September 08, 2004
1000 Servicemen Dead: For What?
So here we are, the milestone, surpassing 1000 American dead and countless more Iraqi men, women and children; do we know how many of them have died, do we care? Add to this madness over 7000 wounded Americans and how many Iraqis(?). Question: is it, was it, worth it? Is it worth the death, carnage, destruction, destroyed lives, and shattered dreams, not to mention the withering away of America’s leadership and creditability in the world? Is it worth the soul of two nations?
According to a CNN report, “more than three-quarters of those killed, 756 of them, have died in combat, and 647 of those have been killed since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003.”
Speaking from the Pentagon yesterday, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld brushed aside the milestone by linking once again, in unambiguous terms, Iraq to 9/11 by stating,
It should be noted that the civilized world passed the thousandth casualty mark a long time ago... [H]undreds were killed in Russia last week. And this week, of course, on September 11, 2004, we remember the 3,000 citizens of dozens of countries who were killed on September 11 in 2001."
This callous and calculated statement from a member of the Bush cabinet despite the fact that the 9/11 Commission clearly debunked any plausible or creditable connection between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorist plot, and terrorism in general. More lessons unlearned and yet another Commissions’ findings consigned to the wastebasket of lies, deceit, and business as usual.
And as Sadr City becomes the next center of open urban warfare in Iraq and American soldiers and Marines continue to die at an alarming rate with 18 dead since the beginning of the week, isn’t it time we ALL threw off the masks of American ignorance and pride and asked as a nation why we are in Iraq? As citizens of a democracy isn’t it our duty to ask, no, to demand accountability from our elected officials and not fall prey to idol worship and swoon at the President’s every word just because he might share some of our same views?
The continued carnage in Iraq begs to be debated in open forum and this is not an issue the American people can agree to disagree on, not when human beings (Americans and Iraqis) continue to die at a rapid pace for no discernable reason. It is easy to forget that each life extinguished in this dirty little war affects other lives as well. How many lives have been touched for ill, altered, torn asunder because G.W. Bush took this country to war against a sovereign nation that presented no CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the security of the United States?
Those who would use the argument that Iraq was a growing threat as a basis for the attack, were clearly wrong; there were no WMD, no WMD programs, nothing. So why are we there? The other two countries of the now infamous “Axis of Evil,” Iran and North Korea pose more of a threat to the United States then Iraq ever did. Both have announced—let me say it again—announced that they have ongoing nuclear weapons programs. Yet we will use “quiet, sustained diplomacy” to deal with them, going so far as to remove troops from the Korean peninsula thereby weakening our military stance if we ever did need to deter North Korean aggression. Not only that, but Iran has proven ties to terrorism; it was (and more than likely still is) for years the chief supporter of Hamas (a known terrorist group), and allowed Al Queda free rein of its territory. Add to this caustic mixture Syria, which openly supports Hezbollah (a known terrorist group) in Southern Lebanon. I ask with concern knitting my brow: where are the battle plans for those three countries? Surely they are a threat! Can you smell the hypocrisy in the air as thick as maggots on a dead carcass on the streets of Sadr City?
Make no mistake I harbor no illusions about the nature of Saddam’s character. I know he is an evil man capable of mass murder, torture, betrayal, and other vile acts. But he was contained, and at the time we (almost) unilaterally attacked him and his sovereign country, we as a nation had far great concerns to deal with several hundred miles to the east in Afghanistan where the real terrorists live. And while we fiddle-fart around in Iraq causing more death and destruction, the terrorists are reconstituting themselves in Afghanistan.
How ironic and pathetic is it for the Vice President to call into question the Democrats fitness to defend the nation when it was under a Republican watch that 9/11 took place. Shouldn’t we, the American people be calling into question the Bush Administration’s ability to keeps us safe? I know I do! Hasn’t terrorism around the world increased under their stewardship of the War on Terror? And for those who would point to fact that America has not been attacked since 9/11, aren’t you operating under the same blind illusion that America is a fortress, that kept the Bush Administration from taking the terrorist threat seriously before 9/11, despite the many, many warning signs?
1000 American dead in Iraq, and more than 7000 wounded, and still the chief architect of 9/11, the man whose name was not even mentioned during the Republican Convention, remains free. Free to plot more terror, and kill more Americans…wait is that laugher I hear, laced with derision wafting through the late summer air?
