Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke
How is that any different than laying siege to Detroit? Our (eastern Native Americans) issue is that we required the French to hold it and "win." (They bailed.)
But, hey, we were God's chosen people, thought we had a big dog in the fight on our side, got uppity and overextended, then the Big Dog bailed and we got it -- metaphorical double entendre intended -- "in the end." (Sound like Israel, minus the potential endgame?)
As a sweeping generalization, I believe that Israel brings a lot of stuff on themselves because they have had our (the United States') unilateral backing along with an ongoing sense of entitlement. (I, also, believe that many Native American tribes would have wound up with a better deal if they had put their energy into things other than sacking major cities: but that's neither here nor there...)
Yes, Native Americans got screwed in some negotiations, but that's why you negotiate from STRENGTH as opposed to AFTER the Big Dog bails as -- like the French -- many Americans are now interested in doing in the Middle East.
It is what it is.
|
Heck the US isn't leaving Israels side anytime soon!
The Indians sure got the short end of the stick. Our dealings with them are a definate low point, shameful. I find it interesting that part of our trouble with England is that they were trying to protect them from encroachement by the colonials.
I think a good question is, why didn't we have trouble with Nazis in occupied Germany, or Japan, heck the South after the civil war? It's brutal, but effective. The States in the ME attacked Israel - and lost.
Then and now they are using the poor Palestinians for their own purposes. They should look after the log in their own eye.
Pete