant. But we have been historically and I hope we continue to be loath to go to war. We went through better than forty years of a very dangerous cold war without a major confrontation with our most dangerous adversaries. We say we have "options" with North Korea despite a much more credible and imminent threat from Kim Jong II than that posed by Saddam
Hussein. President Bush I thought made sense when he said the war on terrorism would be a very different kind of war than we have ever fought. That it would require patience and persistence and last a long time. Now we are preparing to fight "Desert Storm" all over again followed by an indeterminate occupation of Iraq at a cost we can only guess at and with potential consequences for our own safety we can only worry about. The 9/ll
terrorists used low-tech weapons and exploited our
easy accessibility to deliver a devastating blow.
In my judgment, it serves terrorists like Osama bin Laden to extend our military resources over an
increasingly large area of the world while opportunities within this country are examined and eventually exploited. There is virtually no evidence of Iraq supporting the al-Quaida. Iraq is hemmed in, closely scrutinized, and being inspected daily. That is not a defensive posture and it certainly reduces substantially any potential threat from that country. A familiar expression has it that the military is always fighting "the previous war." If we are to meet the new realities of a war on terrorism, we can't afford to be drawn into military actions where other options still exist for reducing threats. Such actions only stretch our capabilities and expose vulnerabilities to other forms of terrorist attacks.

>Date: April 16, 1995
>From: Betty Nuxoll

I have been reviewing the documents in the latest volume of The Papers of Henry Bouquet which has many interesting texts on relations with various Native American tribes, and on frontier warfare. A number of the texts deal with the decision to use small pox as a deliberate form of germ warfare against the Indians in the 1760s. I recall much coverage of the decimation of the Indians by disease during the Columbus anniversaries, but I am not familiar with the historiography on the deliberate use of smallpox or other diseases as a weapon--or indeed the historiography on the origins of germ warfare in general. Would any of you be able to inform me of sources on this subject? Thanks in advance. Elizabeth M. Nuxoll. The Papers of Robert Morris Queens College, CUNY ----------

Bob, perhaps you can not find any sources, beyond the movie Dave is referring to,is because they do not exist?

I wonder why anyone that quotes Hollywood movie scripts as “reliable sources” would be surprised when others try to discredit his sources?

As you can see in this rather extensive (link below) story about the American Indian and Small Pox, there is no mention of them being given blankets by the army as a form of germ warfare.

http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_smallpox.htm

More stories of American Indians and Small Pox. (link below) If anyone finds mention of deliberate contamination by the American Government, please share it with the rest of us.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22small+pox%22+%26+%2 2american+indians%22

<small>[ February 11, 2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: JFlosum ]</small>

Gee, FLOSUM, how is it that I can go to the same website and find references to the "Bouquet Papers" which refer to an instance in which, during the French and Indian War, blankets taken from a smallpox ward were given to the Indians in a stated effort to eradicate them? It is true, that there is a vigorous debate among historians about how extensive this practice was on the later
American frontier. Another source, AMERICAN HOLOCAUST & SURVIVAL: A POPULATION HISTORY SINCE
1442 by Russell Thornton (1987) explores this and other frontier stories.
Remember, my point was that PAST ACTIONS DO NOT DESCRIBE CURRENT PLANS OR POLICIES. My specific reference was to whether or not Saddam Hussein's use of chemical/biological agents against the Kurds some fourteen years ago, was evidence of his capability and intention of using them today against us and his neighbors in the Middle East. IF HE STILL HAS VIABLE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS (and we can't seem to prove that one way or another) my argument would be that the likelihood of their actual use would increase sharply if Iraq were invaded. Evil as he is, Hussein has not used chemical/biological weapons in more than thirteen years NOR HAS HE DIRECTLY THREATENED THEIR USE AGAINST HIS NEIGHBORS OR US.
Should we be vigilant? Yes. Should we continue and even intensify inspections indefinitely if necessary? Yes. Does his POTENTIAL POSSESSION OF SUCH AGENTS AND THEIR POTENTIAL USE IN THE FUTURE JUSTIFY THE INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF IRAQ NOW EVEN IF INSPECTIONS CAN (COULD) CONTINUE? NO! My view is that if Saddam Hussein can be rendered impotent (militarily speaking) in any way short of warfare, then warfare is not justified. I don't want to see a single American soldier or a single Iraqi child die in a war that can be avoided by a policy of vigilant patience and persistent surveillance.

Modern History Sourcebook:
Smallpox, Indians, and Blankets

It is also during the eighteenth century that we find written reports of American Indians being intentionally exposed to smallpox by Europeans. In 1763 in Pennsylvania, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander of the British forces....wrote in the postscript of a letter to Bouquet the suggestion that smallpox be sent among the disaffected tribes. Bouquet replied, also in a postscript,
"I will try to innoculate the[m]...with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not get the disease myself."
....To Bouquet's postscript, Amherst replied,
"You will do well as to try to innoculate the Indians by means of blankets as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this exorable race."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/smallpox1.html

I'm still looking Bob, but so far all I see is references to "others" not American government. But like I said....I'm still looking.... I think I infered that in my post above and invited others to join me. doh!

Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services
Section of Communicable Disease Control and Veterinary Public Health

Has smallpox ever been used for bioterrorism or biowarfare?
It has been documented that the British military gave blankets from smallpox victims to
American Indians who were sympathetic to France during the French and Indian Wars (1754-
1767). Epidemics that occurred afterward killed more than 50% of the affected tribes. Prior to
that, in the 15th century, Pizarro reportedly gave smallpox virus-contaminated clothing to South
American natives. There are no reported recent uses of smallpox as a bioweapon.

http://www.dhss.state.mo.us/Publications/CDManual/smallpoxFS.pdf

Still looking.....

Sti-i-i-i-il looking.... still no references to support Bob's post of: The U.S. cavalry used smallpox infected blankets on American Indians....

However I did find a reference to a book that bob may want to get his hands on to eradicate his Hollywood tainted perception of histoy.

Rotting Face
Smallpox and the American Indian

R.G. Robertson

A "recommended work"
Library Journal

http://www.caxtonpress.com/rotface.html

Robertson's gripping account also dispels some popular modern myths about the role of whites in the spead of this devastating disease among American Indians.

Bob, you do know that Martin Sheen is not really the president of the United States don't you!?

Flosum: I've never claimed to be an expert on the military and its treatment of Americans. I simply referred to what various people knowledgeable about such matters -- it is certainly not my area of expertise -- have said. I believe it was Dave who made reference to having seen or heard a similar reference in a movie. I don't recall such a movie. But I did call two people who specialize in the History of the American West who tell me that it is a common story -- sometimes involving smallpos at other times involving diseases considered mild in the white population but deadly to Indian tribes with no immunities to such diseases -- i.e. measles, chickenpox, etc. I did provide the "Holocaust" reference. And, I understand, again from people who study such matters as a major interest, that other books and
references are available. I've explained that the comment and reference was made as a comparative illustration -- past actions do not necessarily describe present policies or plans. If you want to delve into the historical debate concerning treatment of American Indians, I wish you well. My immediate concern is that we seem to be rushing headlong into a war that can be avoided and, in the process, opening ourselves to more danger than our President and his advisors are willing to acknowledge. I don't expect you or Dave or like-minded folks to buy that. We will agree to disagree. I trust you join me in praying that His wisdom governs our actions and our motivations.

Last year I heard a guest/author on Public Radio and checked out his book at the library:
Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. I think either in his comments on air or in the book he mentions the smallpox/blanket story. Anyway it is a good book. Also there is an excellent video series called 500 Nations and number 3 in that series may be of interest on the spread and impact of disease by early "explorers." The Wausau library has this set and I have used it in several classes. There also are plenty of references online if you search under " Blankets infected with smallpox" but I do not give as much credence to online references. By the time you all are discussing the Native populations had already been decimated. These processes swept through with smallpox and measles and other Old World diseases already in the first half of the 16th century. North America was not so much an empty continent for the taking as it was an "emptied" continent.

Fine Bob, but "you" are the one that was getting defensive because some here have doubted or have tried to discredit your sources. Not me. And then we find out that this comment for sure and I suspect others, has no foundation in fact. Some are just dead wrong, like the smallpox/Indian one and others are merely just repeating other sources that mirror your same philosophy but also lacking factual data or foundation....

If I was to say that I think it was time to invade Iraq because they have WMDs and then post a link to Rush Limbaugh of him saying the same thing as support, that would be fine, but not if I was trying to pass him off as some sort of authority or definitive factual data source. I doubt he has that sort of information anymore then you have information to the contrary.

I personally find Hollywood’s rewriting of history offensive. Rather you meant to or not I believe you may have been party to perpetuating a non-truth that has wrongly become perceived as part of history. But that is a discussion of a different matter.

I started a thread somwhat along those lines: http://tomahawkleader.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply;f=1;t=000638

Zeus, here is Bobs reference to the Smallpox/Blankets issue:

>>The U.S. cavalry used smallpox infected blankets on American Indians …<<

There are plenty of references, both on line and off, of the effect of smallpox and other diseases on the Indians of both North America and South America, as you noted. They date back before 1776. However there is no credible reference to support the idea that the US Cavalry used blankets to purposely infect American Indians. There is some documented support that the British were at least talking about doing it.

There is however a number of very credible sources, both on and off line, that suggest the idea that the US Government use this tactic is all myth. The first exposure most people probably got to the idea was the Hollywood movie of some years back. I remember seeing the movie but forget the name of it.

The fact that a bogus story keeps getting repeated does not make it fact no matter how many times it is repeated or by who. However it can make it seem more credible and some folks perception of the truth becomes tainted. Unfortunately all too often peoples’ perceptions no matter how tainted they are, become reality to them and some times others.

More on this:
http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~stevenjr/mbi111/impact111.html

From above
unfortunately, the early US settlers used smallpox as a weapon against the Native Americans ... they gave them blankets that were known (to the settlers, but not to the unsuspecting indians) to have been used by smallpox victims, which caused widespread smallpox among the Native Americans

ahhhh...Zeus, no one is disputing that

I knew Bob was full of buffalo chips on his assertion that the US Cavalry had used smallpox infected blankets. It is valuable to see how the man's reasoning faculties work and note carefully the fact that he tried to use what is little more than an "urban legend" as an arguement and proof for another point. This fact has a great bearing on any other supposed line of reasoning that he might use. Question any assumption that he might make and you will probably find that the logic is about as deep as it was on this one. It helped to support his preconceived ideas if the US Cavalry used germ warfare against the indians therefore it must be true. This is what passes for scholarship from someone who is a legend in his own mind.

.