What do you make of these statements by Cheney last Wednesday at the RNC? Speaking about the millitary he said, “They have faced hard duty and long deployments. And they have lost comrades, more than 1,100 brave Americans, whose memory this nation will honor forever.” Does Cheney know of more people than networks like CNN predict?
Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 8, 2004 10:39 AMSeems “five deferment” Cheney is always cognizant of information us regular ole Americans just don’t have and don’t need to have to run our measly little lives. And what would he know of true honor? Perhaps he was including those American servicemen killed while fighting the real War on Terror in Afghanistan.
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at September 8, 2004 12:08 PMI believe the 1100 refers to those lost in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but, can’t say for sure. Seems the reasonable interpretation.
Posted by: David R Remer at September 8, 2004 02:51 PMI disliked the B.S. surrounding the invasion of Iraq. I think Bush bungled the stabilization of Iraq. Rumsfeld’s annoucement that looting is a normal part of freedom was the boner of the year, in my opinion.
But then I will go on to say that realignment of the middleast has not been shown to be bad strategy at this time. In fact, this might be something the neocons had half right.
To expect stability, or any real semblence to democracy in Iraq before say about 5 to 10 years is absurd. A widening of the instability is very likely. But this is something that is bound to happen one way or another. The Fundamental Islamic movement moving through the middle east must be confronted. There must be some movement made away from the sadistic and repressive Arabic regimes in place today.
I hope the soldiers have not died for in vain. Our involvment in Vietnam was ignorant from day one. There never was the domino threat that was talked about. This involvement has shown some depths of stupidity. But to decide today if it’s all in vain is premature at the very least.
Posted by: Greg at September 8, 2004 06:21 PMIndeed, the death toll in Afghanistan is said to be 100. It all makes sense to me now. I just needed a push in the right direction.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 8, 2004 07:19 PMThe cost of our soldiers lives is not in vien so far; however, the actions of our political leaders so far has been less than honorable. If America can not force our political leaders to live up to and represent honor, dignity, and faith in our god (America) than history will record that the 1,000 plus soldiers in Iraq died in vien and America lost their dream.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 8, 2004 07:25 PMBut then I will go on to say that realignment of the middleast has not been shown to be bad strategy at this time.
I’ve never understood this whole democracy domino theory…. how is iraq becoming a democracy (assuming it ever really happens) going to in-and-of-itself realign the middle east and spread democracy throughout the region? I’m serious, I’d really like someone to explain the details of this theory to me in a way that doesn’t just say something along the lines of “well, once people see democracy they’ll want it”.
Posted by: Jarin at September 8, 2004 09:28 PMJarin, I understand your reservation of accepting the democracy domino theory idea. However, showing that a multi-tribal society can rule themselve in a fair and representive government is not an illusion. Just how the people of Iraq obtains a stable society and proves that they can govern in peace will show the other countries populations and leaders in the area that it can be done. But not by any plan I’ve seen so far. A winning the peace plan would be nice and lomg overdue at the libary.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 9, 2004 01:03 AMOK ,Jarin, but let’s be clear this isn’t a domino theory, and I grant you that Iraq reaching a democracy is a reach.
Let’s say I’m an oil producing nation with an educated population, and my brethren in Iraq who developed a democracy and became a partner in the economic benifits of stability, and freedom and my average income raises to say $20.000 per year. I sit in Saudi Arabia and my country becomes more and more unstable and our average income drops below $6000 per year. Where do I want to live? What do I expect of my Government?
Iranian youth are already rather disgusted with their government. They see progress in the West, but view it as corrupt, and nothing but poverty in their future. If they see a free and democratic and prospering Iraq, will they continue to listen to the Mullahs and their death culture and backwards looking ideas?
This is a long term stragtegy and will not occur in the next 12 months or even 5 years. Should we not intervene, and give a beacon of hope to the Arabic people?
As I stated, I am not convinced that Bush has pursued this in an enlightened or even workable way. But the fundamentalist Muslims must be confronted with progress and freedom and economic incentives, or we are headed for much more serious problems in the middle east.
Eric’s post about the Gap and Core are relevant to this discussion. Islamic Fundamentalism is a reactionary idea being used to foment regime changes, there must be a counter to this. I don’t believe that the unilateral overthrough of Saddam was the most effective way to do this, but it is where we are now. Given that we cannot go back in time, we must now pursue a positive outcome.
I’d be much happier if Russia, China or India were involved with us.
Posted by: Greg at September 9, 2004 02:00 AMGreg,
Great post. Well laid out argument for the democracy policy.
This is exactly why I never understood the argument about how it was so bad we did it without France or Germany. I don’t believe that it’s Bush’s fault that they are more afraid of their own Muslim populations than they are open to the idea of a fundamental fix to the problem. I always believed that France and Germany were motivated by their substantial trade with Iraq (for France) and their fear of their own Muslims. I wished Bush had laid that argument out better at the UN, and I wish he’d used Saddam’s support for Hezbollah rather than WMD’s as an argument. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was the right thing to do.
- D
Thanks, Delzario.
I want to make it clear however that I think Bush bungled this. I don’t think France or Germany would have made much of a difference, due to their western culture, but China or India or Russia would have made a great deal of difference. Other Arab regime involvment would have helped.
Bush rushed into this unnecessarily, I think. Building the case on dressed up intelligence seemed to be only aimed at the US. I am still amazed by the people who say that the intelligence was that Saddam possessed large stockpiles of WMD, or Nuclear capabilities. There was plenty of dispute over this intelligence prior to the invasion, at the time Powell made his arguments to the UN. The Guardian and Greg Palast come to mind as media that countered this “intelligence.”
A much more convincing case of terrorist financing, genocide, and UN violations could have been made. With a little more work up front, and some backdoor dealing with the Asian goliaths and UN backing would have given us a plausible unanimity in the world and removed any cover to the Sunni’s. Listening to Shenseki and the State Dept would have been a bit smarter.
We now find ourselves in an unclear position with little world support. Who is going to be dumb enough to enter this mess now? Especially with Bush at the helm? In order to achieve order we must become a repressive regime, now. Very poor strategical planning went into this. Bush was hot to act, with naive hope of stability by election time. If he had waited for Saddam to further hang himself and the world to be nudged into opposition to this two bit tyrant, we could be in a much stronger position now.
This is why I do not believe Bush should be reelected.
Posted by: Greg at September 9, 2004 10:42 PMWho was it that set the ‘milestone’ at 1000 ? Why not 100 ? or 10,000 ?
Why is there a ‘milestone’ ?
When the ‘milestone’ was reached was something dramatic supposed to happen ? Maybe the insurgents would have said “Okay, we killed 1000. It’s over.” or were we supposed to pack up and leave ?
Has everyone forgotten why the Major Combat Operations were declared over ? It was the point in which other countries were supposed to join forces with the coalition. Of course some of them probably had no intention to even though they assured our country that they would.
V.Edward Martin …. Please tell me.
Are you a Bush hater ? A Kerry lover ? or really a democrat ? You aren’t one of those ‘Anybody but Bush’ people are you ??? They are the ones who really worry me.
What do they mean ? Anybody but Bush. Are they serious ? Anybody ? Scary.
Greg …. Right on ! You should be doing a 30 minute infomercial.
There are just to many people that can’t get past the WMD issue. No they have not been found but that was NOT the only reason for going to war in Iraq. I totally agree with you about helping the people of the Middle East. Who was going to do it ? Allah ? Better yet. Usama. He’s a big help.
Just how did Zharqawi (spelling) set up shop so fast in Iraq after the fall of Saddam ? Seems funny to me that he was able to set up such a strong network if Al Queda and Saddam had no ties at all. Saddam knew what was going on in his country. He would never have let that man in if he thought there was a chance Al Queda would cause trouble for him.
As for UBL. ‘Laughter in the air’.
If he is laughing at anything he is laughing at the way our politicians act. He is laughing at the immature way that our politicians run their campaigns. He is laughing when our politicians call each other names all for the sake of making sure that their own party gets into office. He is laughing because our country is becoming more divided everyday. He is laughing because we worry about a politician having a DWI 30+ years ago more than what he can do for our present and future.
He is laughing because we have news stations that come on National television to tell everyone in the world where our weak points are. Freedom of the press. Just great.
He is laughing because we are hung up on numbers.
He is laughing because our country looks like it is falling apart. Maybe it is.
I too think that this domino theory is bad news. When Japan became a democracy did it create a “domino” of democratic nations? (Just give it 50 more years, right?) When South Korea became democratic, did it encourage the North Koreans to rise up for their rights? (Just give it 20 more years). Did the fall of Vietnam cascade into a domino of Communist countries? (Oh, well the rest didn’t fall because of covert ops.) Is Turkey a muslim democratic country? (that doesn’t count). Is Indonesia a democratic muslim country (doesn’t count either?)
Is Kuwait, the country that has the highest per capita income in the world, a democratic country? No! And neither is Qatar. And neither is Jordan. And guess what? They’re doing fine.
Someone just said that we have to stop this repressive wave of Islamacism from overtaking these countries. Folks, the age of Khomeni is over. We’re in better shape in the Middle East than we’ve been in CENTURIES. Installing the Shah in Iran, and covertly helping Saddam Hussein and his baathists to overthrow Qasim was a bad idea. Maybe we wouldn’t have had this nonsense if we had tried to work with these countries instead of “liberating” them by covertly creating coups.
If we want to prove to Muslims that a democratic country is the way to go, pouring economic infrastructure aid into Indonesia or Turkey (or even Afghanistan), would have been a lot easier, and cost less, and killed less people.
If WMD and Terrorists were our concern, then why haven’t we bothered to assign guards to the tons of weapon stockpiles that are sitting in the desert? If the WMD and terrorists were really there, then doesn’t that mean (since we can’t track down either of them), that we would certainly have terrorists with WMD running around right now?
The WMD and terrorist argument makes no sense. If the people that believed that are right, then Bush has handed WMD on a silver platter to terrorists. If they were wrong, then we went to Iraq in order for it to become a democracy and create a “domino effect” of democracy in the Middle East.
Either way, I’m not impressed.
Julia
Dawn—
One death in this war that never should have been fought is one too many; 1000 is deplorable and unacceptable.
No, I am not a “Bush” hater, nor am I overly fond of Kerry. I am a lover of my country and constitution; remember that lowly document? I am now and shall always remain a moderate in my thinking an politics.
Perhaps people who “can’t get past the WMD issue” are weary of being lied to and manipulated. There was no clear and present danger to the security of the United States from Iraq, and absence that there can be NO other valid reason to go to war with another sovereign nation, no matter how reprehensible her leader, none!
It is not our responsibility, nor our right to foist democracy down another societies throat if that is not what they want for themselves. Democracy may be God’s gift to the world, American are not the bearers pf that gift. When did God appoint us? And it the very pinnacle of arrogance to believe we are, or to even give voice to the notion. Liberty may change nations, but it has not been fully realized at home in the U.S. first. How about we get it right here, before we presume to tell others how it’s done!
You asked: “Just how did Zharqawi (spelling) set up shop so fast in Iraq after the fall of Saddam?” I am sure the al Quadea front man need no have asked twice for assistance from those with every reason to hate us for invading their country. All of those Republican Guard Units did not dissolve into nothingness. They are now fighting our soldiers and would be with or without help from outside agitators.
Julia—
Well said, good points…
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at September 10, 2004 08:50 PMV.
I totally agree with you about not forcing democracy onto other people. I agree that it cannot be forced. I have always had a problem with our country being the ‘policemen of the world’. I do not like our people dying over there any more than you do. I myself have family and friends stationed over there. One friend is the mother of 4 young children and another of 3.
There will be no ‘domino’ effect of democracy. It is countries that do not use intimidation and murder to rule that is wanted. It does not mean they have to be democratic. I don’t want other countries to be like the United States. I want other countries to be better than U.S..
I do not know why this began with Iraq. I can only go by what information I am being given on television. How do we know that George Bush does ‘not have a plan for peace’? Oh, I know, because John Kerry said it.
We do not know everything that is going on in D.C. about the situation in the Middle East and we shouldn’t know.
We have politicians running around this country saying horrible things about each other to get elected. We hear tidbits of information from them, good and bad, to help with their own elections. We never get the whole story. They say what they can to stir people up. They do not think about the overall effect they are having on our country as a whole. It is their own selfish concerns to get elected that they really care about.
If Kerry, Kennedy, and the rest of the democrats knew and know so much about what and how things should have been done why didn’t they open their mouths sooner ?? Could it be their own selfish reasons ?
I do wish our country would take care of our own people who need help first and help others when they ask for it. There are plenty of times when I think we stuck our nose in when we shouldn’t have.
The money that has been spent on the party conventions alone would have helped alot of people with alot of things. I say … pass that money out to the people instead and your sure to get elected. They could have made each and every one of us millionaires but we know that would never happen. The rich and powerful would not have as much control over the working class if they did that.
Mrs. Kerry is so concerned about peoples’ healthcare. She has enough money of her own to pay insurance premiums for all those who don’t have it. We pay our own and it would make a payment on a really nice house !!
American First ! That’s my thought exactly. We wish. Too bad there isn’t a political party with that title. Of course like most everything else it would start with good intentions and end up corrupted by money like the rest.
You are right about fixing things at home. Our politicians running for office promise to do that every time they run. How many times has someone said they would fix healthcare and Social Security ? It’s a joke.
Henry Schlatman said:
Jarin, I understand your reservation of accepting the democracy domino theory idea. However, showing that a multi-tribal society can rule themselve in a fair and representive government is not an illusion.
I agree that doing so would be a significant demonstration. However, I would question that this is actually what we are showing anyone through our actions. The key words seem, in my opinion, to be “rule themselves”, a concept irreconcilable with the reality of having such a government forced upon them by an outside source.
Just how the people of Iraq obtains a stable society and proves that they can govern in peace will show the other countries populations and leaders in the area that it can be done.
This seems to go back to the idea that they simply have to see democracy in action to know that it works and to want it for themselves. I find fault with this idea because it seems to me that they are not unfamiliar with democracies, they are not so isolated in the world as to be unaware of working democratic governments. Why have they not taken these countries as their own sociopolitical models if, as you seem to imply, a mere working example is all that is needed to become a catalyst for change?
But not by any plan I’ve seen so far. A winning the peace plan would be nice and long overdue at the libary.
I think that you are asking for something fundamentally impossible. At no point in history has one nation ever forcibly given another nation liberty and democracy against their will. How then are we to expect any plan to effectively achieve that exact goal?
Posted by: Jarin at September 11, 2004 04:53 PMGreg said:
OK ,Jarin, but let’s be clear this isn’t a domino theory, and I grant you that Iraq reaching a democracy is a reach.
I’m not really clear on why you say this theory is not a domino theory… you talk about Saudi and Iranian citizens being disaffected with their governments and persuaded by the existence of Iraqi democracy to work for democracy in their own countries. Isn’t that a domino effect, at least in that immediate region?
Let’s say I’m an oil producing nation with an educated population, and my brethren in Iraq who developed a democracy and became a partner in the economic benifits of stability, and freedom and my average income raises to say $20.000 per year. I sit in Saudi Arabia and my country becomes more and more unstable and our average income drops below $6000 per year. Where do I want to live? What do I expect of my Government?
I think there are some flaws in this thesis. First, you state that the Iraqi’s new democracy will be seen as the reason they will become more prosperous. Doesn’t this require other nations to completely disregard the removal of economic sanctions that previously prevented Iraq from being prosperous? Second, you mention stability as something the people of Iraq will benefit from: what stability is that, exactly? By all reports, Iraq is far less stable now than it was previously. How is it supposed to be seen as a beacon of stability for other nations?
Iranian youth are already rather disgusted with their government. They see progress in the West, but view it as corrupt, and nothing but poverty in their future. If they see a free and democratic and prospering Iraq, will they continue to listen to the Mullahs and their death culture and backwards looking ideas?
I think that would depend largely on whether or not they see the progress in Iraq as corrupt or not. The way things stand, I have to say that it seems far more likely that they will see Iraq as corrupted by the west, a mere puppet government under control of the united states, regardless of assertions of iraqi sovereignty which ring hollow even in the ears of our own citizens at this juncture.
This is a long term stragtegy and will not occur in the next 12 months or even 5 years. Should we not intervene, and give a beacon of hope to the Arabic people?
I don’t see any evidence that our actions have created a beacon of hope for them. Nor do I believe that it is our right to decide to intervene on the behalf of the citizens of another nation and change their government for them. As I have said before in this blog, I believe that is a right which belongs to the people of Iraq themselves, as it belonged to the american colonists. The rationale for why this is true is best laid out in our own Declaration of Independence.
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
At no point in this document is there represented any right of our nation’s people or government to alter or abolish the established government of another country, and institute new government therein, whether we claim to do it on behalf of that country’s citizens or not.
We cannot create a beacon of hope for a people if the creation of that beacon inherently represents that people as powerless to aid themselves.
As I stated, I am not convinced that Bush has pursued this in an enlightened or even workable way. But the fundamentalist Muslims must be confronted with progress and freedom and economic incentives, or we are headed for much more serious problems in the middle east.
I am unconvinced that it is so crucial to confront fundamentalist Muslims with these things. Frankly, having these things in the US has not seemed to put a large damper on extreme fundamentalist christianity calling for the death and destruction of things it views as corrupt. I do not see why fundamentalist muslims confronted with the same would abruptly change their own social and religious beliefs as a result.
That said, I do think something should be done to confront the roots of terrorism. I simply think that it should be done on ideological and law-enforcement levels more than through the use of the military and through programs of regime change and social reconstruction.
Eric’s post about the Gap and Core are relevant to this discussion. Islamic Fundamentalism is a reactionary idea being used to foment regime changes, there must be a counter to this. I don’t believe that the unilateral overthrough of Saddam was the most effective way to do this, but it is where we are now. Given that we cannot go back in time, we must now pursue a positive outcome.
Assuming for the moment I were to agree that Islamic Fundamentalism is the threat you say it is, and it requires a counter, how would you presently recommend we pursue a positive outcome and create a counter to it, given the situation George Bush has left us with in this region?
I’d be much happier if Russia, China or India were involved with us.
That would be quite desirable. So would working diplomatically to be seen in a better light on the arab street, so that more arab countries took our side in this and stood against those who would spawn terror from the hearts of their own societies.
I think that Islamic nations will all always feel threatened while we frame this situation as a war against fundamentalist islam, as primarily christian nations would feel threatened if someone declared war on fundamentalist christianity. It is so subjective a measurement, determining what constitutes fundamentalism and what does not, that it would be impossible for them to feel safe while remaining true to their beliefs.
It also doesn’t help that we do not apply our values consistently, and (as one example) condemn islamic nations which put homosexual men to death with the same fervency we condemn those nations which treat their women as chattel.
Posted by: Jarin at September 11, 2004 06:08 PMI agree with most of what you said in this last bit Jarin.
The exception I make is that at aproximately one year noone can make blanket statements about the future of Iraq. It is way too early, in my opinion, to declare victory or defeat.
Our War is really against those who would use Fundamental Islam as a sheild for extending their own tyrranical desires for power and wealth. I do not believe UBL is a fundamental islamists, he is a machiavellian thug.
I watched Seymour Hersh on Cspan today and was concerned with his assessment of the current situation in Iraq. I hope he’s wrong.
I agree that Bush has failed as CEO of the “US war on terror” just like he failed in the Oil Business. Unfortunately, there are no wealthy investors available to bail him out of this one. I still have some hope that perhaps with regime change in the US we could ameliorate the situation there somewhat. Would someone please get Trump to tell Bush, “Your Fired!”
Posted by: Greg at September 12, 2004 05:06 AMJarin,
Democratic forms of government come in all shape and sizes. The problem with Bush’s attempt to bring democracy to Iraq was he wanted to appoint the people in charge of forming Iraq’s government instead of taking our forces and securing their land until the community leaders came together and worked out a deal with each other. If you look at how Afganistan took a group of people to Europe to work out their differences than look at how Bush and company done Iraq, you will see two entirely different methods in forming a government.
Even though the U.S. can defeat any army in the world, once their leaders are taking down all America or any group of nations can do is stablize the country, bring the community leaders together, explain how the tribal indians (sorry, can’t remember the name of the council, but it was part of the mohowkin tribe of New York pilgrim time) of America thought the settlers how to govern, and allow them to work out their differences.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 13, 2004 07:06 AM
